Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lostsoul1018 08-26-07, 11:54 PM	is there any way of justifying a necromancer as a nonevil character? i know my DM, he won't let me use one, just because I can't really get a good reason to 'channel forth dark energies' even though My character would only raise fallen foes, and not to create an army for evil, but to further understand death and magic (Wizard of Wee Jas) I just wanted to know if anyone had any tips for a nonevil necromancer, that they have, or ideas they have used
Shaggy_Shaggs 08-27-07, 12:04 AM	Find a new DM or give up. The only rules against this are good clerics (not non-evil neutral, just good) cannot cast those spells, but that doesn't stop everyone and his brother from getting all worked up over it. Most have no clue what they're talking about, and those that start demanding justification for it when it's not even prohibited by the rules almost never budge or listen to any reason or justification, they just have their conceits and they cling to them.
calronmoonflower 08-27-07, 12:52 AM	:tantrum: The only evil necromancy spells are those with the evil descriptor. All the other have no inherent affects on alignment. :rant:
ArgulFraster 08-27-07, 12:58 AM	At my place we have a houserule-ask 'em their permission first. So long as they give it, you can raise them; what's more they're intelligent if you can get them to communicate in a language you understand. Learn Morse code (or your world's equivalent thereof) and/or sign language; you don't want to be multicasting Speak With Dead after multiclassing to get it.
Cromage 08-27-07, 12:59 AM	1) Find a new DM. Honestly, this is a DM's call. "Tradition" implies that there could be non-evil necromancers, but the current edition puts necromancers at odds with the good guys. It could easily be a facet of the story the DM's created. 2) Don't create undead. No problem if you're a wizard; just grab Spell Focus (necromancy), and unleash Ghoul Touch, Enervation, Ray of Enfeeblement, etc, and be awesome. Remind your DM that none of these spells are inherently evil--they are tools, like swords.
AvalancheRider 08-27-07, 01:05 AM	Uhhh, did you point out to him that Wee Jas is a neutral necromancer? I mean, it doesn't get much more definitive than that.
Zousha_Omenohu 08-27-07, 01:09 AM	Well, you could always balance it out by performing good acts through extremely questionable methods. The scenario I like to use is that when a large number of bandits is threatening a small village, you start raising the dead in their cemetary to serve as temporary reinforcements for the militia, and then order them back to their graves once the bandits are dealt with. In my opinion, that is solidly Neutral, since yes, you basically defiled their dead, but you prevented more people from joining them that day. Though if your DM insists on it, then I'd agree with with what's already been said reccomend that you either work out a compromise or leave.
Devil Gnasher 08-27-07, 02:54 AM	First, convince your DM to remove the Evil descriptor from deathwatch. Second, convince your DM to allow speak with the dead and deathwatch as arcane spells. Third tell your DM about White Necromancy (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13563802) then use these characters (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=912993) for inspiration. Did that help?
pres_man 08-27-07, 03:38 AM	My wife in our last campaign played a non-evil necromancer (sorceress of Wee Jas). She didn't take any spells for raising undead, instead focusing on energy draining and such. She imagined the character a little like the X-Man Rogue, in fact her back story was similiar to Rogue's in the movie (learned of her powers accidently by draining someone).
yellowdingo 08-27-07, 09:05 AM	Yes there is a Good Necromancer: Cleric (exclusivly Death Domain)/Wizard (exclusively Necromancy School) He is refered to as the Witchdoctor and has a vital role in primitive communities when it comes time to wrapping up the dead, handling the corpses, overseeing cremation and other ceremonies. The role of the Witchdoctor is eventually (historically) replaced by a Priest of a mainstream and modern religion. This is the only time a God of Death has a role in mainstream society. As a vital part of the culture and society.
The Game 08-27-07, 09:41 AM	From OP's post, I am gathering the DM wont allow you to play a non-evil necromancer...however I am assuming from this information, that he doesnt care if you play an evil one; as long as you are mature enough to handle it. Am I right? If I were in your position what Id do is: - Go against your original desires (technically going against my desires and therefore deliberately contradicting myself, but thats beside the point), and embrace the evil life of a necromancer. - Ensure that the paladin of the group doesnt stick his/her self-righteous nose into your business by using spells to conceal your alignment and high Bluff skill to lie properly; then ensure that he/she meets an inconvenient end (you did tell him to watch his step after all...) - If there is no pompous paladin and only a LG Cleric of Palor or some other annoyance that see's it as their lifes purpose to ruin your fun, either A) manipulate them into believing you are an asset to the team and/or trying to redeem yourself of your wicked ways or B) dispose of them, or more fun C) concoct an elaborate scheme in which the cleric falls from grace and favor of their church/diety. This can be surprisingly easy to do, specially if they have very strong convictions, as remember, Men do not do evil so gladly and happily as when they do it from a religion conviction. Keeping that in mind, Im sure youll be able to brew something. Soon the fallen cleric will come to see your way of thinking. (This could even work for the paladin) ~~ my necromancer had to deal with a paladin that kept sticking his nose into her business; so she used spells to communicate with him in his dream, granting him clairvoyance that an innocent woman in a rural town was the head of a nation wide cult that had been corrupting the local village with dark powers. Anyway, to cut a long story short, add some planted evidence here, add some magic influenced people there, and the paladin ended up killing the woman himself and having the village raised by the local standing forces (He was a Dukes son). He became a blackguard and I gained quality entertainment and fresh corpses to fill my hive ~~ - Take the feat Leadership. Now, before rolling your eyes and moaning, be creative in its use. Dont be the typical evil necromancer that wears his/her wicked guise for all to see, be secret, as that is how you will survive in a world full of do gooders that do not have the wisdom to appreciate the power you bring to the fight for the party. Instead, do what I did with my necromancer; use Leadership to represent the cult that glorifies you as a demi-god, that is spread throughout the Kingdom that you and your party frequent the most. High level Aristocrats of such a cult can be amazingly useful, and such a cult will be invaluable for things such as a) giving you, their Dark Lord/Lady a myriad of safe houses B) using their own influence to make your life easy, C) sabotaging cities defenses for that moment you become a conquering wizard warlord at the head of a huge undead legion, ect ect. In regards to the rest of the group: Does it matter? Unless your a complete fool and openly display your dark powers, then you should not have any trouble hiding your true nature through a high Bluff skill and certain spells, as well as just being intelligent. Travel with the group, dont do the chaotic stupid thing and just kill them all for the fun of it; they are useful to you, alive, they protect you, they ferry you around and you grow more powerful from theirs and your exploits, as well as your own growing number of magical items from the loot. Who knows, you may even grow to like them. Their heroic exploits may even redeem you of your wicked ways...but wheres the fun in that? ;) However if Im wrong in assuming you can play an evil necromancer (while being barred from playing a non-evil one), then ignore this rant that Ive made. Do what the rest have suggested and point out the clearly logical facts that it is possible. Happy gaming.
Salla 08-27-07, 05:16 PM	Necromancy is death *AND* life. I personally think the Healing spells should be Necromancy, but that's another rant. I've played an Exalted Necromancer before, Lawful Good. He used the Necromancy to defeat undead and all that jazz, and (obviously) never created an undead creature. There's absolutely no reason a necromancer can't be good. Your DM is stuck in 1st Edition.
Zousha_Omenohu 08-27-07, 06:08 PM	~~ my necromancer had to deal with a paladin that kept sticking his nose into her business; so she used spells to communicate with him in his dream, granting him clairvoyance that an innocent woman in a rural town was the head of a nation wide cult that had been corrupting the local village with dark powers. Anyway, to cut a long story short, add some planted evidence here, add some magic influenced people there, and the paladin ended up killing the woman himself and having the village raised by the local standing forces (He was a Dukes son). He became a blackguard and I gained quality entertainment and fresh corpses to fill my hive ~~ :eek: That's mean!
beenyboboo 08-27-07, 08:26 PM	you could tell your dm that you want to play a a non evil necro because your pc want to know more about death to save people from it and use it for good rather than to kill people with it
Devil Gnasher 08-27-07, 09:03 PM	There's absolutely no reason a necromancer can't be good. Your DM is stuck in 1st Edition. There was no "necromancer" class in 1st edition, and necromancy (then called necromantic) included healing spells up to and including resurection. But it did have the illusionist. :D
Cartigan 08-27-07, 09:44 PM	A Necromancer can't be good, besides that not making sense, I don't think any rules allow for it. You can however be neutral. See Dread Necromancer.
High Octane 08-27-07, 09:53 PM	I dont see a "command the dead" type of necromancer ever being good, and it would be extremely hard to manage neutral. But Necromancy does not JUST involve commanding undead. In many cases it is just destructive and harmful spells that are no worse than a fireball. Some necromancy actually is used to harm undead. I don't see anything evil about a ray of enfeeblement or a chill touch, or even causing fear. Nothing evil about most necromancy spells except the commanding and creation of undead. Most people find commanding undead or worse creating it, evil. Everything else is just people attackers. Nothing you could justify as evil without also saying a giant searing ball of fire shot at your enemies is evil.
xXOblivionXx 08-27-07, 10:33 PM	A Necromancer can be good, besides that does make sense. There isn't any rule that disallows it. There, fixed it for you:) .
High Octane 08-27-07, 10:38 PM	There, fixed it for you:) . That is actually rather rude to do. Please don't. I don't want to see these boards turn into the World of Warcraft forums.
xXOblivionXx 08-27-07, 10:44 PM	That is actually rather rude to do. Please don't. Yes, but I think it's also "rude" to talk when you have no idea of what you are talking about. Anyway, I was not intending to be rude, I was just trying to correct mistakes...
Cartigan 08-27-07, 11:40 PM	There, watch me be a nuisance without a point. Fixed it :rolleyes: The Necromancer classes have alignment requirements and bypassing them on Clerics and Wiz/Sorcs seems dubious. Though I don't know how much off you could get with a Cleric since they have alignment requirements with their deity and I doubt any deity with the necromantic domains has "Good" anywhere in their alignment.
Teh_username 08-27-07, 11:58 PM	I dont see a "command the dead" type of necromancer ever being good, and it would be extremely hard to manage neutral. It just so happens that I have a counter-example on hand, written by WotC:For thousands of years, respect for ancestors and the animation of the dead have been an integral part of Charonti life ... animation of deceased Charonti provides laborers which allow the undertaking of projects well beyond the capability of the living population, and provides a fighting force to help defend the nation. Communication with the dead is also a means of preserving knowledge that might otherwise be lost from one generation to the next. The undead, or Charonath, greatly outnumber the living in this society. ... Charonti venerate their ancestors, but their view of the undead is based on reason rather than mysticism. They view undeath as a dutiful way for a citizen to continue serving the community after his life has ended. Later in the book:The Charonti know that when a person dies alone in the wilderness, away from his lineage and community, he is set upon by scavengers both physical and spiritual. Jackals and crows pick clean the bones of the dead, which eventually decay to become part of the soil. The spirit is pirated off to the realm of the supernatural, where it is enslaved in the service of a great power or left to wander in confusion far from the serenity and love of home. ... Even as simple [zombies], the dead attend to the drudgery of labor so that the living may be free to advance the wisdom and learning of the nation. All dutiful Charonti understand that it is only fitting that they serve the community in death so that others may extend the work they did while alive.
Cartigan 08-28-07, 12:30 AM	A fair but very biased example. A specific race named after the ferry man of the dead.
LazyNinja 08-28-07, 12:52 AM	A fair but very biased example. A specific race named after the ferry man of the dead. How is it any more biased than the default assumption that creating undead is evil? I mean, in real life no one creates undead, so any moral implications ascribed to a make-believe act are arbitrary. It's all flavor. OP: Tell your DM that your character believes the best way to respect the dead is to aid their descendants. Use your undead to protect innocents, hunt down evil, etc. Might want to focus on skeletons or insubstantial undead, since it might be more disturbing for people to see zombies, which tend to look a lot like their decaying relatives.
High Octane 08-28-07, 01:28 AM	How is it any more biased than the default assumption that creating undead is evil? I mean, in real life no one creates undead, so any moral implications ascribed to a make-believe act are arbitrary. It's all flavor. OP: Tell your DM that your character believes the best way to respect the dead is to aid their descendants. Use your undead to protect innocents, hunt down evil, etc. Might want to focus on skeletons or insubstantial undead, since it might be more disturbing for people to see zombies, which tend to look a lot like their decaying relatives. THE. SPELL. HAS. THE. EVIL. DESCRIPTOR. Would you honestly not mind if some guy was walking around using your dead grandmother's corpse to carry his bags or dig in his mines? Or your corpse after you are dead? Those bodies don't come from thin air. They are the remains of a person who would rather have his life respected then turned into a walking rotting dangerous mindless abomination powered by negative energy which sucks the life out of anything it touches. The natural progression of life is to die and rot and return to the earth, and eventually yes their bodies would turn to dust that feeds plants and all that, but animate dead interrupts that, causing what was the person's former shell to be commanded and used for whatever some random guys purposes are. I want you to imagine someone you loved and lost, and then imagine some guy exhuming their corpse, stuffing a gem inside them, and then animating them, using life sucking energies, into a living puppet used for mining since some guy didn't want to pay that extra 50 gold to hire a regular miner. Then tell me that you wouldn't find that evil.
Devil Gnasher 08-28-07, 01:45 AM	Fixed it :rolleyes: The Necromancer classes have alignment requirements and bypassing them on Clerics and Wiz/Sorcs seems dubious. Though I don't know how much off you could get with a Cleric since they have alignment requirements with their deity and I doubt any deity with the necromantic domains has "Good" anywhere in their alignment. I consider healing a necromantic domain, even if Wizards of the Coast doesn't. Just move all healing spells back into necromancy, where they belong, and allow arcanists some healing spells but at varrying levels and or with additional costs. Then you can play that LG Heironeous, NG Pelor or CG Kord worshipping necromancer you've always wanted to. Besides, by my definition there are two necromancy focused divine spellcasting classes in the core rules. They are cleric, which can be any alignment and paladin, which must be Lawful Good. That's just my take on necromancy, what's your's?
AvalancheRider 08-28-07, 01:46 AM	Then tell me that you wouldn't find that evil.Irrelevant. In a highly magical world of hypotheticals, such a thing could in fact be commonplace. In fact, I designed a race of humanoids for a campaign that felt that the greatest sacrifice you can make to the community is to choose to become an undead laborer for it after you die. Such laborers are treated with great respect by the populace and nobody considers the activity evil.
Voran 08-28-07, 01:51 AM	Irrelevant. In a highly magical world of hypotheticals, such a thing could in fact be commonplace. In fact, I designed a race of humanoids for a campaign that felt that the greatest sacrifice you can make to the community is to choose to become an undead laborer for it after you die. Such laborers are treated with great respect by the populace and nobody considers the activity evil. Well I made a civilization where raising the dead is the ultimate crime. So there! Honestly, this ones a no-win topic. The fact is if you don't have a GM that thinks there's a thing as a "non-evil Necromancer", its just not going to happen. Likewise, if he's already made a race and set-up his game where necromancy IS NOT evil, then there's no way you'll convince him it IS evil. In either case, you now have a choice: Roll and adapt with it, or leave. I suppose alternately is "Be the GM yourself and come up with as many changes you want".
calronmoonflower 08-28-07, 02:34 AM	A Necromancer can't be good, besides that not making sense, I don't think any rules allow for it. You can however be neutral. See Dread Necromancer. A wizard that specializes in necromancy is called a necromancer. No rule state that a necromancy specialized anything must be non-good unless they enter a class with that restriction.
AvalancheRider 08-28-07, 03:28 AM	Well I made a civilization where raising the dead is the ultimate crime. So there!I didn't say "therefore, a good necromancer is totally acceptable in all possible campaign settings!" I was just illustrating a perfectly plausible situation in which you could be a good necromancer who creates undead creatures.
Cartigan 08-28-07, 08:40 AM	How is it any more biased than the default assumption that creating undead is evil? I mean, in real life no one creates undead, so any moral implications ascribed to a make-believe act are arbitrary. It's all flavor. Well unless you are a Charonite or among the Charonites.... but even then you wouldn't be good, you would be judged by your own race's standards in good/evil, etc etc. A wizard that specializes in necromancy is called a necromancer. No rule state that a necromancy specialized anything must be non-good unless they enter a class with that restriction. Which is why the spells themselves are tagged. And I fail to see what healing has to do with necromancy. You arn't manipulating the dead, so it really fails to be necromancy. You can argue resurrection spells are necromancy, but general healing...
metatheurgist 08-28-07, 09:49 AM	Evil Necromancy is (mostly) a western cultural concept. Chinese fantasy has heaps of good necromancers. In eastern mythos necromancers are called in as ghostbusters not ghostmakers. They use their powers to banish or trap the restless dead, exorcise ghosts, ensure that people killed by evil acts don't rise to haunt the living (making sure murder victims find justice for e.g. where corrupt officials may prefer the truth to be hidden). So combination sheriff/ghostbuster/wandering swords(gun)man. Your DM just has to open his mind (hard thing to do for monoculturals) :)
LazyNinja 08-28-07, 10:09 AM	THE. SPELL. HAS. THE. EVIL. DESCRIPTOR. *sigh* And my point was that the descriptor is arbitrary, because there's no such thing as spells in real life. It's made up. Necromancy is only "evil" because someone at WotC decided to write it that way. And, apparently, someone else at WotC decided to write the non-evil Charonites. Both examples are equally valid, and equally arbitrary. Would you honestly not mind if some guy was walking around using your dead grandmother's corpse to carry his bags or dig in his mines? Or your corpse after you are dead? Those bodies don't come from thin air. They are the remains of a person who would rather have his life respected then turned into a walking rotting dangerous mindless abomination powered by negative energy which sucks the life out of anything it touches. The natural progression of life is to die and rot and return to the earth, and eventually yes their bodies would turn to dust that feeds plants and all that, but animate dead interrupts that, causing what was the person's former shell to be commanded and used for whatever some random guys purposes are. I want you to imagine someone you loved and lost, and then imagine some guy exhuming their corpse, stuffing a gem inside them, and then animating them, using life sucking energies, into a living puppet used for mining since some guy didn't want to pay that extra 50 gold to hire a regular miner. Then tell me that you wouldn't find that evil. Depends on what the body was used for. I'm a utilitarian, greatest good for the greatest number. If animating bodies, mine or anyone else's, prevents harm to the living, go for it. Sure, a necromancer could raise the dead for evil purposes, but again, the same is true for a fireball. Or a Heal spell, for that matter. Besides, if interrupting the natural progression of a body returning to the earth is evil, then I've got a few issues with Gentle Repose. Not to mention all those morticians and their embalming fluid that are going straight to the Abyss. Evil Necromancy is (mostly) a western cultural concept. Chinese fantasy has heaps of good necromancers. In eastern mythos necromancers are called in as ghostbusters not ghostmakers. They use their powers to banish or trap the restless dead, exorcise ghosts, ensure that people killed by evil acts don't rise to haunt the living (making sure murder victims find justice for e.g. where corrupt officials may prefer the truth to be hidden). So combination sheriff/ghostbuster/wandering swords(gun)man. Your DM just has to open his mind (hard thing to do for monoculturals) :) QFT.
Aberlonian 08-28-07, 10:30 AM	Gah! Another alignment thread! In my campaign I would have no problem allowing a non-evil necromancer, for the same reason I allow non-evil rogues. If a character starting acting evil, I would make an issue out of it.
Cartigan 08-28-07, 10:32 AM	Evil Necromancy is (mostly) a western cultural concept. Chinese fantasy has heaps of good necromancers. In eastern mythos necromancers are called in as ghostbusters not ghostmakers. They use their powers to banish or trap the restless dead, exorcise ghosts, ensure that people killed by evil acts don't rise to haunt the living (making sure murder victims find justice for e.g. where corrupt officials may prefer the truth to be hidden). So combination sheriff/ghostbuster/wandering swords(gun)man. Your DM just has to open his mind (hard thing to do for monoculturals) :) And what do those cultures say of those necromancers who raise the dead, which is what is considered necromancy in the Western world. I'm betting it is labeled as evil. :rolleyes:
LazyNinja 08-28-07, 10:53 AM	And what do those cultures say of those necromancers who raise the dead, which is what is considered necromancy in the Western world. I'm betting it is labeled as evil. :rolleyes: Which is one of the reasons I don't go around raising the dead. :D In a game, however, restricting the actions of PCs based solely on real world morality gets messy, and contradictory. I mean, most cultures have taboos against trying to cheat death, which really, is what a Resurrection is. In Eberron, you can retrieve your companion's soul from Dolurrh, but it didn't work out too well for Eurydice. There was that one guy who's really popular in Western culture who got away with it, but I think the explanation was that he was some sort of DMPC. ;)
Temmogen 08-28-07, 11:11 AM	is there any way of justifying a necromancer as a nonevil character? i know my DM, he won't let me use one, just because I can't really get a good reason to 'channel forth dark energies' even though My character would only raise fallen foes, and not to create an army for evil, but to further understand death and magic (Wizard of Wee Jas) I just wanted to know if anyone had any tips for a nonevil necromancer, that they have, or ideas they have used I have played a Lawful Neutral Necromancer, he was a mageslayer. I went with the premise that he worked for an Arcane agency and was dispatched to hunt down wizards and sorcerers that abused the arcane energies. I didnt find alot of cause to raise undead, but the other necromancy spells are really good for disabling wizards, and if you really feel the need to raise undead, it could construed as punishment for the offender, or a way to bring back proof you had eliminated him. (And just to add my own 2 coppers worth, raising undead doesnt make you evil), Hope that helps.
gojumamoru 08-28-07, 11:26 AM	I had a lawful good necromancer npc in a game I ran. She raised the dead and signed a contract with them. They would serve her and in return she would help them accomplish deeds that would put their souls to rest. As for real life morality if using a dead body for a greater good is evil then shouldn't we be setting siege to medical facilities that research donated dead bodies? I thinkg good and evil should be left to the specific game world and not the spell descriptor.
Cartigan 08-28-07, 11:34 AM	Which is one of the reasons I don't go around raising the dead. :D In a game, however, restricting the actions of PCs based solely on real world morality gets messy, and contradictory. You don't have to do anything based on real world morals. Look at the race preferences for flavor relating to the major D&D races on Necromancer classes. I had a lawful good necromancer npc in a game I ran. She raised the dead and signed a contract with them. They would serve her and in return she would help them accomplish deeds that would put their souls to rest. I think their souls would be at better rest when at rest.... Raising the dead and making them sign contracts with you is rather Faustian... at best you are coming off Neutral. Lawful Good is highly questionable.
Aberlonian 08-28-07, 11:38 AM	Non evil necromancers are underpowered. You basically have to ignore certain spells, or use them only in very specific situations. A nice DM would provide a source of willing dead to raise.. or just houserule something about spells with the evil descriptor. Since D&D is all about imagination, I'm sure there are ways to make a good necromancer.
gojumamoru 08-28-07, 11:42 AM	Again things can be game specific. In that world souls that died with out accomplishing their goals in life may never cross over and are trapped untill they find a way to make their spirit whole. So evil necromancers took advantage of these while good ones put them into service. So they had to earn their way into the afterlife. Much like how people must earn a way into heaven. Lawful because you must follow the rules they set forward to do good deeds, and Good because well you are saving lost souls by giving them good deeds to do.
IRememberCecil 08-28-07, 12:25 PM	THE. SPELL. HAS. THE. EVIL. DESCRIPTOR. And? That doesn't make it an Evil act to cast it. Let me explain: [Descriptor] Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor. The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water. Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on. A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails. A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher. That's the entry that explains what descriptors on spells do. In the third paragraph it states that most descriptors don't have any in-game effect, but the govern some other things instead. All of the things listed are properties of the spell's target, if any. Last time I checked, sentences don't change subjects unless they specifically note that change of subject. Further, after that, it goes on to say specifically which descriptors have a game effect. Thus, any other descriptor has no game effect, but governs only the spell's interaction with its targets. Would you honestly not mind if some guy was walking around using your dead grandmother's corpse to carry his bags or dig in his mines? Or your corpse after you are dead? Those bodies don't come from thin air. They are the remains of a person who would rather have his life respected then turned into a walking rotting dangerous mindless abomination powered by negative energy which sucks the life out of anything it touches. Personal feelings have nothing to do with the absolute moral force that is alignment. If hurting people's feelings was Evil... I can't even begin to imagine what a crappy world that would be. The natural progression of life is to die and rot and return to the earth, and eventually yes their bodies would turn to dust that feeds plants and all that, but animate dead interrupts that, causing what was the person's former shell to be commanded and used for whatever some random guys purposes are. There is no such thing as a natural cycle in D&D. Ten tell me that you wouldn't find that evil. Irrelevant.
Ack 08-28-07, 12:42 PM	In one published gameworld sourcebook* that I happen to own, the setting is a modern-day world where magic has been a part of the world since the mid-1940's (triggered by the Alamogordo atomic test, to be precise). And in the Southern states of the USA (in this gameworld), the penalty for particularly heinous crimes can be "death plus hard labor". That is, the person is executed and then his corpse is animated as a zombie and put to work in a road gang. Evil? You tell me. GURPS Technomancer, by Steve Jackson Games :D
xXOblivionXx 08-28-07, 08:47 PM	Fixed it :rolleyes: The Necromancer classes have alignment requirements and bypassing them on Clerics and Wiz/Sorcs seems dubious. Though I don't know how much off you could get with a Cleric since they have alignment requirements with their deity and I doubt any deity with the necromantic domains has "Good" anywhere in their alignment. Hahaha! I'm always glad to be a nuisance without a point:) . But onto the point, you post was as idiotic as mine.
Salla 08-28-07, 11:58 PM	What everybody seems to be forgetting is that all necromancer means is 'specialist in the school of necromancy'. Controlling hordes of undead is only a tiny, tiny, TINY part of what necromancy is. Not all necromancy spells are evil; the vast majority of them are unaligned (neutral), so it just matters how you use them. The image of a necromancer as a pallid, black-clad, skull-adorned sociopath followed by an army of shambling corpses is merely a stereotype.
Devil Gnasher 08-29-07, 01:39 AM	What everybody seems to be forgetting is that all necromancer means is 'specialist in the school of necromancy'. Controlling hordes of undead is only a tiny, tiny, TINY part of what necromancy is. Not all necromancy spells are evil; the vast majority of them are unaligned (neutral), so it just matters how you use them. The image of a necromancer as a pallid, black-clad, skull-adorned sociopath followed by an army of shambling corpses is merely a stereotype. I agree with you. Miracle Max, Doctor Gregory House, Detective Dana Scully, Cole Sear and Mrs. Cake make perfect necromancer role models in my opinion.
metatheurgist 08-29-07, 01:46 AM	And what do those cultures say of those necromancers who raise the dead, which is what is considered necromancy in the Western world. I'm betting it is labeled as evil. :rolleyes: In the modern world coroners will examine dead bodies for evidence; for heaps of cultures even today that is a ghastly and abhorrent act (necromancy! :eek: ), yeah even now, today, probably right this minute. We even go as far as to OPEN A GRAVE and disinter buried corpses to investigate cold cases. This would be lynching behaviour not so long ago with fingers being pointed and pitchforks and torches being raised and cries of necromancer ringing in the night. You don't see me picketing the MEs office with a sign with "EVIL!" on it. It would be so much more pleasant if someone had the power to raise and just speak with a spirit, which is the non-evil job of many a eastern necromancer.
Papa_duval 08-29-07, 06:01 AM	The eberron campaign setting has at least 2 precedents for non-evil necromancy. 1. The undead soldiers/labourers of Karnath (the majority of the populace aren't evil, and support the raising of these undead to fight their battles for them - better the dead fight than the living do) 2. The Deathless court of the Aerenal elves - granted, its positive energy undead, but its still necromancy.
Cartigan 08-29-07, 08:41 AM	The image of a necromancer as a pallid, black-clad, skull-adorned sociopath followed by an army of shambling corpses is merely a stereotype. An how are necromancers played in your games? Channelers? The continued assertion by the pro any-alignment-necromancer people that Necromancers animating the dead and being evil is a Western culture concept and non-existent in other real world culture, and then demanding we can't use the real world to justify them being evil is absurd. You can get the opinion of the core races on Necromancy in the Necromancer class Race information. Not to mention that the pro people keep shying away from Necromancers being those who raise and manipulate the dead. "oh in the east *insert something about not raising the dead* and Necromancers arn't considered evil!" Yes, they are. Witch doctors are feared and respected out of fear. Those who raise the dead are feared even more and considered evil. Anywhere in the world. Real and D&D. In the modern world coroners will examine dead bodies for evidence; for heaps of cultures even today that is a ghastly and abhorrent act (necromancy! :eek: ), yeah even now, today, probably right this minute. We even go as far as to OPEN A GRAVE and disinter buried corpses to investigate cold cases. This would be lynching behaviour not so long ago with fingers being pointed and pitchforks and torches being raised and cries of necromancer ringing in the night. You don't see me picketing the MEs office with a sign with "EVIL!" on it. It would be so much more pleasant if someone had the power to raise and just speak with a spirit, which is the non-evil job of many a eastern necromancer. Point in question. This argument is purposefully obtuse and mostly alot of irrelevant gibberish. Channeling is not raising the dead. Stop it.
IRememberCecil 08-29-07, 10:35 AM	I said some very smart things earlier.
Tequila_Sunrise 08-29-07, 10:55 AM	Yes, you can be a non-evil necromancer because there are other spells in the necromancy school besides those that raise the dead. No, that doesn't mean you can raise the dead and stay non-evil for long. And yes, raising the dead is assumed to be an evil act in D&D unless the DM says otherwise. If 'raising the dead' were really just 'using the corpse like any other tool', you'd use Animate Object which has no life/death or spiritual connotations. Edit: Well I feel stupid. The OP hasn't posted a second time. Looks like someone just wanted to start a flame war. *Sigh*
gojumamoru 08-29-07, 11:21 AM	Those who raise the dead are feared even more and considered evil. Anywhere in the world. Real and D&D. Maybe in your world... I dont allow my creativity to exist solely within the confines of your opinion. You site racial descriptions as if all d&d games must be based on races that act like the ones in the book. Also you ignored the many debates that point out where raising dead might not be evil in a specific world. Where people work even as dead. Or a world where the body has no meaning at all but a shell. Do all zombies have a piece of their origional soul? Depends on the game master. In some worlds undead (especially mindless undead) are simply powered by negative energy. And since negative energy is an elemental plane then it really isn't "good" or "evil". It would be like saying an evil person cant heal people because they channeling healing spells is a good act. So if channeling negative energy to basicly animate a body might not be an evil act. Again this is all game specific. Point in question. This argument is purposefully obtuse and mostly alot of irrelevant gibberish. Channeling is not raising the dead. Stop it. No need to be hostile. His point was well thought out. You calling it gibberish is less relevent to this conversation.
Melpomene 08-29-07, 11:26 AM	Edit: Well I feel stupid. The OP hasn't posted a second time. Looks like someone just wanted to start a flame war. *Sigh* These threads are perrennial. They crop up on an almost weekly basis. This one is actually one of the more elequantly argued and well-thought out ones I've seen.
JackSnape 08-29-07, 11:34 AM	is there any way of justifying a necromancer as a nonevil character? i know my DM, he won't let me use one, just because I can't really get a good reason to 'channel forth dark energies' even though My character would only raise fallen foes, and not to create an army for evil, but to further understand death and magic (Wizard of Wee Jas) I just wanted to know if anyone had any tips for a nonevil necromancer, that they have, or ideas they have used I've played with the idea a "Vitamancer." A cleric who is good or neutral but uses the raise dead type spells because he's working on a greater plan to master death and the pain it causes. He would have no god and access to the Death and Healing domains. A character like this cares very little whether the spell he uses has an evil descriptor because he's more intersted in the greater good he's working toward. Indeed he sees these spells as a sort of incomplete healing and his goal is to combine the strength of these spells with healing spells. Good luck dealing with your DM :)
Cartigan 08-29-07, 11:55 AM	No need to be hostile. His point was well thought out. You calling it gibberish is less relevent to this conversation. Exhuming bodies in modern science has nothing to do with necromancy in the mystical and ignorant cultures of the real world and especially has nothing to do with this argument when relating to D&D. I've played with the idea a "Vitamancer." A cleric who is good or neutral but uses the raise dead type spells because he's working on a greater plan to master death and the pain it causes. He would have no god and access to the Death and Healing domains. A character like this cares very little whether the spell he uses has an evil descriptor because he's more intersted in the greater good he's working toward. Indeed he sees these spells as a sort of incomplete healing and his goal is to combine the strength of these spells with healing spells. Good luck dealing with your DM :) Then you are still Neutral. Look at the alignment section of the Dread Necromancer. Evil deeds for the greater Good != Good. Hell, you might as well be describing the Dread Necromancer if you play down the Healing part.
Salla 08-29-07, 11:58 AM	An how are necromancers played in your games? Channelers? I don't know what you mean by 'channelers', to be honest, and there's no one way to play a necromancer, because all necromancer means is 'specialist wizard choosing necromancy'. They have a wide variety of spells and tactics to choose from, and the individuals determine that. At any rate, real world comparisons, eastern this vs western that don't matter, because D&D is not, and never was, part of real world history. It doesn't matter how people viewed necromancy in the real world, because there's no such thing as magic in the real world. And, again, you're stuck on 'necromancers must create undead', which is simply not true.
Cartigan 08-29-07, 12:05 PM	I don't know what you mean by 'channelers', to be honest, Those who channel the dead :rolleyes: At any rate, real world comparisons, eastern this vs western that don't matter, because D&D is not, and never was, part of real world history. It doesn't matter how people viewed necromancy in the real world, because there's no such thing as magic in the real world. And yet the pro good necromancy people are using real world comparisons as much if not more than the anti good necromancy people. And, again, you're stuck on 'necromancers must create undead', which is simply not true. And what else do they do?
Salla 08-29-07, 12:56 PM	Those who channel the dead :rolleyes: Which entails precisely what? I'm not aware of any rules for such, unless we're counting the Speak with Dead spell, which doesn't really channel anything. And yet the pro good necromancy people are using real world comparisons as much if not more than the anti good necromancy people. And my remark was directed both ways. Any and all historical referents from the real world are null and void when applied to D&D because it is not a part of real-life historical fiction. And what else do they do? Cast spells that don't animate the dead? There's quite a few of them, you know. Just because you're a necromancer doesn't mean you can *only* cast necromancy spells. Even beyond that, have you looked at the necromancy spell list? Astral Projection, Blindness/Deafness, Bestow Curse, Chill Touch, Curse of Impending Blades, Death Ward, Delay Death, Enervation, False Life, Halt Undead, Healing Touch, Life Bolt, Naturewatch, Vampiric Touch, Ray of (Enfeeblement/Entropy/Exhaustion/Sickness/Weakness), Spark of Life, Spectral Hand, Undeath to Death, Weighed In The Balance, Cause Fear, Doom. A wide variety of de-buffs and battlefield control, and a few good protections and anti-undead spells, and I do believe (though I admit in my haste I could be mistaken), none of the spells have the evil descriptor and thus are not inherently evil to use.
LazyNinja 08-29-07, 01:00 PM	And what else do they do? http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20spellfilter (http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20spellfilter/) Of the 61 core Necromancy spells, only 9 are evil, and only 3 of those create undead. Edit: and none of the spells Salla listed are evil. Exhuming bodies in modern science has nothing to do with necromancy in the mystical and ignorant cultures of the real world and especially has nothing to do with this argument when relating to D&D. emphasis mine. This does not bode well. Abandon thread!
xXOblivionXx 08-29-07, 04:12 PM	Those who channel the dead :rolleyes: And yet the pro good necromancy people are using real world comparisons as much if not more than the anti good necromancy people. And what else do they do? As Salla and LazyNinja said, necromancers do not have to create undead, they can also can be good. Also in real world, necromancy have nothing to do with zombies and the undead, that I believe has something to do with voodoo or voodou. Necromancy, in the real world is a form of divination in which the practitioner seeks to summon "operative spirits" or "spirits of divination" (Spirits of the dead), for multiple reasons, from spiritual protection to wisdom.
anas_thesy84 08-29-07, 04:20 PM	chaotic-neutral or neutral-neutral characters can be necromancers o_O you dont have to be evil...anyway...this is either a true ruleor my houserule...I dont remember but...I permit it...as long as its not good...its ok
xXOblivionXx 08-29-07, 04:24 PM	chaotic-neutral or neutral-neutral characters can be necromancers o_O you dont have to be evil...anyway...this is either a true ruleor my houserule...I dont remember but...I permit it...as long as its not good...its ok Can you please explain why you do not allow necromancers to be good?
Salla 08-29-07, 04:35 PM	chaotic-neutral or neutral-neutral characters can be necromancers o_O you dont have to be evil...anyway...this is either a true ruleor my houserule...I dont remember but...I permit it...as long as its not good...its ok It's 100 percent pure houserule. There is absolutely nothing in the rules prohibiting necromancers from being Good-aligned.
Mindolin 08-29-07, 05:26 PM	According to the rules, Necromancers can be any alignment. As has been stated NUMEROUS times, all a Necromancer is is a wizard specialized in Necromancy, and wizard doesn't have any alignment restrictions. Thus, a Wizardly Necromancer can be any alignment they choose. And as has also been stated, the whole buisness of creating undead being evil is idiotic, as they channel the Negative Energy Plane to produce unlife. And despite how everyone acts like it is, read up on the Negative Energy Plane it is not evil aligned, so despite it being a house rule I dropped the Evil descriptor on the Create Undead Spells. They really overuse the evil and good descriptors, so I wouldn't listen to them too much on this. Also, to the earlier post asking why Healing spells should be Necromancy, reread the description. Necromancy spells maniputate the power of death, unlife, and the life force. Last I checked healing counts as manipulating the life force.
Cartigan 08-29-07, 09:11 PM	I don't see what healing wounds has to do with the life force.
Mindolin 08-29-07, 09:15 PM	Do you see what HP, and healing have to do with the life force, specifically the restoration of the life force? Cure spells heal your life force, and the Raise Dead spells place the life force back into your corpse.
IRememberCecil 08-29-07, 09:41 PM	Yup. If spells that channel Negative Energy are a part of the necromancy school, then logically, Positive Energy spells should also be necromantic. I hope they change this in 4th Edition (oh crap, now the thread is going to get locked).
Cartigan 08-29-07, 10:02 PM	Do you see what HP, and healing have to do with the life force, specifically the restoration of the life force? Cure spells heal your life force, and the Raise Dead spells place the life force back into your corpse. Are wounds hits to an HP bar? I would think wounds would be wounds. Your life force isn't going away when you get a finger cut off, but you could Heal it. I would think healing is more like Naruto, in theory - regeneration of tissue or forced rapid generation of tissue for healing.
xXOblivionXx 08-29-07, 10:30 PM	Are wounds hits to an HP bar? I would think wounds would be wounds. Your life force isn't going away when you get a finger cut off, but you could Heal it. I would think healing is more like Naruto, in theory - regeneration of tissue or forced rapid generation of tissue for healing. Well, you're wrong, cure spells, the ones that heal wounds, use positive energy (life force) to heal them.
Salla 08-30-07, 03:14 AM	Yup. If spells that channel Negative Energy are a part of the necromancy school, then logically, Positive Energy spells should also be necromantic. I hope they change this in 4th Edition (oh crap, now the thread is going to get locked). I agree completely.
Eshenaleros 08-30-07, 04:43 AM	i developed a character recently named Ash who was a chaotic good human necromancer who owns an undead horde, a flesh golem, and a homonculus that looks like a human girl in a dress with bat wings. thing is, he has a reason not to be Evil while still casting "Technically" evil spells, He simply doesn't consider the body to have any attatchment to the soul after death, and so he considers it akin to moving around husks of meat using magic. that's all. on top of that, he considers undeath to be a path to divinity, and so he will not have to become evil once he becomes a lich or a vampire or some other crazy undead critter
Cartigan 08-30-07, 08:17 AM	i developed a character recently named Ash who was a chaotic good human necromancer who owns an undead horde, a flesh golem, and a homonculus that looks like a human girl in a dress with bat wings. thing is, he has a reason not to be Evil while still casting "Technically" evil spells, He simply doesn't consider the body to have any attatchment to the soul after death, and so he considers it akin to moving around husks of meat using magic. that's all. on top of that, he considers undeath to be a path to divinity, and so he will not have to become evil once he becomes a lich or a vampire or some other crazy undead critter I'm tired of the absurd examples and excuses. He might not think himself evil, but others do, and that matters. The end.
Shaggy_Shaggs 08-30-07, 08:47 AM	Are you all done proving my point yet, or are you going for 10 pages? :P
Doom_Linnorm 08-30-07, 09:02 AM	Anwser: Chaotic Neutral Necromancer, all problems solved, use evil means to achieve good ends, it balances out. You don't go out of your way to cause suffering but you're not a saint, you avg alignment with a chaotic twist. You can even have a quite good reputation because Necromancers make great undead slayers/hunters. For more or Necromancy, DnD and Morality take a look at this link: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=632562 Moral Option 2 is the most logical one IMHO. (Don't argue with me, I'm entitled to an opinion.)
IRememberCecil 08-30-07, 10:14 AM	I'm tired of the absurd examples and excuses. He might not think himself evil, but others do, and that matters. The end. The only thing that matters is the absolute moral forces, that are entirely divorced from societal standards. There are facts, and reality is not a democratic process.
gojumamoru 08-30-07, 11:18 AM	I'm tired of the absurd examples and excuses. He might not think himself evil, but others do, and that matters. The end. What if others don't think he is evil in that game universe? Care take up that point, one you have ignored so far? I've shown a number of points about necromancy and how it can be viewed. Negative energy being an elemental force, the soul moving on and the body simply being an animated object but powered by negative energy. Games where the soul cant move on and must be given unlife to allow the spirit to redem itself. Think of The Crow, or any number of stories about the dead coming back because they were not good enough in life. You keep saying "it is evil" but not really giving anything to back it up. You could say "in my game it is evil" but please dont assume all games must follow your logic. I'm interested in you actually debating with the "absurd examples" rather than just name calling and one sentance replies. The End... I think not.
IRememberCecil 08-30-07, 11:30 AM	Acknowledge this. THE. SPELL. HAS. THE. EVIL. DESCRIPTOR. And? That doesn't make it an Evil act to cast it. Let me explain: [Descriptor] Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor. The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water. Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on. A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails. A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher. That's the entry that explains what descriptors on spells do. In the third paragraph it states that most descriptors don't have any in-game effect, but the govern some other things instead. All of the things listed are properties of the spell's target, if any. Last time I checked, sentences don't change subjects unless they specifically note that change of subject. Further, after that, it goes on to say specifically which descriptors have a game effect. Thus, any other descriptor has no game effect, but governs only the spell's interaction with its targets. You can be Good-aligned and lead an army of Undead that you yourself animated.
The_Shaman 08-30-07, 11:47 AM	I'm currently running a TN necro (was supposed to be going for Pale Master, but I'll probably stay out of it... that 1st level bugs the heck out of me) who will probably raise a few corpses now and then. IMO the difference is that a neutral necromancer uses the dead, an evil one abuses them. That, and a neutral necromancer cleans up afterwards - if you don't need them anymore, let them rest. I think I'll have a lot of fun with her. It sounds like a nice PbP game, and I've always had a soft spot for Jergal (her patron deity).
Cartigan 08-30-07, 11:53 AM	Acknowledge this. You can be Good-aligned and lead an army of Undead that you yourself animated. No. What if others don't think he is evil in that game universe? Care take up that point, one you have ignored so far? I've shown a number of points about necromancy and how it can be viewed. Negative energy being an elemental force, the soul moving on and the body simply being an animated object but powered by negative energy. Games where the soul cant move on and must be given unlife to allow the spirit to redem itself. Think of The Crow, or any number of stories about the dead coming back because they were not good enough in life. You keep saying "it is evil" but not really giving anything to back it up. You could say "in my game it is evil" but please dont assume all games must follow your logic. I'm interested in you actually debating with the "absurd examples" rather than just name calling and one sentance replies. The End... I think not. Didn't some one already make a point with "Animate Object."
Eshenaleros 08-30-07, 12:06 PM	No. Try yes. my character is.
IRememberCecil 08-30-07, 12:08 PM	No. Yes.
LCD2YOU 08-30-07, 12:15 PM	Maybe it's just me but I have never understood the concept of mindless undead or even all undead = evil. I can see even "good" DnD societies using mindless undead to clean out disgusting areas like sewers. Working in locations that would kill the average or even not so average human/elf/dwarf (well dwarves may not be dead but they smell that way)/etc., would be ideal for them. Maybe it's just me, but I like the Klingon way of viewing a dead body: If it ain't already, it's about to become a rotting hunk of meat. As for a non-evil Necromancer, I can see that. I can even see being a Good Necromancer. Granted, your "options" are more limited in scope than a NE guy but as long as Raising Mindless undead =/= Evil, they can do quite a bit of good.
The_Shaman 08-30-07, 12:16 PM	Ugh. Someone, anyone, please sticky the below text. Even better: put it somewhere in big letters for all to see: A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil. Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. @ Cartigan: It would be a strange case at least, but it is possible. Remember, an alignment is a general frame of mind, not a complete straitjacket which you can never, ever deviate from. This is an often missed point, especially by people who rant against alignments. A "good" person, according to the PHB, would generally have "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." Okay, not quite the army-of-dead material, but not completely opposed to it. Making personal sacrifices does not preclude you to lead others - the leadership feat, even, does not have prerequisites. As for the concern of dignity thing, that would be my main beef with it - but if you don't mock the dead by making them fight things they would have defended in life or something so heinous, it's not completely out of the question. As for lawfulness, technically a lawful character is characterized by "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority (not any authority, mind you), and reliability." Not completely opposed to necromancy either - especially if the authority and tradition the character follows is more permissive as far as undead are concerned. Again, it will be a very rare case, but it is possible. Your alignment is the way you view the world. While being willing to raise the dead and being commited to the principles of good and order as defined in the LG alignment is a rare combination and might involve some contradictions, it is not impossible. Just because most characters won't consider this character good doesn't mean s/he isn't. Just because many people consider a secret serial rapist and murderer an okay person, that doesn't mean his alignment is TN. Of course, a LG necromancer will be much different from the archetypal lord of the undead, but that's a different story.
IRememberCecil 08-30-07, 12:22 PM	Corpses are objects by RAW. You can do whatever you want with them (except something like using them as weapons to kill innocent people or something like that) and it won't be Evil. Not unlike end tables.
aotrscommander 08-30-07, 12:27 PM	I'm currently running a TN necro (was supposed to be going for Pale Master, but I'll probably stay out of it... that 1st level bugs the heck out of me) who will probably raise a few corpses now and then. IMO the difference is that a neutral necromancer uses the dead, an evil one abuses them. That, and a neutral necromancer cleans up afterwards - if you don't need them anymore, let them rest. I think I'll have a lot of fun with her. It sounds like a nice PbP game, and I've always had a soft spot for Jergal (her patron deity). Time to stick my boney oar in again, isn't it? I have got a TN Pale Master who raises skeletons like water. He does, however, tend to stick to monster skeletons (though he did raise some Zhents after we kicked their sorry asses). The rules are rather open to interpretation with regard to at least animate undead and alignment; you can with the exact same amount of justification argue either that the [Evil] descriptor and alignment are because of the trapped soul or just because of the way the animated husk is powered by the negative energy. Personally, I follow the latter explanation (since it's obvious from a design perspective the only reason animated Undead got the evil algnment in 3.5 was to allow holy weapons to spifflicate them). I back up my point with the fact the Plae Master is only required to be neutral and pretty much the whole point of the class is that free Animate Dead at level 2. Dread Necromnacers too, can be neutral, and they become a freakin' Lich (bully for them) at level 20. I take a little umbrage that golems don't also have an evil alignment requirement for their creation since they require you to bind a spirit - most likely unwillingly - and some of the them do go frothing berserk and kill anything in sight. And, to back up IRC's point, it's not evil by RAW to animate a corpse via Animate Object. I would hope that 4E answers the question as well (even though I may not play it, it would be nice to not have these arguments).
gojumamoru 08-30-07, 12:43 PM	Didn't some one already make a point with "Animate Object." At this point I'm aware that I'm being trolled but my curiousity has taken the best of me. Look another one sentance anwser with no real substance... Why dont you actually sit down and tell me why making undead has to be evil in all circumstances? We are giving exceptions to the rule and you are denying them claiming there should be no exception. The problem is I allready broke your rule I have good necromancers in my game... What now? Animating object... like animating undead. Yes someone did make that point and your point is? I'm saying that in some games animating undead is seen as very similar to animating an object and therefore not evil. I doubt you will actually write more than one sentance stating why I can't have good necromancers in my game. Instead you will quote this whole block and say "no".
IRememberCecil 08-30-07, 12:54 PM	At this point I'm aware that I'm being trolled but my curiousity has taken the best of me. Look another one sentance anwser with no real substance... Why dont you actually sit down and tell me why making undead has to be evil in all circumstances? We are giving exceptions to the rule and you are denying them claiming there should be no exception. The problem is I allready broke your rule I have good necromancers in my game... What now? Animating object... like animating undead. Yes someone did make that point and your point is? I'm saying that in some games animating undead is seen as very similar to animating an object and therefore not evil. I doubt you will actually write more than one sentance stating why I can't have good necromancers in my game. Instead you will quote this whole block and say "no". You know, Cartigan pretty much has no credibility at this point. All his reasoning attempts have utterly failed for being either too sentimental, fallacious, or not being reasoning attempts at all. An example of the last one is the first part of the post you were responding to: No. That's not a refutation.
gojumamoru 08-30-07, 12:58 PM	I really want to get honest opinions of the other side of a thought process so tend to give too much benefit of the doubt to people. Oh if your name is reffering to ff4 then I also remember Cecil. Still this thread has been really helpful for me. I love games with a heavy undead influence so reading all of these ideas have given me a few to try out in new games.
Mindolin 08-30-07, 01:05 PM	Maybe a better way to look at it is this: If you create mindless undead (undead without a spirit, just the spark on unlife from the neutral aligned Negative energy plane), then it is not evil, as you are not hindering the spirit at all. However, if you create an intelligent undead, such as a ghoul or mummy, then now you must decide if it is the original spirit inhabiting the body or simply a psuedo spirit created to give the body a mind. For most undead, the ones that do not retain any of the abilities they had in life, it is obvious that it is at best a copy of the spirit, as the real deal should have the same powers as the original. Thus, it shouldn't really be evil to create them. Now we get to the intelligent undead that do retain their abilities, such as vampires. With these, you either have a much better copy of the spirit, or the real thing. If it is the real thing, then it may be an evil act, since you are preventing a soul from being at rest unless you have reached a prior agreement with the being to be turned into an undead, in which case it is not an evil act as they are not prevented from it, because they choose to be brought back. Of course, the creation of liches is a special case as they require a special ritual that is most definitely evil.
IRememberCecil 08-30-07, 01:10 PM	Oh if your name is reffering to ff4 then I also remember Cecil. Sorry, but that's not it.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 08-30-07, 01:15 PM	Sorry, but that's not it. I know what it is.
DaidojiTaidoru 08-30-07, 01:37 PM	Spells in the Necromancy School that good aligned wizards can use without even the most liberal reading of alignment rules: Disrupt Undead** Touch of Fatigue* Cause Fear* Chill Touch Ray of Enfeeblement* Blindness/Deafness* Command Undead** False Life*** Ghoul Touch* Scare* Spectral Hand*** Gentle Repose*** Halt Undead** Ray of Exhaustion* Vampiric Touch Bestow Curse* Fear* Blight Waves of Fatigue* Magic Jar Circle of Death Symbol of Fear* Undeath to Death** Control Undead** Finger of Death Symbol of Weakness* Waves of Exhaustion* Clone*** Horrid Wilting Symbol of Death Astral Projection*** Soul Bind Wail of the Banshee * Merciful ** Anti Undead *** Utility Spell In short, Specializing in Necromancy is not only the best way to create hordes of undead, but the best way to STOP hordes of undead. And as a bonus you get far more spells to incapacitate the living without setting them on fire. The only place all Necromancers end up evil is in Ravenloft. And that's a separate setting using non core rules. ((Note: As for the morality of creating non intelligent undead: I've given up trying to make sense of it and am waiting patiently for May of next year.))
Ack 08-30-07, 01:44 PM	I'm tired of the absurd examples and excuses. He might not think himself evil, but others do, and that matters. The end. I'm sorry; which 'others' and why do they get to decide? A thousand people - hell, a million people - could decide that the Internet is 'evil' tomorrow. Is it? There are people who consider premarital sex to be 'evil', and just as many who consider it to be a perfectly normal practice. Who is right? Evil is in the intent, and in the result. If this well-meaning necromancer used his army of shambling undead to perform nothing but good works, is he still evil? If so, why? Can't he change alignment just like everyone else?
Cartigan 08-30-07, 02:45 PM	I'm sorry; which 'others' and why do they get to decide? A thousand people - hell, a million people - could decide that the Internet is 'evil' tomorrow. Is it? There are people who consider premarital sex to be 'evil', and just as many who consider it to be a perfectly normal practice. Who is right? Evil is in the intent, and in the result. If this well-meaning necromancer used his army of shambling undead to perform nothing but good works, is he still evil? If so, why? Can't he change alignment just like everyone else? I meant a bit more general. Like his race or adoptive race considers necromancy evil. The people look down on Necromancers for manipulating the dead. How would becoming a Necromancer not make him evil? How is "Good" and "Evil" handed out in this game? If people get to decide what they are, why have it changeable.
IRememberCecil 08-30-07, 02:46 PM	I meant a bit more general. Like his race or adoptive race considers necromancy evil. The people look down on Necromancers for manipulating the dead. How would becoming a Necromancer not make him evil? How is "Good" and "Evil" handed out in this game? If people get to decide what they are, why have it changeable. Like I said earlier, the rules are (mostly) clear on what constitutes Good/Evil/Chaotic/Lawful acts. People don't decide, rules do. And Necromancers can be Good, whether they raise an Undead army or not.
Cartigan 08-30-07, 02:50 PM	Your alignment is the way you view the world. While being willing to raise the dead and being commited to the principles of good and order as defined in the LG alignment is a rare combination and might involve some contradictions, it is not impossible. Just because most characters won't consider this character good doesn't mean s/he isn't. Just because many people consider a secret serial rapist and murderer an okay person, that doesn't mean his alignment is TN. Of course, a LG necromancer will be much different from the archetypal lord of the undead, but that's a different story. Read the Dread Necromancer alignment discussion in Heroes of Horror To paraphrase since it isn't with me: A Dread Necromancer may commit evil deeds for the greater good and maintain a Neutral alignment. Good intentions do no make you good alone. I'm going to collect a bunch of orphan children on the street and infect them with diseases and then apply different medicines to find out what is the best. Hey, I'm curing some of the worst diseases imaginable, but am I LG, or any good? No, I'm kidnapping children off the street and infecting then with deadly diseases.
Cartigan 08-30-07, 02:52 PM	Like I said earlier, the rules are (mostly) clear on what constitutes Good/Evil/Chaotic/Lawful acts. People don't decide, rules do. And Necromancers can be Good, whether they raise an Undead army or not. And where do those rules come from? Wouldn't the society or the morals of the adventuring party decide what is an evil act and that would influence a character's alignment. Who the hell is deciding what is evil? "The rules." What the hell are the rules inside a D&D adventure? Some one use the OOC phone to call the DM to see if animating the corpse of the Paladin's grandmother to fight a dragon is an evil act.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 08-30-07, 02:59 PM	And where do those rules come from? Wouldn't the society or the morals of the adventuring party decide what is an evil act and that would influence a character's alignment. Who the hell is deciding what is evil? "The rules." What the hell are the rules inside a D&D adventure? Some one use the OOC phone to call the DM to see if animating the corpse of the Paladin's grandmother to fight a dragon is an evil act. Alignment isn't subjective. You are failing to pick up on that. In D&D, there is a actual cosmological force known as "Good" with a capital G. That force is what decides what is good and what is not. Your personal opinions do not affect this force in any manner what so ever.
IRememberCecil 08-30-07, 03:08 PM	Alignment isn't subjective. You are failing to pick up on that. In D&D, there is a actual cosmological force known as "Good" with a capital G. That force is what decides what is good and what is not. Your personal opinions do not affect this force in any manner what so ever. My buddy here explained it for me.
High Octane 08-30-07, 03:08 PM	Evil is in the intent, and in the result. If this well-meaning necromancer used his army of shambling undead to perform nothing but good works, is he still evil? That depends on whether the ends justify the means. I was reading Complete Arcane and Complete Mage for their views on the subject of a good aligned necromancer and whether they would command undead. Sadly the books are vague at best, and tend to speak from the support column (which is due to the fact that they are trying to give you the ability to see it from the necromancer's point of view.) Complete Arcane mentioned that few necromancers are neutral. Basically it said having constant exposure to the forces of death and undeath have a corrupting effect, so basically you either get engulfed or constantly fight against them (Like the dark side). They mention evil necromancers far outnumber good ones. I really do hope they clarify this in 4th edition. TO me it seems that any situation that a person would animate dead and be anything but evil would be contrived at best. I mean would slavery be justified if the slaves were ordered to do good things? What about those mentally dominated? At the very least I cannot ever see the justification of animating the corpses of innocent people as being anything but an evil act. You could argue "What if they said it was okay in life?" But that argument tends to fall flat since it rarely happens. In the game undeath is looked upon negatively, whether it deserves it or not. Pelor is the most revered deity of humanity, and he utterly despises undead. Whether the reputation is deserved or not (And the jury is still out on that one apparantly) the likelihood of a person willingly resign themselves to shambling undeath is unlikely. I say that we should consider that circumstance contrived. What remains is the argument that the person did evil in life, so they deserve a fate as a shambling undead. Well that argument is tenuous, since we have to consider a few things. For one, if you perish, the undead will likely become basically feral, attempting to destroy whatever life it comes upon, putting possible innocents in danger. Second off, if said undead is found, or even your own undead is found, by evil necromancers (which outnumber good ones as stated before) or evil clerics, they will suddenly have some more undead to command and use for their purposes. The third thing is that undead are hardly sanitary, so you would be obligated to keep them outside towns and cities for fear of spreading disease (Of course you would want to anyway since the townsfolk would probably freak out if you brought an entourage of skeletons into town anyway.) Also good aligned clerics would likely attempt to destroy them (and you) on sight since they are opposed to undeath. They certainly would not be willing to associate with you. So you cannot bring these undead with you into town, you cannot bring them with you if a good aligned cleric is your ally (forget a paladin!), and you pretty much cannot let them be publicly seen as yours. What good things do you expect them to be doing? Would they really be worth all that trouble if you are good aligned? Plus as a good aligned character would you want to take the risk of perishing and leaving feral undead to cause damage to innocents or bolster an evil cleric's army? Basically what I am getting at, the theory MAY work under some views, but the reality is another matter. Sure you can use it if you are in the woods or even dungeon, as long as you don't have a paladin or good cleric with you whose faith would interfere, and as long as you used them for non-evil purposes, and you deal with them (i.e destroying them) before leaving them since you logically can't keep them with you. But do you really want to spend 25g per hit die animated for something you can't generally take with you? Evil necromancer's dont have that problem since they have no concern over the safety of others and clerics of evil faiths have no issues with undead, and they tend to avoid societies that would be more opposed to undeath anyway. Good aligned necromancers however just can't pass all that by. This is all while working under the assumption that casting spells with the evil descriptor never actually corrupt people (which some DMs might rule they do) What I am getting at is that even if you consider the necromancer morally justified in being good and animating the dead, he would logically have a hard time working with the zombies and skeletons working in a good aligned group.
gojumamoru 08-30-07, 03:19 PM	Alignment isn't subjective. You are failing to pick up on that. In D&D, there is a actual cosmological force known as "Good" with a capital G. That force is what decides what is good and what is not. Your personal opinions do not affect this force in any manner what so ever. Well in his defense his personal opinions can affect it in games he runs. He can have the very act of raising dead be evil just as I can have that very act be a well not evil thing.
Ack 08-30-07, 03:52 PM	If a Good person persistently performs evil acts, he eventually becomes Evil. If a Lawful person persistently performs chaotic acts, he eventually becomes Chaotic. Why can not an Evil person persistently performing good acts with his shambling undead army end up as Good? A Good character that wholeheartedly embraces evil will become Evil; doesn't an Evil character deserve the same chance to become Good? And I don't recall anywhere that becoming Good strips one of one's necromantic abilities...
aotrscommander 08-30-07, 06:45 PM	High Octane, a question or two, then. What of the Transmuter who continually uses Animate Object on corpses? Is he evil? Or those who create golems and thus trap potentially dangerous elemental spirits? Or do spirits not count because they're not humanoid? I would agree that creating nonmindless Undead is generally an evil act - since most nonmindless Undead have a prediliction for evil (though there's nothing stopping them eventually becoming good). However, mindless Undead cannot be any more evil than golems as the pretty much follow the same regulations. Heck, golems are generally more dangerous if the get loose and creating a shed load of golems doesn't make you evil. If you are of the mindset that chooses to interpret animated Undead as having the soul of the body trapped within, then by the same logic, golems creation should be also evil. Unless, as I say, there is a double standard for prime and elemental spirits (which if you ask me, seems awfully close to being evil). If you are of the mindset that chooses to interpret animated Undead as being merely negative-energy powered constructs their creation cannot be evil any more than building Trade Federation BattleDroids or Andromeda's drones is - he evil comes from the manner of their usage. Also I find the attitude that the bodies of the dead are sacrosant to be a very arrogantly humanocentric viewpoint; which is where Undead = Evil comes from of course, in addition to the defying some deity's/natural force's (etc) trumped-up hold on lesser beings (i.e. mortals)1. It is very easy to imagine a mindset where this is simply not true (the aforemention Klingons for one). If the act is not causing undue suffering (and negative energy-powered robot creation is not by itself) then it is hard to argue it is evil without saying "well, we do it this way, so if you don't, despite it not causing immediate harm, it is clearly wrongbad since you are not doing it our way" which is awefully subjective. That said, there is a marked tendancy for evil and Undead creation to co-incide. But that doesn't nessecarily have to mean that they are mutally inclusive. And by-the-by Pelor is at the very least a massive asshat, if not an outright evil deity pretending to be a good guy, so I'd take his opinion on Undead the same way I would any group of religious fanatics - with a good deal of scorn at his narrow-mindedness. 1I.e. "when you die, I own your soul and don't you forget it. You're spending eternity where I tell you to [female canine]." Call me crazy, but ain't that just a touch evil there, mr. supposedly higher being? And the reason you're saying it is because you're harder than a mortal? What are you, a Republic-Era Jedi? "Hey, I know more than you and can kick your ass so you have to do what I say." Isn't that sort of crap the thing I'm supposed to be saying?
Euclid 08-30-07, 07:05 PM	I agree with you. Miracle Max, Doctor Gregory House, Detective Dana Scully, Cole Sear and Mrs. Cake make perfect necromancer role models in my opinion.And Mrs. Gogol. She creates very powerful undead, but certainately isn't evil, though she probably isn't good either.
High Octane 08-30-07, 07:59 PM	High Octane, a question or two, then. What of the Transmuter who continually uses Animate Object on corpses? Is he evil? Or those who create golems and thus trap potentially dangerous elemental spirits? Or do spirits not count because they're not humanoid? I would agree that creating nonmindless Undead is generally an evil act - since most nonmindless Undead have a prediliction for evil (though there's nothing stopping them eventually becoming good). However, mindless Undead cannot be any more evil than golems as the pretty much follow the same regulations. Heck, golems are generally more dangerous if the get loose and creating a shed load of golems doesn't make you evil. If you are of the mindset that chooses to interpret animated Undead as having the soul of the body trapped within, then by the same logic, golems creation should be also evil. Unless, as I say, there is a double standard for prime and elemental spirits (which if you ask me, seems awfully close to being evil). If you are of the mindset that chooses to interpret animated Undead as being merely negative-energy powered constructs their creation cannot be evil any more than building Trade Federation BattleDroids or Andromeda's drones is - he evil comes from the manner of their usage. Also I find the attitude that the bodies of the dead are sacrosant to be a very arrogantly humanocentric viewpoint; which is where Undead = Evil comes from of course, in addition to the defying some deity's/natural force's (etc) trumped-up hold on lesser beings (i.e. mortals)1. It is very easy to imagine a mindset where this is simply not true (the aforemention Klingons for one). If the act is not causing undue suffering (and negative energy-powered robot creation is not by itself) then it is hard to argue it is evil without saying "well, we do it this way, so if you don't, despite it not causing immediate harm, it is clearly wrongbad since you are not doing it our way" which is awefully subjective. That said, there is a marked tendancy for evil and Undead creation to co-incide. But that doesn't nessecarily have to mean that they are mutally inclusive. And by-the-by Pelor is at the very least a massive asshat, if not an outright evil deity pretending to be a good guy, so I'd take his opinion on Undead the same way I would any group of religious fanatics - with a good deal of scorn at his narrow-mindedness. 1I.e. "when you die, I own your soul and don't you forget it. You're spending eternity when I tell you to [female canine]." Call me crazy, but ain't that just a touch evil there, mr. supposedly higher being? And the reason you're saying it is because you're harder than a mortal? What are you, a Republic-Era Jedi? "Hey, I know more than you and can kick your ass so you have to do what I say." Isn't that sort of crap the thing I'm supposed to be saying? I keep reading people finding reports of Pelor being a gigantic jagoff, which is weird since I don't see that happening with other deities. At least not as much. Hell I saw an article in Complete Scoundrel that portrayed a cleric of Olidammara as being benevolent. Pelor is SUPPOSED to be the benevolent and fairly gentle Neutral Good paragon deity. Yet he is way too often portrayed as merciless and extremely vehement. But I think that is due to unoriginal authors deciding to try to make their work "intriguing" by having Pelor being overbearing if not flat out tyrannical in order to stir up sympathy for the bad guys. As for animate objects on corpses, yes I would find that evil, if you consider that desecration of the dead, using it like a puppet. The term humanocentric is a funny thing to say, since if you recall this book is written BY humans FOR humans to play. I think the term might also be ethnocentric. It generally uses the human view of morality as a side effect. Sorry but there aren't very many sentient beings to get your sources of different moral standpoints. If you go down that road you can justify any action ever done as "That is only immoral in THIS society to THIS species." Name ANY crime, ANY evil act, and I can justify it using that argument. As for the binding of an elemental unwillingly to power a golem? Well I would find that distasteful, and depending on your definition of sentient being, evil. An elemental has an intelligence of 4-6, and they tend to act more like elemental forces of nature, feral and commanded by nature, rather than sentient beings. Still I wonder why in the heck that they would have golems be made that way. Whether or not the soul is trapped with the zombified body, it is considered a desecration of the dead. In most cultures (HUMAN cultures, at least) treating the bodies of the dead with respect is considered pretty important, and desecration of them is considered a very bad thing to do. Different cultures have very different means to respect their dead, whether it is by burial, by burning in a funeral pyre, or sending them out on a boat that burns and carries all their worldly possessions, or eating them in a ritual (yes there were tribes that do that). However in D&D there are few, if any, cultures that find the animation of the dead bodies through magic in order for them to perform manual labor or more violent ends (which are pretty much the limits that a mindless undead can do) as a proper way to respect the dead are pretty rare. Generally those societies are pretty evil.
Nephlite 08-30-07, 08:23 PM	What remains is the argument that the person did evil in life, so they deserve a fate as a shambling undead. Well that argument is tenuous, since we have to consider a few things. For one, if you perish, the undead will likely become basically feral, attempting to destroy whatever life it comes upon, putting possible innocents in danger. False. Only intelligent Undead can do that. Unintelligent Undead must, I repeat MUST, stand there and do nothing unless given a order to kill anyone who doesn't give them safety word (most modules are writtened this way) or do anything else. Zombies/Skeletons are golems that can't go berserk in D&D 3.5 mechanically. Second off, if said undead is found, or even your own undead is found, by evil necromancers (which outnumber good ones as stated before) or evil clerics, they will suddenly have some more undead to command and use for their purposes. Can't you counter rebuke (bulster) like it says in the PHB? Non-Clerics can't steal without command undead spell. Clerics would be an issue, but I'd perfer to create high HD creature so he can't steal much. The third thing is that undead are hardly sanitary, so you would be obligated to keep them outside towns and cities for fear of spreading disease (Of course you would want to anyway since the townsfolk would probably freak out if you brought an entourage of skeletons into town anyway.) Also good aligned clerics would likely attempt to destroy them (and you) on sight since they are opposed to undeath. They certainly would not be willing to associate with you. They are perfectly clean if got arcane magic. Prestigitation cleans anything. That is a cantrip btw. Pfft, so what is some self-righteous Clerics don't hang with you. So you cannot bring these undead with you into town, you cannot bring them with you if a good aligned cleric is your ally (forget a paladin!), and you pretty much cannot let them be publicly seen as yours. What good things do you expect them to be doing? Would they really be worth all that trouble if you are good aligned? Plus as a good aligned character would you want to take the risk of perishing and leaving feral undead to cause damage to innocents or bolster an evil cleric's army? What! You can't use the "perish" argument. It isn't even supported by the rules. But anyway. What I am getting at is that even if you consider the necromancer morally justified in being good and animating the dead, he would logically have a hard time working with the zombies and skeletons working in a good aligned group. Not at all, D&D is made to counter these problems: Look: Cleaning? cantrip Clerics steals my undead? Command undead bam, mine again. Really, it is easier when you put your characters brain into thinking about it.
Cartigan 08-30-07, 08:42 PM	Alignment isn't subjective. You are failing to pick up on that. In D&D, there is a actual cosmological force known as "Good" with a capital G. That force is what decides what is good and what is not. Your personal opinions do not affect this force in any manner what so ever. Then whose opinions influence it? That depends on whether the ends justify the means. I was reading Complete Arcane and Complete Mage for their views on the subject of a good aligned necromancer and whether they would command undead. Sadly the books are vague at best, and tend to speak from the support column (which is due to the fact that they are trying to give you the ability to see it from the necromancer's point of view.) Complete Arcane mentioned that few necromancers are neutral. Basically it said having constant exposure to the forces of death and undeath have a corrupting effect, so basically you either get engulfed or constantly fight against them (Like the dark side). They mention evil necromancers far outnumber good ones. How many bloody times have I cited Heroes of Horror here?
IRememberCecil 08-30-07, 08:52 PM	Then whose opinions influence it? Are you daft? Alignment isn't subjective. You are failing to pick up on that. In D&D, there is a actual cosmological force known as "Good" with a capital G. That force is what decides what is good and what is not. Your personal opinions do not affect this force in any manner what so ever. The moral forces themselves decide. They are the CEOs of morality. How many bloody times have I cited Heroes of Horror here? What? The Dread Necromancer? Totally irrelevant. And for good measure: THE. SPELL. HAS. THE. EVIL. DESCRIPTOR. And? That doesn't make it an Evil act to cast it. Let me explain: [Descriptor] Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor. The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water. Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on. A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails. A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher. That's the entry that explains what descriptors on spells do. In the third paragraph it states that most descriptors don't have any in-game effect, but the govern some other things instead. All of the things listed are properties of the spell's target, if any. Last time I checked, sentences don't change subjects unless they specifically note that change of subject. Further, after that, it goes on to say specifically which descriptors have a game effect. Thus, any other descriptor has no game effect, but governs only the spell's interaction with its targets. This irrefutably proves my point about raising Undead. The other part of necromancy is nonnegotiable. This means I can have a ****ing Exalted Neutral Good Necromancer with an Undead army that hands out curses like they were candy.
Cartigan 08-30-07, 09:12 PM	Things can't decide themselves. It's a bloody pen & paper game. Some one makes the decision how stuff works and how it applies. It's not magic nor is their AI. What? The Dread Necromancer? Totally irrelevant. What the alignment section says is completely relevant. Especially considering what he said about how the Completes are "vague" on the subject.
IRememberCecil 08-30-07, 09:16 PM	Things can't decide themselves. They can and they do. What the alignment section says is completely relevant. Especially considering what he said about how the Completes are "vague" on the subject. No, the alignment section is completely irrelevant and does not dictate anything.
Cartigan 08-30-07, 09:55 PM	They can and they do. Magic, of course. Let's completely forget that this is a game without so much as a built in algorithm to deal with alignment changes. People just magically change alignments. They do something and look at their character sheet and some how they are Neutral when 5 minutes earlier they were Good. No, the alignment section is completely irrelevant and does not dictate anything. Then neither do any other alignment sections.
Voran 08-30-07, 11:16 PM	We should let this thread lie dormant for a bit, like a month, then start posting again. Thread Necromancy FTW!
calronmoonflower 08-31-07, 02:47 AM	I will state it again. A necromancer is a wizard that decided to specialize in the necromancy school of magic. Wizards have no alignment restrictions. As for casting evil spell being an evil act, the most relevant info that you can find is in the Complete Scoundrel page 48 in the malconvoker's unrestricted conjuration class feature. it says In addition, regular use of conjuration spells with the evil descriptor does not threaten to change your alignment. That would mean that normally casting spells with the evil descriptor do threaten to change your alignment. You might manage to create an undead army without changing away from the good alignment, but it would have to done over time so that your good action out way the casting of evil spells.
IRememberCecil 08-31-07, 05:58 AM	Magic, of course. Let's completely forget that this is a game without so much as a built in algorithm to deal with alignment changes. People just magically change alignments. They do something and look at their character sheet and some how they are Neutral when 5 minutes earlier they were Good. Yeah. Alignments are probably intelligent forces that work exactly like sponsors. If you do what they like, they give you immunity to effects based on that alignment. Then neither do any other alignment sections. True. No alignment section has been written that is relevant to or dictates a Necromancer's alignment. As for casting evil spell being an evil act, the most relevant info that you can find is in the Complete Scoundrel page 48 in the malconvoker's unrestricted conjuration class feature. it says In addition, regular use of conjuration spells with the evil descriptor does not threaten to change your alignment. That would mean that normally casting spells with the evil descriptor do threaten to change your alignment. You might manage to create an undead army without changing away from the good alignment, but it would have to done over time so that your good action out way the casting of evil spells. Complete Scoundrel does not overrule Core. The class feature is redundant.
Cartigan 08-31-07, 08:57 AM	True. No alignment section has been written that is relevant to or dictates a Necromancer's alignment. Except those that say things like "Balancing evil acts with good intentions lets you remain solidly neutral" And why am I bothering. You just argued that alignments are magical.
IRememberCecil 08-31-07, 09:12 AM	Except those that say things like "Balancing evil acts with good intentions lets you remain solidly neutral" And? What Evil acts are they talking about? And why am I bothering. You just argued that alignments are magical. They are magical. Otherwise, why do such spells as Chaos Hammer and Blasphemy exist? And why do Outsiders, literally made out of the essence of their own morality, exist? Do you honestly think alignment is just the general public opinion, and when you Smite Evil, you're really just "letting the people's voices be heard?"
Cartigan 08-31-07, 09:42 AM	I'm not going to say it again. It is a game. Some one decides how alignment applies and changes.
IRememberCecil 08-31-07, 10:14 AM	I'm not going to say it again. It is a game. Some one decides how alignment applies and changes. That argument is ****. Every game has rules, which the DM can change, but that doesn't change how they are in the first place. The rules for alignment are these: Alignment A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil. Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. Good Vs. Evil Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "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. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Law Vs. Chaos Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. "Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. "Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them. Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others. Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic. The Nine Alignments Nine distinct alignments define all the possible combinations of the lawful-chaotic axis with the good-evil axis. Each alignment description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts. The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains. Lawful Good, "Crusader" A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. Neutral Good, "Benefactor" A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order. Chaotic Good, "Rebel" A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit. Lawful Neutral, "Judge" A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot. Neutral, "Undecided" A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit" A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal. Lawful Evil, "Dominator" A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains. Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master. Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil. Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil. Neutral Evil, "Malefactor" A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has. Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies. Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation. Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer" A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him. Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil. Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend. That's the in-game decision of the moral forces. It is clearly not up to public opinion because no matter how righteous a city/nation/group thinks it is, execution by rape is not Good-aligned. It is Evil. Objectively and irrefutably.
Cartigan 08-31-07, 10:55 AM	That's the in-game decision of the moral forces. It is clearly not up to public opinion because no matter how righteous a city/nation/group thinks it is, execution by rape is not Good-aligned. It is Evil. Objectively and irrefutably. Which is your opinion. The alignment rules are applied by the DM, the end.
IRememberCecil 08-31-07, 11:10 AM	Which is your opinion. No, it's how they are written. It's a fact. The alignment rules are applied by the DM, the end. Irrelevant.
Cartigan 08-31-07, 11:11 AM	No, it's how they are written. It's a fact. Then you gave a subjective evil act.
IRememberCecil 08-31-07, 11:14 AM	Then you gave a subjective evil act. No I didn't. I used your own crappy logic that alignment is based on public opinion to come to a ridiculous conclusion. It's called a reductio ad absurdum. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_absurdum)
gojumamoru 08-31-07, 11:15 AM	Which is your opinion. The alignment rules are applied by the DM, the end. So wait alignment can be viewed subjectivly by the dm running the game? Isn't that the debate I have been saying to you since the start? How can you debate necromancy is always evil and then turn around and say the alignment system is DM opinion?
IRememberCecil 08-31-07, 11:17 AM	How can you debate necromancy is always evil and then turn around and say the alignment system is DM opinion? Because he's in over his head, he just doesn't know it.
Cartigan 08-31-07, 11:26 AM	No I didn't. I used your own crappy logic that alignment is based on public opinion to come to a ridiculous conclusion. It's called a reductio ad absurdum. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_absurdum) I would bother arguing my point, but you have repeatedly pointed out you hold the belief that alignments are magical constants and there is no affecting force that applies or interprets them, despite this being a game. So wait alignment can be viewed subjectivly by the dm running the game? Isn't that the debate I have been saying to you since the start? How can you debate necromancy is always evil and then turn around and say the alignment system is DM opinion? Where did I say Necromancy was always evil? I said it should be applied based on the beliefs of the race, most of which view Necromancy - the raising of the dead - as evil.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 08-31-07, 11:29 AM	*deleted*
Cartigan 08-31-07, 11:31 AM	If it's a game and alignment can be interpreted in any way you want to, why can't you have Good Necromancers?(The raising Undead type necromancer) I will concede the non-raising the dead Necromantic spells don't make people evil. I will not concede that those who raise the dead can be interpreted as not evil without a context that would explain that reason.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 08-31-07, 11:32 AM	Where did I say Necromancy was always evil? I said it should be applied based on the beliefs of the race, most of which view Necromancy - the raising of the dead - as evil. Alignment being subjective and open to influence from opinions just doesn't work in D&D. For example, no matter how bad you want a murderer to be good, Smite Evil is always going to **** him up. Another example, two paladins of different religious orders. They both find the others beliefs to be heretical and evil. Can they use Smite Evil on each other?
IRememberCecil 08-31-07, 11:33 AM	I will concede the non-raising the dead Necromantic spells don't make people evil. I will not concede that those who raise the dead can be interpreted as not evil without a context that would explain that reason. I don't need your approval. I've already shown that raising Undead is not Evil.
Cartigan 08-31-07, 11:37 AM	Alignment being subjective and open to influence from opinions just doesn't work in D&D. For example, no matter how bad you want a murderer to be good, Smite Evil is always going to **** him up. Agreed. But a murder has to be judged good or evil. I killed a child. Good chance that's evil. I killed a child because he would grow up to be Darth Vader. Moral ambiguity! Another example, two paladins of different religious orders. They both find the others beliefs to be heretical and evil. Can they use Smite Evil on each other? DM decision. The developers can't predict every situation that may arise. And they can use Smite Evil, but it won't due anything. Them's the rules.
IRememberCecil 08-31-07, 11:40 AM	I killed a child because he would grow up to be Darth Vader. Moral ambiguity! In an objective moral system this is already decided. It also has little to with raising Undead unless it has consequences (Which it does, and if they conseuqneces are good for the innocent lives in the world, then it's a Good act to raise them!).
Einvaldurinn_mikli 08-31-07, 11:40 AM	DM decisions. No, they aren't. The rules clearly show that they can't. Yet, according to what you are claiming, they could. This should show that your take on alignment is flawed. Either that or you are just houseruling.(Which is fine of course, but has no place in an alignment debate debating the alignments as they are presented in the rules.) Atli, komdu inná gluggaskilaboðaskjóðuna.
Cartigan 08-31-07, 11:50 AM	No, they aren't. The rules clearly show that they can't. Yet, according to what you are claiming, they could. They can. It just won't do anything. Fact.
gojumamoru 08-31-07, 11:57 AM	I will concede the non-raising the dead Necromantic spells don't make people evil. I will not concede that those who raise the dead can be interpreted as not evil without a context that would explain that reason. This whole thread has been people giving ideas about alternative ways that necromancy might be seen by a culture or game world. Where did I say Necromancy was always evil? I said it should be applied based on the beliefs of the race, most of which view Necromancy - the raising of the dead - as evil. I guess a few quotes are needed for this reply. First you say, A Necromancer can't be good, besides that not making sense, I don't think any rules allow for it. Suggesting to me that well necromancers cant be good. So you didn't say they were evil but that the rules dont allow them to be good. Then you go on to say, I'm tired of the absurd examples and excuses. He might not think himself evil, but others do, and that matters. The end. Suggesting that well all necromancers are evil. Of course this is subjective to your game but you use the debate as if it applies to all game worlds. Then here you say, Acknowledge this. You can be Good-aligned and lead an army of Undead that you yourself animated. No. This says well you cant be good and animate dead. Of course later you go on to say alignment is subjective. What you really want to say is that in YOUR game necromancy is always evil because alignment is based off of what the majority culture thinks. Of course it doesn't work that way in most of the other peoples games here so why must thier ideas be attacked and called "absured excuses"? Necromancy is one of those tough alignment topics. Finding a balance of good and evil must be done game to game. The OP wanted ideas about how a non evil necromancer might exist. So people are here to give suggestions of neutral and even good necromancer concepts. Sometimes you can go to a DM and say "what if I raised dead because..." and suddenly you both have a really great idea that expands into a whole game world.
Cartigan 08-31-07, 12:00 PM	This says well you cant be good and animate dead. Which is the position I was holding in the first thing you quoted so I don't see how that proves any point. Of course later you go on to say alignment is subjective. It has to be subjective in that some one applies it. And, it is subjective among cultures. The Charonites might not see a Necromantic army evil, but I bet the Dwarves do, and that matters. Or should anyway.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 08-31-07, 12:06 PM	. And, it is subjective among cultures. This is where you are wrong. Please abandon this idea entirely. Ethics are subjective, alignment is not. Seriously, read up on Outsiders for example, they are literally made out of "Good" or "Evil". This would be ridiculous if alignment was subjective. Alignment isn't ethics. Please treat is at such.
IRememberCecil 08-31-07, 12:07 PM	It has to be subjective in that some one applies it. And if the one who decides it is the moral entity itself... well, reality is not a democratic process. And, it is subjective among cultures. The Charonites might not see a Necromantic army evil, but I bet the Dwarves do, and that matters. Or should anyway. Then the Dwarves' opinions are wrong.
gojumamoru 08-31-07, 12:13 PM	Which is the position I was holding in the first thing you quoted so I don't see how that proves any point. But why can't you be good and raise dead if alignment is subjective? What makes it evil at its core? If it is subjective then it is only evil in games where the population thinks it is. Meaning if the population doesn't think it is evil then ... it isn't. And if alignment isn't subjective and it simple a core force in the universe then isn't the morality of the act of raising dead up to the DM to determine?
Cartigan 08-31-07, 12:21 PM	This is where you are wrong. Please abandon this idea entirely. Ethics are subjective, alignment is not. Seriously, read up on Outsiders for example, they are literally made out of "Good" or "Evil". This would be ridiculous if alignment was subjective. Alignment isn't ethics. Please treat is at such. Well alignment is stupid then because Good and Evil is ultimately subjective (as opposed to Law and Chaos).
Einvaldurinn_mikli 08-31-07, 12:26 PM	Well alignment is stupid then because Good and Evil is ultimately subjective (as opposed to Law and Chaos). This is useless. I give up. Enjoy your ignorance.
DaidojiTaidoru 08-31-07, 12:31 PM	And if the one who decides it is the moral entity itself... well, reality is not a democratic process. Unless you're actually playing Mage. In which case this may be the wrong board.
IRememberCecil 08-31-07, 12:39 PM	This is useless. I give up. Enjoy your AIDS. Fixxed. Hi-yo!
Objulen 08-31-07, 01:49 PM	The problem with a morally objetive system is that even it is subject to the laws of logic and internal consistency. Saying that A is good, while B is evil, when there is little to no functional difference between A and B, is basically saying "I'm right because the rules say so." That's wonderful and all, but I don't like having to rely on suspension of disbelief for things like this -- it's essentially intellectually laziness. The 3.5 rule set is fraught with internal logical inconsistencies as to why raising undead and commanding them is evil other than "the rules say so." Take for example, golems: it's perfectly ok to enslave an elemental spirit (which are neutral) to animate a hunk of clay, flesh, or other inanimate model, but enslaving an evil spirit (ala Libris Mortis) to do my bidding via animated undead is somehow evil? There are plenty of other examples, such as the Book of Vile Darkness' reason that creating undead increases the amount of negative energy in the world, but that by that logic, anything that decreases positive energy in the world (which is the inverse of negative energy) is also evil. So killing grass is now the same as murder. Huzzah! Negative energy is not evil, unless the rules say that it is. Energy Drain, Enervate, etc. are ok, but we are drawing on negative energy for Desecrate and the like. Now, D&D is set up with a big monster machine. Evil X is attacking, and you don't really care why, so you kill, kill, kill. And kill again. However, it would be nice if the rules allowed for a bit more deapth to different creatures than "it's lawful evil. Time to KILL!"
xXOblivionXx 08-31-07, 02:36 PM	The 3.5 rule set is fraught with internal logical inconsistencies as to why raising undead and commanding them is evil other than "the rules say so." Take for example, golems: it's perfectly ok to enslave an elemental spirit (which are neutral) to animate a hunk of clay, flesh, or other inanimate model, but enslaving an evil spirit (ala Libris Mortis) to do my bidding via animated undead is somehow evil? There are plenty of other examples, such as the Book of Vile Darkness' reason that creating undead increases the amount of negative energy in the world, but that by that logic, anything that decreases positive energy in the world (which is the inverse of negative energy) is also evil. So killing grass is now the same as murder. Huzzah! Well put, now I'm gonna put it in my signature:D .
aotrscommander 08-31-07, 02:44 PM	I keep reading people finding reports of Pelor being a gigantic jagoff, which is weird since I don't see that happening with other deities. At least not as much. Hell I saw an article in Complete Scoundrel that portrayed a cleric of Olidammara as being benevolent. Pelor is SUPPOSED to be the benevolent and fairly gentle Neutral Good paragon deity. Yet he is way too often portrayed as merciless and extremely vehement. But I think that is due to unoriginal authors deciding to try to make their work "intriguing" by having Pelor being overbearing if not flat out tyrannical in order to stir up sympathy for the bad guys. I direct you to the thread "Pelor the Burning Hate" in the deities and the planes forum... Not too mention there are plenty of nonevil Undead floating around the Great Wheel. Pelor is ever-so-slightly unreasonably bias at the very least. Still, at least he's not quite as much of a prat as Helm or St Cuthbert. As for animate objects on corpses, yes I would find that evil, if you consider that desecration of the dead, using it like a puppet. Okay, what about creating a cow skeleton. Is that evil? Is that worse than eating the cow? If not, why not? A dead animal and a dead human or elf are exactly the same thing. Neither contains anything of the spirit that once occupied it. The term humanocentric is a funny thing to say, since if you recall this book is written BY humans FOR humans to play. I think the term might also be ethnocentric. It generally uses the human view of morality as a side effect. Sorry but there aren't very many sentient beings to get your sources of different moral standpoints. If you go down that road you can justify any action ever done as "That is only immoral in THIS society to THIS species." Name ANY crime, ANY evil act, and I can justify it using that argument. First off, humans are not the only race in the game, so it is pure, unadulterated human arrogance to assume that all other creatures must think exactly like they do and have their same values, even in an objectively aligned universe. My point is alignment is objective, not subjective, so as much as people might want a certain act to be one alignment, their opinion of it frankly does not matter in the slightest. I cannot in anyway see why creating a skeleton cow and having it stand perfectly still in a field is an act of Evil. Nor, for that matter, a random human. It could be evil to use that skeleton to cause harm (psychological or otherwise, the former being a danger when raising dead humanoids who might be seen by their family); by the same token it could be good to use it to help others. People may not like you doing that, but that doesn't make the act itself evil, anymore than casting a spell makes you evil if a culture is especially inclined to believe magic is inherently bad. The "desecration of the dead is bad" is entirely a human-created concept. I cannot see how creating a negative energy-powered construct is inherently an act of evil in and of itself1. (Negative energy is entropic, but that again by itself is not evil amd there are so many negative energy spells that aren't evil that fact alone doesn't count.) Without, at least, resorting to the tenuous arguement that it goes against either culture (see above), the laws/balance of nature (which is an unaligned set of rules and in anycase is about as balanced as Mad Jack McMad the mad person - it only seems balanced because it doesn't change so much in the human timescale) or the wishes of some deity, who has no more right to command others than I do . (I mean, are deities elected? No, they are just really hard guys who think they know better than less hard guys and therefore are somehow more important and get to be in charge. Divine might makes right; there are very, very, very few deities who don't follow this line of reasoning, swaddled though it may be in benevolent intentions. Yes, that's exactly how I think, too, which is not a good sign for a good-aligned deity when they have a similar chain of thought to a freakin' LE Lich!) And what about demon skeletons? You can animate them. Is that disrespecting the dead? (Interesting question, actually, since outsiders are techincally not unit soul-and-body wise. What does happen to a barbazu you raise as a skeleton? Is it basically 'more' dead or what? It certainly can't get 'loose'... Does anyone really care what happens to an extinct being of pure evil?) As for the binding of an elemental unwillingly to power a golem? Well I would find that distasteful, and depending on your definition of sentient being, evil. An elemental has an intelligence of 4-6, and they tend to act more like elemental forces of nature, feral and commanded by nature, rather than sentient beings. Still I wonder why in the heck that they would have golems be made that way. They're smarter than animals. Sentient intelligence starts at 3, remember. Is binding an animal spirit evil? The RAW does not deem them important enough that it is evil to bind them into a piece of iron or a dead body. I think the key phrase is "unwilling" (check the MM golems descripton) which to me seems extremely evil. And yet only the flesh golems has anything pertaining to evil because it requries Animate Dead as one of the crafting spells (that to me says even more clearly animated Undead are negative-powered constructs!) The 3.5 rule set is fraught with internal logical inconsistencies as to why raising undead and commanding them is evil other than "the rules say so." Take for example, golems: it's perfectly ok to enslave an elemental spirit (which are neutral) to animate a hunk of clay, flesh, or other inanimate model, but enslaving an evil spirit (ala Libris Mortis) to do my bidding via animated undead is somehow evil? There are plenty of other examples, such as the Book of Vile Darkness' reason that creating undead increases the amount of negative energy in the world, but that by that logic, anything that decreases positive energy in the world (which is the inverse of negative energy) is also evil. So killing grass is now the same as murder. Huzzah! *Clap, clap* So, now gardeners now have to be of Evil alignment! Well, that explains a lot! I knew there was always something sinister about Alan Titchmarsh! 1I am, of course, excluding the "animated Undead contains the souls" train of thought for the purposes of this discussion. If the rules are being interpreted in that, equally legitimate, manner then I must agree, it is utterly evil.
Euclid 08-31-07, 04:03 PM	I will concede the non-raising the dead Necromantic spells don't make people evil. I will not concede that those who raise the dead can be interpreted as not evil without a context that would explain that reason. They can't be interpreted as evil without a context that would explain that reason either. Sure, they are evil if they lead an undead horde to ravage the countryside. But leading the undead horde to ravage the countryside? That's context, and in just the same way as being a pragmatist about perfectly good raw material is context.
Nephlite 08-31-07, 06:03 PM	The 3.5 rule set is fraught with internal logical inconsistencies as to why raising undead and commanding them is evil other than "the rules say so." Take for example, golems: it's perfectly ok to enslave an elemental spirit (which are neutral) to animate a hunk of clay, flesh, or other inanimate model, but enslaving an evil spirit (ala Libris Mortis) to do my bidding via animated undead is somehow evil? There are plenty of other examples, such as the Book of Vile Darkness' reason that creating undead increases the amount of negative energy in the world, but that by that logic, anything that decreases positive energy in the world (which is the inverse of negative energy) is also evil. So killing grass is now the same as murder. Huzzah! In real world: Yes, grass are living things. But murder is a question of law; not killing. D&D and real world: Murder is killing without authority. Killing is killing someone. So unless grass has legal rights: you can't murder it. Is killing the grass evil? Possibly, not in D&D. Grass is'nt alive. Plants have no type in D&D: plant type only covers intelligent plants. Thus plants are not alive. Are plants undead? Maybe.
xXOblivionXx 08-31-07, 06:22 PM	In real world: Yes, grass are living things. But murder is a question of law; not killing. D&D and real world: Murder is killing without authority. Killing is killing someone. So unless grass has legal rights: you can't murder it. Is killing the grass evil? Possibly, not in D&D. Grass is'nt alive. Plants have no type in D&D: plant type only covers intelligent plants. Thus plants are not alive. Are plants undead? Maybe. False, first, the plant type covers unintelligent plants too, like the shrieker, violet Fungus, assassin vine and other. Second where does it say that grass isn't alive? NOWHERE so they work as in real life. Third, I haven't seen the statistics of a fly at vermin, does that mean a fly is not alive?
OneWinged4ngel 08-31-07, 09:25 PM	Alignment systems differ wildly by game (and half the time, they're totally arbitrary and illogical). There is no consistent alignment system defined in the PHB or in either of the alignment books (they are, quite simply, thoroughly vague and self-contradictory), and thus everyone basically makes up their own. You can't actually argue RAW on alignment, because RAW constantly contradicts itself on this matter and is therefore pretty much a worthless basis for an argument.
Nephlite 08-31-07, 10:42 PM	False, first, the plant type covers unintelligent plants too, like the shrieker, violet Fungus, assassin vine and other. Second where does it say that grass isn't alive? NOWHERE so they work as in real life. Third, I haven't seen the statistics of a fly at vermin, does that mean a fly is not alive? Have you read the plant type in the MM? I'll quote: Normal Plants are objects even if alive. Pg 269. Yes, roses are objects in D&D. This is because they lack Charisma and Wisdom. I never said the monster plants aren't alive, but grass isn't a plant type. I was wrong about grass being not alive, but as objects killing isn't wrong.
High Octane 08-31-07, 10:47 PM	Objulen definitely makes a good point. I myself believe that animating dead should be an evil act, it certainly is set UP to be an evil act, but nothing ever says casting eviul spells is an evil act or what the effects are. Basically I was about to say why, then I realized that anything I said would mostly be a house ruling since nothing in the rules says so. I concede that nothing by RAW says that it is an evil act. I DO think that most DMs wouldnt tolerate almost any situation of raising corpses of sentient creatures as anything but a malignant act (By that token, necrophilia could also not be considered an evil act, but Im sure many DMs wouldnt allow a good character to commit it.) But the rules are incredibly vague for alignment purposes, almost as if they are trying to make people argue over this on purpose. At the very least they should go into how casting evil spells affects your alignment (other than clerics cannot cast spells with a descriptor opposed to their alignment) If they at least provided a few lines that state "Casting a spell with an alignment descriptor is in itself normally an act consistent with that alignment (depending on the intent and circumstances). Even if circumstances negate the alignment of the spell, continual casting of a spell aligned as such can have an effect on a person's mindset. If a person casts a spell with an alignment descriptor opposite that of his current alignment on a regular basis, he is likely to be turned neutral on that axis (at the DM's discretion) due to the fact that consistent channeling of aligned energies has an effect on the person's mind. Neutral characters do not risk this by default." Then this would not be an issue. Or they could simply state that creating undead is evil. Or if necessary, they could state that creating MINDLESS undead is NOT an evil act and that good character CAN in fact do it. Simply put, it doesnt answer the question. It only sort of IMPLIES that it is an evil act, but even then it is incredibly unclear, since by default nothing is evil necessarily until it says so!! GODS I hope 4th edition clarifies this.
High Octane 08-31-07, 10:48 PM	Have you read the plant type in the MM? I'll quote: Normal Plants are objects even if alive. Pg 269. Yes, roses are objects in D&D. This is because they lack Charisma and Wisdom. No they lack wisdom and intelligence. Roses GOT charisma. They got enough charisma to make any woman in the world melt (unless they are allergic to roses).
xXOblivionXx 08-31-07, 11:23 PM	Have you read the plant type in the MM? I'll quote: Normal Plants are objects even if alive. Pg 269. Yes, roses are objects in D&D. This is because they lack Charisma and Wisdom. I never said the monster plants aren't alive, but grass isn't a plant type. I was wrong about grass being not alive, but as objects killing isn't wrong. First, the page is 313 Second, we weren't discussing if it is right or wrong to "kill" grass, we were saying that killing grass decreases the positive energy in the material plane and thus it is evil. Here The 3.5 rule set is fraught with internal logical inconsistencies as to why raising undead and commanding them is evil other than "the rules say so." Take for example, golems: it's perfectly ok to enslave an elemental spirit (which are neutral) to animate a hunk of clay, flesh, or other inanimate model, but enslaving an evil spirit (ala Libris Mortis) to do my bidding via animated undead is somehow evil? There are plenty of other examples, such as the Book of Vile Darkness' reason that creating undead increases the amount of negative energy in the world, but that by that logic, anything that decreases positive energy in the world (which is the inverse of negative energy) is also evil. So killing grass is now the same as murder. Huzzah! and you replied with In real world: Yes, grass are living things. But murder is a question of law; not killing. D&D and real world: Murder is killing without authority. Killing is killing someone. So unless grass has legal rights: you can't murder it. Is killing the grass evil? Possibly, not in D&D. Grass is'nt alive. Plants have no type in D&D: plant type only covers intelligent plants. Thus plants are not alive. Are plants undead? Maybe.
IRememberCecil 09-01-07, 12:06 AM	I concede that nothing by RAW says that it is an evil act. I DO think that most DMs wouldnt tolerate almost any situation of raising corpses of sentient creatures as anything but a malignant act (By that token, necrophilia could also not be considered an evil act, but Im sure many DMs wouldnt allow a good character to commit it.) But why? By the rules, corpses are objects. If they are going to get treated like people (which they aren't, since anything that was there is gone now), it opens up a lot of problems ("Why can I take its stuff but not raise it? And more importantly, why can't I have sex with it?"). It's best to leave them as they are: The intellectual and emotional equals of end tables. As for the last part about allowing acts to be performed, the DM is not within his rights to take control of the players' characters. I have a feeling it wasn't what you meant, but just I addressed it, just in case. :thumbsup: GODS I hope 4th edition clarifies this. Me too. I don't care what decision they make, but I want it well supported and internally consistent with the rest of the system. I didn't think I needed to address your other points since I'm not really arguing at this point.
Optimator 09-01-07, 02:35 AM	Which is your opinion. The alignment rules are applied by the DM, the end. Wow, I've never seen an Oberoni Fallacy about alignment before.
OneWinged4ngel 09-01-07, 04:32 AM	Wow, I've never seen an Oberoni Fallacy about alignment before. It's not really the oberoni fallacy here though. The alignment rules *are* applied by the DM, because we don't actually *have* alignment rules that make a lick of sense and don't contradict themselves every other page or even paragraph. And they are ANYTHING but concrete rules (they are quite vague and ill-defined). Alignment is applied differently between just about every published setting, and even by just about every different writer. Some of the more inconsistent writers even contradict themselves. As a result of this, you basically have to be responsible for deciding what alignment means in *your* game. Alignment systems differ wildly by game (and half the time, they're totally arbitrary and illogical). There is no consistent alignment system defined in the PHB or in either of the alignment books (they are, quite simply, thoroughly vague and self-contradictory), and thus everyone basically makes up their own. You can't actually argue RAW on alignment, because RAW constantly contradicts itself on this matter and is therefore pretty much a worthless basis for an argument.
High Octane 09-01-07, 05:57 AM	But why? By the rules, corpses are objects. If they are going to get treated like people (which they aren't, since anything that was there is gone now), it opens up a lot of problems ("Why can I take its stuff but not raise it? And more importantly, why can't I have sex with it?"). It's best to leave them as they are: The intellectual and emotional equals of end tables. As for the last part about allowing acts to be performed, the DM is not within his rights to take control of the players' characters. I have a feeling it wasn't what you meant, but just I addressed it, just in case. :thumbsup: No it wasn't what I meant, I agree that a DM has no right to take control of a character, but he does have the right to shift an alignment, or more to the point refuse to DM for a character played as such (for the necrophilia). Then again this reaction would be mostly because the behavior is more shocking...somehow... to have sex with the corpse than turning it into a zombie or skeleton. I do think that only DMs that are extremely lax about enforcing alignments will allow the creation of undead and still remain good. Me too. I don't care what decision they make, but I want it well supported and internally consistent with the rest of the system. Exactly. If the spell didn't have the evil descriptor AND be banned from use by good clerics I might be willing to concede that its creation wasn't evil by RAW, and that deciding it was evil was house ruling. But the spell DOES have the evil descriptor and good clerics ARE barred from using it, so I feel that the system is INDICATING or at the very least HINTING that it should be an evil act. I can't help but wonder if they are intentionally avoiding saying so or not.
Cartigan 09-01-07, 06:52 AM	Wow, I've never seen an Oberoni Fallacy about alignment before. I murder a child. But I do it because he will turn into Darth Vader. What is my alignment result.
Nephlite 09-01-07, 10:59 AM	No they lack wisdom and intelligence. Roses GOT charisma. They got enough charisma to make any woman in the world melt (unless they are allergic to roses). No, Pretty does not mean Charisma. Pg 297 makes that clear about Plant type. Why do you argue with the rules as written. This is like arguing with a brick wall. :( At least say, in your world or opinion: plants shouldn't be objects. Sheesh, this is making me lavenous.
IRememberCecil 09-01-07, 01:26 PM	It's not really the oberoni fallacy here though. The alignment rules *are* applied by the DM, because we don't actually *have* alignment rules that make a lick of sense and don't contradict themselves every other page or even paragraph. And they are ANYTHING but concrete rules (they are quite vague and ill-defined). Actually, in Core, only the Law-Chaos axis is ill-defined (because you can make a character that has traits from both alignments and still be Chaotic or Lawful). The Good-Evil axis is not self-contradictory or poorly defined.
OneWinged4ngel 09-01-07, 01:52 PM	Actually, in Core, only the Law-Chaos axis is ill-defined (because you can make a character that has traits from both alignments and still be Chaotic or Lawful). The Good-Evil axis is not self-contradictory or poorly defined. Yeah, it really is. Chaos/Law is just far worse, since they barely differ on any point except semantics. You can have pretty much the exact same character and call him Lawful or Chaotic and justify it.
IRememberCecil 09-01-07, 02:03 PM	Yeah, it really is. Good = Exaltation of moral innocence. Evil = Exaltation of those worthy. That's what they imply. The only difference between how they are applied is between consequentialists/deonotologists (and all derived philosophies of each). That's the real problem, not the definitions themselves. Chaos/Law is just far worse, since they barely differ on any point except semantics. You can have pretty much the exact same character and call him Lawful or Chaotic and justify it. Yes, I know. Chaos/Law needs to be more clearly defined. I'll just throw something out there right now: Chaos = Exaltation of individuality. Law = Exaltation of the whole. It's more clearly defined like that since it only considers your philosophy, and not your personality traits.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-01-07, 03:24 PM	I murder a child. But I do it because he will turn into Darth Vader. What is my alignment result. Chaotic Stupid. Stupid because you don't see the inherent logical problem with trying to change a fate set in stone (iow, either he wasn't certain to become Darth Vader, or there was no way you could kill him to prevent him from doing so). Chaotic because you willingly defied what you believe to be the ultimate authority (which fate must be if it exists and works). For further evidence of your Chaotic Stupid alignment, please see every other post you've made in this thread.
IRememberCecil 09-01-07, 03:30 PM	For further evidence of your Chaotic Stupid alignment, please see every other post you've made in this thread. Oh snap.
Cartigan 09-01-07, 05:33 PM	Chaotic Stupid. Stupid because you don't see the inherent logical problem with trying to change a fate set in stone (iow, either he wasn't certain to become Darth Vader, or there was no way you could kill him to prevent him from doing so). Chaotic because you willingly defied what you believe to be the ultimate authority (which fate must be if it exists and works). For further evidence of your Chaotic Stupid alignment, please see every other post you've made in this thread. Chaotic Stupid isn't an alignment. You fail.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 09-01-07, 05:33 PM	Chaotic Stupid isn't an alignment. You fail. No, he wins and you fail.
Cartigan 09-01-07, 07:18 PM	No, he wins and you fail. You can join iremembercecil up there on his high horse where I'm not listening to him. You've resorted to answering any valid questions with asshattism. If you can't do any better than that, you fail.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 09-01-07, 07:21 PM	You can join iremembercecil up there on his high horse where I'm not listening to him. You've resorted to answering any valid questions with asshattism. If you can't do any better than that, you fail. I tried. It just wasn't working and wasn't worth it. So I decided to mock you instead.
IRememberCecil 09-01-07, 09:50 PM	Chaotic Stupid isn't an alignment. You fail. No, he did a pretty good job at mocking you. And seriously, it was very much called for. I adhere to the philosophy that everyone gets one irrational belief that I won't tear into and make a mockery of. What you've been arguing in this thread is yours.
Galeigh 09-01-07, 10:29 PM	I always pull the ole' Chaotic good alignment out, to do anything it takes to do whatever good ideal/diety you've devoted yourself too, even if means making a few kobolds go undead and bend to your will :D this reasoning only works with an open minded DM mind you...
OneWinged4ngel 09-01-07, 10:40 PM	I adhere to the philosophy that everyone gets one irrational belief that I won't tear into and make a mockery of. I just found yours. Bah, you're too lenient.
IRememberCecil 09-01-07, 10:49 PM	Bah, you're too lenient. Really? I do it because I don't want to attack religious people for the sole reason that they're religious (I'm not petty and small like some atheists are [not specifically directed at you or anything]). Now I'm just hoping that Cartigan isn't religious.
Optimator 09-01-07, 11:39 PM	Here's to hoping. :pint:
Objulen 09-02-07, 11:33 AM	In real world: Yes, grass are living things. But murder is a question of law; not killing. D&D and real world: Murder is killing without authority. Killing is killing someone. So unless grass has legal rights: you can't murder it. Is killing the grass evil? Possibly, not in D&D. Grass is'nt alive. Plants have no type in D&D: plant type only covers intelligent plants. Thus plants are not alive. Are plants undead? Maybe. Again, "the rules say so logic". I'm quite aware of how the moral system in D&D works -- it just doesn't work for me. What we basically have is a system designed to provide eeeeeeeeeeeevil horrors to be harrowed from existence by the players. That's all well and good, but I prefer a bit more depth to my PnP gaming experience. If I only wanted to kill monsters and steal their loot, I can always pick from one of the plethora of MMO's on the market, or Diablo 2 if I'd rather avoid the monthly fees. Here's an example -- does it make sense to have a level 3 spell that is more powerful than a level 6 spell? The answer to that is no, even if it's printed by WotC. We have the same situation with necromancy and undead. Simply because WotC printed rules saying that undead and necromancy are evil doesn't mean that those rules make sense.
Objulen 09-02-07, 11:57 AM	Objulen definitely makes a good point. I myself believe that animating dead should be an evil act, it certainly is set UP to be an evil act, but nothing ever says casting eviul spells is an evil act or what the effects are. Basically I was about to say why, then I realized that anything I said would mostly be a house ruling since nothing in the rules says so. I concede that nothing by RAW says that it is an evil act. I DO think that most DMs wouldnt tolerate almost any situation of raising corpses of sentient creatures as anything but a malignant act (By that token, necrophilia could also not be considered an evil act, but Im sure many DMs wouldnt allow a good character to commit it.) But the rules are incredibly vague for alignment purposes, almost as if they are trying to make people argue over this on purpose. At the very least they should go into how casting evil spells affects your alignment (other than clerics cannot cast spells with a descriptor opposed to their alignment) If they at least provided a few lines that state "Casting a spell with an alignment descriptor is in itself normally an act consistent with that alignment (depending on the intent and circumstances). Even if circumstances negate the alignment of the spell, continual casting of a spell aligned as such can have an effect on a person's mindset. If a person casts a spell with an alignment descriptor opposite that of his current alignment on a regular basis, he is likely to be turned neutral on that axis (at the DM's discretion) due to the fact that consistent channeling of aligned energies has an effect on the person's mind. Neutral characters do not risk this by default." Then this would not be an issue. Or they could simply state that creating undead is evil. Or if necessary, they could state that creating MINDLESS undead is NOT an evil act and that good character CAN in fact do it. Simply put, it doesnt answer the question. It only sort of IMPLIES that it is an evil act, but even then it is incredibly unclear, since by default nothing is evil necessarily until it says so!! GODS I hope 4th edition clarifies this. Here's the basic issue: One states that creating undead is evil. This begs the question: Why? Of course, this can apply to anything. Stealing, for example. But the issue we have here is one of reality vs. fantasy. People know that stealing and murder is wrong because we grow up in societies that consider it wrong, and we have a string of philosophers, thinkings, and theologists from now to how ever many hundreds of years ago giving us reasons for why it's wrong to rape, plunder, and pillage. It's also very easy to conceptualize what it would be like to suffer this, to an extent. People fear death, loss, and violation, and that's nothing new. Undeath isn't real. People might have mused about it when it was believed to be real, but in most first world nations, no one believes that you can get back up after you really, really, die, unless it's some sort of strange device using nano-tech we won't see for 10,000 years (possibly an exaggeration). We don't know what it would be like to move around after we die, since no one's done it, and no one knows what things are like after we die, so we can't really say for certain how that's going to be. So, here's the gist -- death isn't evil, it's extreme entropy in a living system, and saying entropy is evil is like saying a storm is evil. That doesn't work from an objective view point, since storms and entropy don't have free will. So what makes wielding entropy (i.e. negative energy) to create undead evil? Well, there are plenty of possible explanations that can be used. We can say that entropy is evil, which works in a fantasy setting where you can create malign influences from entropy, sort of like if the Abyss were also the genesis of all entropy; fantasy is often metaphor, and the human struggle against decay and erosion is a perfectly good one. But it only works in a limited setting; I like LotR, but the constant black and white just doesn't fit the bill for me all the time, especially for something that's supposed to be so universal, like D&D. Thus, we end up with the undead are evil or necromancers are evil conundrum, but not always. If manipulation death-energy isn't inherently evil, then there's no reason why simply using negative energy should be evil. So we're stuck with coming up with ways to make animating dead evil. A simple one is this -- animating undead uses human souls, stopping them from reaching the afterlife, or plucking them from the afterlife, etc. Enslaving people is wrong, and thus so is enslaving their essences. However, in this case, it's hard to say that undead are simply evil, because if you're an intelligent undead, then that's actually you running that rotting corpse, and there's no real reason why you should have a sudden personality shift. Of course, you aren't operating under the same conditions you were before, and may easily end up evil, depending on what your new condition forces you to do -- take a look at Vampire: the Requiem or the Masquerade for ways to handle undeath as a curse. Technically, though, creating an intelligent undead out of a person who wanted to become undead isn't evil with the above. But still, most necromancers with undead hordes will be evil. Also note that you can use human souls to animate undead without it being evil, depending on how the setting works. Non-evil necromancers may be members of a guild or tradition that was given their power over human souls by some divine agency, with their own codes of conduct, etc, and would actually be for some interesting story setting. Moving on, however, undead could be evil, but then we're stuck with the problem of Jane suddenly becoming a hideous monster even though she's still Jane. We can explain this, however, with curses and the like, and that may be the best way to explain why necromancy is evil -- it traps a soul in such an pain and torment that it is driven mad with hatred of the living. If we're justing using "evil spirits" implanted in bodies who happen to have access to memories, then it's hard to say that using Control Undead on them is somehow immoral, since if we're using them for good, then we're stopping evil spirits form doing evil somewhere else. In the end, though, undead in D&D are alot like aberrations in D&D -- cannon fodder. You can make undead and necromancers good, evil, neutral, or any combination of the above depending on how you present it in your setting and the fluff you stick behind it. However, since alignment in D&D is generally used as a way to paint NPCs as being "good" or "bad", I'd hesitate before expecting WotC to make a real fix for the problem.
Ack 09-02-07, 05:41 PM	The real reason why raising undead is 'evil' and also makes the resultant raised undead evil as well? Play balance. Otherwise it would be, "Hey, as a member of the undead I'm immune to some weapons, I don't have to breathe, eat or sleep, and I get some damn cool powers? Sign me up!" People would be offing their characters left, right and centre to get in on the action.
IRememberCecil 09-02-07, 06:19 PM	The real reason why raising undead is 'evil' and also makes the resultant raised undead evil as well? Play balance. Otherwise it would be, "Hey, as a member of the undead I'm immune to some weapons, I don't have to breathe, eat or sleep, and I get some damn cool powers? Sign me up!" People would be offing their characters left, right and centre to get in on the action. That's ********. Alignment plays no part whatsoever in balancing anything. And you were also working under the assumption that it is Evil, something I've already debunked.
High Octane 09-02-07, 07:04 PM	That's ********. Alignment plays no part whatsoever in balancing anything. It sometimes acts as a deterrent. Mechanically, no it plays very little into it, but the game is traditionally played by good and neutral characters, and the adventures tend to be geared towards the players being good or neutral (look at how many monsters in the monster manual are evil verse how many are good. Many of the good ones are obviously meant to be either playable as races, or usable as a race of innocents or victims (the town the party must save)). Look at monster manual 4 and races of the dragon. The evil dragons are turned into shock troops and cannon fodder, whereas the good dragons add a template and classes that are clearly meant to be the players.
IRememberCecil 09-02-07, 07:23 PM	Yeah, that's about it. I remember one of the first threads I was a part of here on these boards (June or July '05), where someone asked why the Assassin had to be Evil-aligned? Someone answered: "Balance." Then I knew I had work to do. And I've been "correcting" people ever since.
Nephlite 09-02-07, 08:17 PM	Moving on, however, undead could be evil, but then we're stuck with the problem of Jane suddenly becoming a hideous monster even though she's still Jane. We can explain this, however, with curses and the like, and that may be the best way to explain why necromancy is evil -- it traps a soul in such an pain and torment that it is driven mad with hatred of the living. If we're justing using "evil spirits" implanted in bodies who happen to have access to memories, then it's hard to say that using Control Undead on them is somehow immoral, since if we're using them for good, then we're stopping evil spirits form doing evil somewhere else. But non-intelligent Undead just stand there like automatons. So assuming they "hate" the living: tough luck: they can't do a thing about it. They have to be ordered. So again, evil undead require evil necromancers. Good Necromancers would never use the undead for evil so why should these undead have an alignment. In the end, though, undead in D&D are alot like aberrations in D&D -- cannon fodder. You can make undead and necromancers good, evil, neutral, or any combination of the above depending on how you present it in your setting and the fluff you stick behind it. However, since alignment in D&D is generally used as a way to paint NPCs as being "good" or "bad", I'd hesitate before expecting WotC to make a real fix for the problem. I wish they would for the unintelligent undead: it makes alignment more consistent.
High Octane 09-03-07, 01:33 AM	Yeah, that's about it. I remember one of the first threads I was a part of here on these boards (June or July '05), where someone asked why the Assassin had to be Evil-aligned? Someone answered: "Balance." Then I knew I had work to do. Real reason: Assassins were required to be evil in earlier editions. No reason to change that considering the assassin is a pretty dark class to play and often works more as a villain than a hero.
IRememberCecil 09-03-07, 05:43 AM	Real reason: Assassins were required to be evil in earlier editions. No reason to change that considering the assassin is a pretty dark class to play and often works more as a villain than a hero. Since it's like that for no other reason, then it needs to be dragged into the proverbial street and executed like the sacred cow that it is.
Objulen 09-03-07, 07:26 AM	The real reason why raising undead is 'evil' and also makes the resultant raised undead evil as well? Play balance. Otherwise it would be, "Hey, as a member of the undead I'm immune to some weapons, I don't have to breathe, eat or sleep, and I get some damn cool powers? Sign me up!" People would be offing their characters left, right and centre to get in on the action. No, that's what LA and ECL is for. You can make undead characters, and the Libris Mortis has monster classes for several undead creatures from 1 to whatever the HD + LA equals to, including "dead levels" where they get new abilities but no HD. Sure, you may be immune to a bunch of stuff as an undead, but that's +2 LA right off the bat for the bonuses. So no, alignment has nothing to do with play balance. Evil undead have the same rules to balance them as good undead.
Objulen 09-03-07, 07:28 AM	Real reason: Assassins were required to be evil in earlier editions. No reason to change that considering the assassin is a pretty dark class to play and often works more as a villain than a hero. Eh. An assassin is basically a rogue that kills things. Then again, most everyone of any class in D&D kills things, so I don't see why Assassins should be penalized for their proficiency. A dark class, yes, but I'd say that it should at least be non-good; the "kill random person x to show that you mean it" stuff is sort of silly.
Objulen 09-03-07, 07:33 AM	But non-intelligent Undead just stand there like automatons. So assuming they "hate" the living: tough luck: they can't do a thing about it. They have to be ordered. So again, evil undead require evil necromancers. Good Necromancers would never use the undead for evil so why should these undead have an alignment. Actually, according to the rules, anything without an intelligence score is supposed to be neutral. Another rules inconsistency FTW. Mindless undead are often depicted as rampaging against the living because of their innate "need" to consume life and be naughty bags of bones. Controlled ones would simply obey their master -- but in either event, since they have no intelligence score, they would be neutral, not evil. Why are they evil? Because that's what there stat block says. Other than that, there's really no reason.
IRememberCecil 09-03-07, 07:52 AM	Actually, according to the rules, anything without an intelligence score is supposed to be neutral. Another rules inconsistency FTW. Mindless undead are often depicted as rampaging against the living because of their innate "need" to consume life and be naughty bags of bones. Controlled ones would simply obey their master -- but in either event, since they have no intelligence score, they would be neutral, not evil. Why are they evil? Because that's what there stat block says. Other than that, there's really no reason. Thing is, another rule of WotC is that "text trumps table." The alignment entries (text) clearly state something to the effect of what you said, and the stat block is a table.
Objulen 09-03-07, 08:11 AM	Thing is, another rule of WotC is that "text trumps table." The alignment entries (text) clearly state something to the effect of what you said, and the stat block is a table. However, I doubt that any official WotC D&D game that uses 3.5 rules defaults mindless undead to neutral. Ah well. We can gripe about rules inconsistencies all day -- I've made those posts before, and frankly, I've no real desire to rehash them just to reminisce. Either WotC will expand the fluff and rational behind undead and necromancy or they won't, and leave it upto the player base to do so.
High Octane 09-03-07, 06:37 PM	Since it's like that for no other reason, then it needs to be dragged into the proverbial street and executed like the sacred cow that it is. I don't mind people thinking that just because things were a way in a former edition that they can't be changed, but to change something just because it was in a former edition is just as blind. If it doesn't work then change it, but what about the Assassin class being evil does not work? I think it fits the flavor of the class. An Assassin class is designed to kill using any means necessary and the idea behind it is killing the target of whoever pays the bills without question. The Assassins would only accept those who would be too callous or greedy to care who they are killing, or so psychopathic as to enjoy killing anyone and anything they are told to. Now could you have a neutral or even good assassin, but not an Assassin (capitalization indicates part of the prestige class, whereas lower case means anyone hired to kill someone.) Nothing says the DM can't change the pre-requisites to work for a good or neutral character for the same mechanics, but more to the point no one says an assassin needs to be part of the prestige class. But the point of the prestige class is that an Assassin is part of a guild or group that specializes in that sort of thing, and any group that would specialize in killing anybody at all for money would pretty much be evil by default.
Nephlite 09-03-07, 06:42 PM	I don't mind people thinking that just because things were a way in a former edition that they can't be changed, but to change something just because it was in a former edition is just as blind. If it doesn't work then change it, but what about the Assassin class being evil does not work? I think it fits the flavor of the class. An Assassin class is designed to kill using any means necessary and the idea behind it is killing the target of whoever pays the bills without question. The Assassins would only accept those who would be too callous or greedy to care who they are killing, or so psychopathic as to enjoy killing anyone and anything they are told to. Now could you have a neutral or even good assassin, but not an Assassin (capitalization indicates part of the prestige class, whereas lower case means anyone hired to kill someone.) Nothing says the DM can't change the pre-requisites to work for a good or neutral character for the same mechanics, but more to the point no one says an assassin needs to be part of the prestige class. But the point of the prestige class is that an Assassin is part of a guild or group that specializes in that sort of thing, and any group that would specialize in killing anybody at all for money would pretty much be evil by default. WotC made the Avenger on the website: a Lawful any Assasin. Everything is the same, but Alignment requirement. Except: to join kill someone for no reason, but enemy of state.
IRememberCecil 09-03-07, 06:52 PM	I don't mind people thinking that just because things were a way in a former edition that they can't be changed, but to change something just because it was in a former edition is just as blind. You missed my point. Sacred cows should be killed if they're crappy or poorly thought out. If it doesn't work then change it, but what about the Assassin class being evil does not work? I think it fits the flavor of the class. An Assassin class is designed to kill using any means necessary and the idea behind it is killing the target of whoever pays the bills without question. The Assassins would only accept those who would be too callous or greedy to care who they are killing, or so psychopathic as to enjoy killing anyone and anything they are told to. But the thing is, the class itself makes an excellent bounty hunter. Its Death Attack can be used to paralyze targets, for example, and its spells can be used to track them down. Furthermore, you don't actually have to kill people for money. The class is a set of skills that can be used for whatever purpose the user wants. Nothing says the DM can't change the pre-requisites to work for a good or neutral character for the same mechanics, but more to the point no one says an assassin needs to be part of the prestige class. That's also missing the point. For the purpose of argument, we should assume that the person wanting to take the class wants to take it because of all of its skills and abilities together. As in, the exact class. The skillset. Not the ability to call themselves an assassin. But the point of the prestige class is that an Assassin is part of a guild or group that specializes in that sort of thing, and any group that would specialize in killing anybody at all for money would pretty much be evil by default. That part of the flavor would be implicitly removed if the alignment requirement was. Consider them the same deal so you don't fall into a vicious cycle of circular reasoning.
Objulen 09-04-07, 08:28 AM	But the point of the prestige class is that an Assassin is part of a guild or group that specializes in that sort of thing, and any group that would specialize in killing anybody at all for money would pretty much be evil by default. Which is true to an extent, but it's a generic, somewhat cheesy, "kill someone to prove you care" type requirement that ends up falling flat on its face IMHO. As for the assassin in general, it depends on context. An assassin is a rogue that specializes in kill things -- which could be evil orc generals laying waste to the country side as easily as a contract to take out some poor bastard who is going to testify against a crime lord. I'm not going to say that it's the most virtuous vocation, but then again most countries in the world today have official groups that could be described in a large part as assassins, from intelligence operatives to special forces units. If the assassin were more detailed, or had some background it, I wouldn't object, but creating a generic assassin class and making it evil smacks of the same sort of creative laziness that made necromancers and undead all evil. At the very least a side bar called "Assassins in Your World" would be nice; then you can create different organizations that use assassins and restrict alignment based on how you want to use the class in your game, instead of the current, generic, and uninspired situation.
High Octane 09-04-07, 12:41 PM	That's also missing the point. For the purpose of argument, we should assume that the person wanting to take the class wants to take it because of all of its skills and abilities together. As in, the exact class. The skillset. Not the ability to call themselves an assassin. I missed what point exactly? I just SAID that nothing is preventing a DM from changing the pre-requisites (i.e the evil alignment and the slaying of someone just to join the assassins) in order to allow the player to use the mechanics. As for an "Assassins in your world" type of article, that is a good idea. But no one came up with such a thing at the point when the 3.5 DMG came out. articles like that didn't appear until halfway through the complete series.
spectralphoenix 09-04-07, 01:29 PM	If it doesn't work then change it, but what about the Assassin class being evil does not work? I think it fits the flavor of the class. An Assassin class is designed to kill using any means necessary and the idea behind it is killing the target of whoever pays the bills without question. How is the Death Attack inherently more evil than a standard rogues SA? They both function on the principle of sneaking up on someone and stabbing them as lethally and unfairly as possible, and a sufficiently powerful SA results in a target just as dead as one killed by an assassin. And nothing in the class mechanics require an Assassin to be paid for his work. The Assassins would only accept those who would be too callous or greedy to care who they are killing, or so psychopathic as to enjoy killing anyone and anything they are told to. But there is no group of assassins accepting people! The class is generic. Now if your campaign world had a group of assassins who were like that, and the only way to get into the PrC was to get special training from them, then sure all Assassins might be evil. But it would be because they joined the group, not the PrC.
IRememberCecil 09-04-07, 02:51 PM	I missed what point exactly? I just SAID that nothing is preventing a DM from changing the pre-requisites (i.e the evil alignment and the slaying of someone just to join the assassins) in order to allow the player to use the mechanics. I originally stated that if it's a tradition being upheld for no good reason, then it should not be upheld. Your answer was: I don't mind people thinking that just because things were a way in a former edition that they can't be changed, but to change something just because it was in a former edition is just as blind. So you did, in fact, miss my point (my point wasn't that tradition should be torn down just because it's tradition), but that only means that we agree on the issue.