Character Concepts:Non-Evil Necromancer

[RedMage125]

Hello all, in a recent discussion with a buddy of mine, we were discussing Necromancy, and its moral applications.

Now, I have heard any number of people who defend the idea of a "non-evil necromancer" with such drivvel as "animating the dead isn't even what necromancy's about", and things like that.

Well, I call Shenanigans. The classic trope of a Necromancer is that of a caster who raises corpses to be his thralls.

But all undead-creating spells carry the Evil descriptor, right? So, by RAW, casting those spells is an Evil act, yes? So, how to make a possible character who was not only able, but also willing to employ such methods, without being Evil (or turning to Evil) himself?

I came up with a character concept of a guy who comes from a society that is in many ways like Ancient Egypt, in terms of reverence for the afterlife, and obsession with death. Wee Jas is the primary patron of this culture, as so many of her tenets fit very well. Undead are used in this society as slave labor, arrow fodder in times of war, and more. Being turned into an undead creature is frequently used as a punishment for cirminals, as they are denied the afterlife and forced to serve the hierarchy whose laws they have violated. The character in question holds the position of State Necromancer, and he openly practices necromancy. His other obligations would include preparation of the bodies of those who are to be properly buried, and judgement of criminals. He would be Lawful Neutral, and very devoted to ideas of justice, in many ways behaving as one would expect from a Lawful Good character, excepting only that he considers use of Evil means on Evil creatures as acceptable. He would have no qualms about animating the corpses of orcs, monsters, or anything else the party defeated, as they are unburied corpses. The one restriction, however, is that this character would NEVER violate a properly buried corpse, such would be a major violation of his idiom.

It does create at least one bit of a story problem for DMs, though, in that this character would refuse to participate in any dungeon crawl that involved violating a tomb. And if doing so was absolutely necessary, he would do everything in his power to keep the party from looting anything from the tomb, unless a Speak With Dead with the Primary Resident of the tomb secured permission for taking anything.

That's the fluff for this character, and I wanted to share that with people here. The game I was going to get to run this guy in never got off the ground, so I'm offering the concept up to anyone who wants to cherry-pick some ideas off of it, or annex it wholesale is fine with me.

Mechanics aren't really important as far as why I posted this, but here's what I had...

When this was just in the planning stages, I envisioned him as a Dread Necromancer/Cleric multiclass going into True Necromancer(probably DN4/Clr3/TN13)...and then I actually gave that PrC a more than cursory glance. It sucks pretty hard. I mainly thought of him as arcane/divine because his position as State Necromancer in a culture that so prevalently worships Wee Jas seemed to indicate that he was a member of the clergy. MAD wasn't a big problem, since this DM uses rolled stats and I rolled a phenomenal stat array in front of him. Nothing below a 12, and 2 18s.

Looking back on it, I could have kept him straight Dread Necro (maybe taking a PrC), and had his position as a clergyman be flavor text. The Lich Body transformation could easily be re-flavored as gradual mummification. And the staright-DN level 20 full transformation could be flavored as a special kind of mummy lord. The phyalctery sort of making sense (conatining his baa or ka), but more likely being a box containing his 6 canopic jars.

Anyways, the mechanics are less relevant for what I wanted to share. I'm sure the optimizers on these boards could have a field day making that character work great mechanically. Even going Arcane/Divine could work, if one went Dread Necro 8/Ur-Priest 2/Mystic Theurge 8/Paragnostic Apostle 2, would have level 9 arcane/divine spells, would rebuke as a level 14 cleric (with Undead Mastery), and (with Practiced Spellcaster) would have a Caster Level of 20 for DN spells and cleric spells. Sadly, the DM is pretty fluff-mutable on a lot of things, but not on Ur-Priest, which would require him to explicitly NOT worship a deity. And this build would be pretty MAD for anyone who didn't roll crazy stats like I did (seriously, they were ridiculous, something like 18, 18, 16, 14, 15, 12).

Anyways...what do you all think? Once again, feel free (players and DMs) to cherry-pick from this or snag it wholesale. My stance on everything I creatively construct for D&D is "Plagarism is the Greatest Form of Flattery", so...enjoy.

Edit: Here's something I typed up regarding this character's homeland. I'm adding ti to the OP for anyone new to the thread:
My character's name is Sibuna-hotep, by the way.

Spoiler

Show

Here’s what I’ve come up with for my character’s home nation. Text in brackets [] denotes metagame text or information. Text in double asterisks denotes details best left to the DM to decide, sometimes with placeholder names.
The nation of Khasim [home of Sibuna-hotep]
Current Ruler: Pharaoh Imra-hoten IV [Lawful Good male aasimar Aristocrat 10]

History/Geography: Khasim is a nation that sits in the middle of the **Lakhara** Desert, located in the **South/West/Whatever** of the **X** Continent. The wide, fertile valley of the **Calim** River runs through the otherwise arid desert, and almost all cities and towns that owe allegiance to Khasim are located in that valley. Legend has it that the nation was founded by Khasim Al-govrod, known now as the first pharaoh of Khasim, Potiphar I [Potiphar means something along the lines of “sent from Ra” in Egyptian, so I adapted that as meaning “sent from god/heaven”], who gave the nation his name and took another for himself. Khasim was a grand vizier and High Priest of Wee Jas in the ancient Empire of **insert name of ancient, destroyed empire in your world, although if you’re at all going with 4e influences, I’ll call it Nerath**. When Nerath fell, Khasim gathered as many followers and other refugees as he could and fled, the Army of Ruin hot on their heels. He led them deep into the **Lakhara** Desert, and the Army of Ruin, believing them to have gone to their deaths, did not follow. After wandering for weeks, and running out of water, the refugees were facing death. Khasim prayed to Wee Jas, and pleaded for assistance. She sent powerful divine emissaries to assist Khasim, and led them to the **Calim** River. The refugees, grateful for the divine aid that saved their lives, all pledged to honor and worship Wee Jas above all other gods. They built the town of Ankhetra, now the capital city of the nation of Khasim. It is said that Khasim fell in love with one of the celestial emissaries of Wee Jas [an archon, as they are Lawful Good, and could serve her; an angel in 4e], and she bore him a half-mortal child. This began a tradition of the Pharaohs of Khasim always being chosen for their “divine heritage”.

Government: Although Khasim himself was a powerful cleric, his child was not. Nonetheless, as a child with celestial blood, the priesthood held her in high regard, even reverence, a tradition that has continued down throughout the Potiphar Dynasty to this very day. Khasim, like any other nation, has its aristocracy and its commoners. The merchant class stands somewhere in between. The clergy stand somewhat apart from the rest of society, and although commoners chosen or called to serve in the priesthood are thus elevated above their station, there is a glass ceiling for their ascent, as only those of noble blood are permitted to rise to the higher seats of power, even within the Church. To outside nations, Khasim is viewed as a theocracy, because the clergy holds so many positions of power and authority in the nation. As a quick summation, this is close enough to be correct, but there is more to it than that. The aristocracy-commoner division is a secular one, and many nobles have little to no affiliation with the church, other than as lay worshippers (although a rich enough noble may have a personal chaplain in their home). The Pharaoh himself (or herself, but currently a man) is a secular ruler [male or female aasimar, may or may not have levels in PC classes], who has authority within (and over) the Church. For their part, the people of Khasim view their Pharaoh as both the leader of their nation and as a religious personage, as he has divine blood. Potiphar I laid down a series of laws when he formed his nation, many of which were based off the legal code of Ancient Nerath, but also in keeping with religious doctrine of Wee Jas. The laws have not changed significantly over the centuries and are known collectively as The Code of Potiphar. Slavery is legal in Khasim, but slaves occupy an unusual position in the legal code, as they are both people and property. While a master has a right to punish a slave for disobedience, excessive cruelty towards one’s slaves could be met with consequences. As such, slaves have some rights, but not many. Sometimes free Khasimites voluntarily enter into service as a slave to another, but such is a unique contractual scenario with a limited amount of time (typically 10 years), after which, the former slave is given a payment, agreed upon in the slave-contract. In order for such a contract to be legal, the slave-contract must be notarized by a magistrate (typically a magus), and is kept with local legal records. Slavery is not inherent, if a child is born to two slaves, that child is a free citizen, albeit usually of the lowest social caste.

Religion: Worship of Wee Jas is very widespread throughout Khasim. Officially, it is the only state religion. Worship of other deities is not exactly illegal, but a worshipper of a different deity would be very socially aberrant to the rest of society, and almost no native Khasimites worship anyone other than Wee Jas. There are no temples to other deities anywhere in Khasim, but wealthy foreigners may have a chapel in their homes. The Church itself is headed by the Grand High Magus [The Dragon article ascribed the title of “magus” to Wee Jas’ clergy, and “high magus” to be title of great respect. “Jasdrin” is, apparently, an appellation for any worshipper of Wee Jas], who supports and advises the Pharaoh (although historically, some weaker rulers have been controlled by the Grand High Magus from behind the throne). The Grand High Magus is responsible for the overall spiritual well-being of the people of Khasim, and has the authority to deal with all internal Church matters. The Church, however IS the government of Khasim, as far as government officials go. Almost all government officials at the very least hold the title of “magus” [Cleric of at least 5th level, although other classes may also be magi, see below], and they deal not only with religious duties, but also with government duties (judges, scribes, barristers, etc.). Everyday religious duties can be handled by lower-ranking clergy, and although any who can sufficiently demonstrate worthiness can be granted the title of “magus”, not every magus is a government official. Any clergyman granted the title of “high magus” [usually a cleric of 12th level or higher] is usually offered the opportunity to take on a position of more power and authority. The overall head of a town or city is almost always a high magus. As far as religious outlooks, Khasimite culture is very focused on the afterlife. The deeds of mortals in this life determine what fate they can expect in the next, which will be for eternity. For most law-abiding citizens, regardless of social caste, this will be an eternity of peaceful bliss.

Trade and Foreign Relations: Khasim is no longer as isolated as it once was, but potential trading partners still must send caravans through the **Lakhari** Desert to reach the **Calim** River Valley. Khasim’s most notable exports are textiles (to include Khasimite silk and cotton, both of which demand a high price among the wealthy of other nations), spices, paper, and, of course, a small but flourishing trade in magical goods. Khasim is largely self-sufficient enough that it does not depend on trade, but some foreign goods are very popular in Khasim. Beef is uncommon in Khasim and very expensive, as cows are not usually kept as herd animals due to the large amount of fertile land needed to sustain them. Dwarven ales and beers, for example, keep well along trade routes [like an IPA, they are both bitter and high in alcohol content]. Khasimite spellcasters (both magi and non-Church affiliated) always love to obtain some new magical spell, unique magic item, or construct from foreign lands. However, some of the peculiarities in Khasimite culture lead some other nations to prefer to not deal with them directly, as they feel ill at ease around them. This works well for those nations that do trade with Khasim, because they can charge import duties and levy extra charges on the Khasimite goods that their merchants deliver to other nations (hence the outrageous price of Khasmite silk in most lands).

Necromancy in Khasim: Necromancy, to include the creation of undead, is tolerated and even practiced openly in Khasim, making it unique among all the nations and peoples of **whatever the name of your world is**. In the past, this has led to conflict with other peoples, and misguided “heroes”. However, necromancy is exclusively the demesne of the Church, which polices the practice strictly. As the Church also holds all executive and judicial power in Khasim, this has given rise to the appellation “State Necromancer”, in reference to those magi whose duty it is to deal with the bodies of the dead. They may be members of any variety of classes, arcane or divine [frequently Cleric, Wizard (not always a necromancer), or Dread Necromancer]. Their duties include burial preparation (usually for mummification), and creation of undead. Even for a culture seemingly obsessed with death, this is a rather grim and unpleasant task. Wee Jas is a guardian of the spirits of the dead, and tolerates the loss of souls who volunteer for conversion to undeath (as their souls to not pass to her realm). As per the laws of Khasim, however, some crimes result in execution and summary conversion to undeath as a punishment (as these souls are denied the afterlife forever, and must now serve the very system whose laws they violated); Wee Jas accepts this as well. Such undead creatures are used in a variety of ways, such as simple slave labor or as warriors.

Ways to end up as an undead creature in Khasim:
• Murder (note that killing a slave is more “destruction of another’s property” than it is “murder”, and may result in the killer owing reparations to the slave’s master. However, killing one’s own slaves falls into “mistreatment of slaves” which is a separate crime, but still not murder).
• Treason (This would also apply to foreigners who attempt crimes against the Pharaoh or Grand High Magus, as well as a handful of other individuals of sufficient power and influence).
• Tomb Robbing (to include unsanctioned creation of undead).
• Trafficking with Fiends. [Although as a Lawful Neutral deity, Wee Jas’ clerics are able to cast Evil summoning spells in accordance with the rules, it is a crime in Khasim. It’s also a crime for arcane casters as well.]
• Voluntary Submission as a Guardian. More common among the servants of powerful individuals, such as nobles, a Grand High Magus, or Pharaoh; some of their servants volunteer to serve as mummies, eternally guarding the tomb. This self-sacrifice is viewed as a very honorable and noble act on the servant’s part, and is usually done out of love or devotion for their departed master.
• Selling One’s Body. Any free Khasimite may, at their option, contract their body to the Church (or, more correctly, the necromancers). After they die, their body is animated as an undead servant (usually either as labor or warrior), and their family receives a significant monetary payment [sort of like D&D life insurance, but it’s a sacrifice, as that family member is now denied the afterlife]. If a Khasimite dies in significant debt to another, the creditor may appeal to the magi to oversee his case. In which case, the deceased may be animated as an undead slave to serve a term determined by the magistrate as per the value of the debt. After such debt is paid off, the undead slave is destroyed and their spirit allowed to pass on.

The specific type of undead creature created depends on a number of factors, only the least of which is the spellcasting ability of the magi on hand (passing sentence can always be delayed until an appropriately powerful magi can be reached). A tomb robber found to be looting, for example, may be punished for his greed by being turned into a ghoul (and thus retaining his sentience), which is then rigidly controlled by the magi, and prohibited from ever feeding. Someone volunteering as a tomb guardian is usually a mummy, but other forms may be appropriate. Those that sell their bodies are usually turned into mindless forms of undead (such as zombies) and used as labor, this is viewed as the most merciful option because the undead creature retains almost no sentience and is little more than an automaton, forcing very little upon the soul of the deceased other than denial of afterlife. Incorporeal undead are infrequently used, unless the magi adjudicating a criminal offense deems it appropriate as a specific form of punishment. Khasim’s necromancers view incorporeal undead as an enslavement solely of the target’s ba and ka (aspects of one’s soul relating to individuality and life-force, respectively) outside of the body, leaving it to wander without ability to cease for eternity. This would be considered a more grievous form of punishment than simple zombification. Undead which pose an indiscriminate threat to those around them (such as bodaks, with their death gaze), are almost never used. Vampires are almost unheard of in Khasim, the almost omnipresent burning sun would make unlife as a vampire very difficult, and therefore unsuitable for the state to even get any use out of them. A Necromancer [of any class] may, at his or her own option, choose to enter a state of undeath. As this is voluntary, Khasimite law does not prohibit this, but most regular people still find undead unnerving. Some powerful magi (or other arcanists) do achieve lichdom. Such an individual’s condition is usually something of an “open secret”. No one has an actual objection to it, but out of respect for the living Khasimites around them, such liches usually either only go out in public disguised, or they sent servants out for whatever they may need. Their condition as an undead creature, however, is not usually discussed openly. This is both out of respect for someone who is technically “dead”, and because magic-users of the caliber necessary to achieve lichdom warrant enough respect as individuals that discussing their personal business is considered impolite.

Magic in Khasim: Wee Jas is a goddess of magic, and as such, users of magic are greatly respected. There are Magic Colleges that train arcane casters. These Colleges are run by the state (read as: the Church of Wee Jas), and thus are overseen by a high magus[who may be an acane or divine caster, see below], although the masters at the school are almost always arcane casters themselves. Individual casters are also permitted to take apprentices. Talent for arcane magic is one of the ways that a person may improve their social class standing. Children recognized for a talent for wizardry (or, more likely, sorcery) can be taken in by the Colleges or individual arcanists and trained. Upon completion of their apprenticeship, arcane casters may choose to take positions working for the Church. Sorcerers, in particular, are almost always taken in to be trained by the state-run Colleges when their talent is recognized, as the potential dangers involved in their lack of training. Regardless of whether or not they choose to join the employ of the state, as users of arcane magic they are, at a minimum, considered to be of the merchant class as far as social standing. Very talented arcanists can sometimes amass enough power and wealth to “buy their way in” to nobility, and may be granted noble titles (especially if they have performed a great service to the crown). Those arcanists who choose to enter the employ of the Church are, in fact, entering the priesthood. They are, in almost all respects, priests as far as the view of society is concerned [they are expected to have ranks in Knowledge (religion), and are under the authority of the Church as priests. They may on may not take on the social/judicial duties of the magi, and may earn the titles of “magus” and “high magus”].

The Royal Family: The bloodline of Potiphar I has continued through the generations, but there can only be one Pharaoh. The many siblings, cousins, aunts/uncles and nephews/nieces of the Pharaoh still have some measure of the divine blood of the original emissary of Wee Jas that led Khasim's founders to the **Calim** River. Nepotism is not uncommon among many societies, and many noble families have some relation to the royal family [they may be aasimar, lesser aasimar, or human]. For those distant royal relations, well-to-do positions, cushy state jobs, or even relative autonomy are easy to come by.

Where Sibuna fits in: Sibuna-hotep is the Pharaoh's third cousin, twice removed. He is no danger of ever being in the line of succession. He is, however, still of royal blood [as such I am considering making him a lesser aasimar instead of human, but the fluff fits with either], and that comes with a few benefits. He's a Dread Necromancer, and a magus. He's worked in Khasim as a magus, and now wants to head out on his own. He's got the family connections to let him walk away from his job, but he's still considered a magus of Khasim. Which means he's been invested by divine authority to mete out judgment and sentencing of evildoers, and has the skill set to animate said evildoers as undead.

Character Classes in Khasim:
• Barbarian – Not frequently found in the larger cities, barbarians can be found in smaller communities and among desert-dwelling nomads (not all of whom are affiliated with the nation of Khasim). Some variants, such as Totem of desert animals, may be appropriate.
• Bard – Bards can, of course, be found everywhere, and Khasim is no exception. Harbinger variant may be acceptable.
• Cleric – The prevalence of Wee Jas’ worship means clerics are very common. Clerics of deities other than Wee Jas are almost unheard of unless they are foreigners. Clerics of Wee Jas are always part of the Church and may earn the title of magus. Some variant Cleric classes may be acceptable, such as: Ancestral Speaker, Arcane Disciple, and Cloistered.
• Druid – Less common in Khasim, but not so rare as to be unheard of. Urban druids may be found in the cities, and the desert-dwellers may be totem druids, avengers, or focused animal druids
• Fighter – Fighters can be found the world over.
• Monk – Khasim has its own monastic traditions, most of which are affiliated with the Church of Wee Jas. Holy Monk variants, especially, can be found among them, as well as Sacred Path of Wee Jas.
• Paladin – Wee Jas’ church in Khasim, like elsewhere, trains paladins. Paladins of Wee Jas dislike working with or fighting alongside undead, due to the evil magicks involved in their creation, but it is not against their Code of Conduct to tolerate them (indeed, since Wee Jas’ ethos focus so much on obedience to law and authority, they’re actually obliged to tolerate them).
• Ranger – Rangers can be found in Khasim. Some variant abilities may be appropriate, as there are few “woodlands” in the **Calim** River valley.
• Rogue – Like Fighters, Rogues can be anywhere.
• Sorcerer – Mentioned in Magic section, above, when a child with innate magical talent is discovered, the magi usually take the child in to be trained in one of the Magic Colleges in the cities. This is done without cost, as it is considered less costly to society than leaving such an individual to learn to control their powers on their own. Sorcerers may join the priesthood and become magi.
• Wizard – Wizards are trained in both Magic Colleges and on a one-on-one basis by individual master/apprentice relationships. Wizards may join the priesthood and become magi. Necromancy specialists in particular, often work for the Church. Necromancer variants such as Deathwalker, and Skeletal Minion are common in Khasim
• Dread Necromancer – It should be no surprise that Dread Necromancers are found in Khasim, they usually assist with the magi (if they are not magi themselves) in burial preparations and creation of undead. A Khasimite Dread Necromancer’s “lich transformation” is instead a transformation into a unique type of mummy lord. Their gradual changes are a result of them mummifying their own bodies over time, through application on unguents, oils, and other substances to toughen their flesh. A level 20 Dread Necromancer’s phylactery is usually a sealed box containing the character’s vital organs, preserved in their canopic jars. These are usually stored somewhere safe, such as a tomb that the character builds for the express purpose of a safe haven.
• Favored Soul – Like a combination of Sorcerer and Cleric, individuals found with an innate talent for divine magic are taken in by the Church of Wee Jas to be trained. Favored Souls, however, being blessed with the direct and overt grace of Wee Jas, do not face the “glass ceiling” to their advancement within the Church based on social caste.
• Other Complete Divine Classes –Spirit Shamans are uncommon in Khasim, but those that do exists usually communicate with the spirits of the dead, as opposed to fey. Shugenja are not usually found in Khasim, but if they were, Water focus would be almost unheard of.
• Complete Arcane Classes – Warlocks, due to the nature of the source of their power as a bargain with a fell or eldritch creature, may or may not be found in Khasim. Those that do exist would be sure to hide or disguise their abilities, and perhaps pass themselves off as a member of another class. Warmages fall into the same categories and follow the same rules as Wizards and Sorcerers. Wu Jen are not found in Khasim.
• Complete Adventurer Classes – Ninja would be very uncommon in Khasim, but may be found to be trained by some monasteries, or secret orders that do not reveal their presence to the world. Scouts would follow similar rules to Rangers. Spellthieves would certainly be found in Khasim, with that nation’s focus on magic. A Spellthief may have been trained as an anti-spellcaster operative by the Church, or may be operating independently. However, due to the great respect Khasim has for magic and its users, a Spellthief who continuously targets spellcasters and steals their secrets without sanction by the Church could find himself targeted for retribution (perhaps by other Spellthieves who work for the Church).
• Complete Warrior Classes – Samurai would be almost unheard of, but might be a variant warrior who fights with 2 weapons. Hexblades blend arcane training with martial prowess, and are often found as temple guards for the Church of Wee Jas. Swashbucklers would be very common. Khasim’s climate makes the development of fighting styles that do not rely on heavy armor sensible.
• PHB2 Classes – Dragon Shamans may be found in Khasim, but Brass and Blue varieties (based on terrain of those dragon types) would be the most common. Duskblades would share flavor text with Hexblades. Beguilers would be similar to Spellthieves in the same regard, but would be considered to have more of a focus on magic than stealth and guile. Knights could certainly be found among Khasim’s warriors. Khasim’s society is very ordered, and the Knight’s Code could mesh very well with such structure.
• Psionics – [Not sure how you, the DM, feel about psionics and how, or even if, they fit in your world. However, with a culture focused so much on death and magic (and mostly devoted to a goddess of magic), I think psionic classes in Khasim would be very rare indeed.]
• Incarnum Classes – [I know next to nothing about this book, or the classes contained therin, and cannot thus formulate a fit for them in Khasim. However, as I understand it, Incarnum is “magic of the soul”, which might make for interesting repercussions in this nation.]
• Tome of Battle Classes – Some styles may be more appropriate to Khasim (like Desert Wind) than others. The Warblade, like the Fighter, is a warrior, pure and simple. The Crusader shares a similar role with the Paladin. The Swordsage is more unique. Disciplined, like a Monk, but more of a warrior, and trained to sense magic. The Church of Wee Jas certainly trains Swordsages.
• Tome of Magic Classes – [No. Just…no.]
• Classes From Other Sources – Marshals may be found among Khasim’s military, especially those formally trained as officers and/or field commanders. Archivists could certainly be trained by the Church, sharing a similar flavor to the Cloistered Cleric.
• I think that covers all the base classes.

[qwertyu63]

But all undead-creating spells carry the Evil descriptor, right? So, by RAW, casting those spells is an Evil act, yes? So, how to make a possible character who was not only able, but also willing to employ such methods, without being Evil (or turning to Evil) himself?

I'm personally of the belief that Animate Dead should have the evil descriptor removed. The other undead making spells should keep it, as they make creatures evil in alignment; Animate Dead just makes meat puppets and therefore shouldn't be any more evil than Fireball. It all comes down to how you use it.

[Ellowryn]

I'm personally of the belief that Animate Dead should have the evil descriptor removed. The other undead making spells should keep it, as they make creatures evil in alignment; Animate Dead just makes meat puppets and therefore shouldn't be any more evil than Fireball. It all comes down to how you use it.

The problem is, in MM its states that skeletons and zombies are ALWAYS neutral evil, so when a creature gets animated they take that alignment. In a previous post i offered the question "Is doing evil things to evil creatures an evil act?" which i believe is appropriate for this discussion cause you explicitly stated that reanimation was a punishment for a crime, which i assume would have carried the death penalty.

In reality there is nothing wrong with a neutral character casting evil spells as to the best of my knowledge there is no system in dnd that tracks how casting evil spells, or even good spells for that matter, directly changes your alignment.

My thoughts? To anybody trying to get such a character to fly, ask your gm. If they are okay with the whole casting evil spells for the good of the state without affecting your alignment then problem solved. Its that whole gm overrides all RAW material thing.

[qwertyu63]

The problem is, in MM its states that skeletons and zombies are ALWAYS neutral evil, so when a creature gets animated they take that alignment.

And to that I say "screw that, any mindless creature is TN; who cares what the rules say".

[eggynack]

I'm personally of the belief that Animate Dead should have the evil descriptor removed.

Indeed. I'd actually go one step further than that and remove the good and evil descriptors from spells entirely, as well as the thing about poison being evil. Good and evil, at least by my reckoning, should have very little to do with what weapons you use, and a lot more to do with what you use them for. There are probably some cases where the evil descriptor is justified, but the whole system of aligned spells is one that I consider to be overwhelmingly a net negative for the game. It's just a big ol' headache. Even creating evil creatures shouldn't necessarily be evil if you then use those evil creatures to save an orphanage, and if no bad things come of the fact of the existence of those evil creatures.

[RedMage125]

The problem is, in MM its states that skeletons and zombies are ALWAYS neutral evil, so when a creature gets animated they take that alignment.

I went into an extended discussion of this sort on the WotC forums some months back. Short version is: according to all the RAW material we have on the subject (PHB, Libris Mortis, BoVD), which is both directly stated, and inferred from the way resurrection-type magic relates to undead, there is some sort of connection between the soul of the creature that supplied the corpse and the undead creature. Even True Resurrection (a 9th level spell that doesn't even require a smidgen of a body part), cannot bring back someone who was turned into a 2-HD zombie by a level 5 cleric. In this way it is the same as someone who was killed and then had a Trap The Soul effect.

In a previous post i offered the question "Is doing evil things to evil creatures an evil act?" which i believe is appropriate for this discussion cause you explicitly stated that reanimation was a punishment for a crime, which i assume would have carried the death penalty.

Right, that was for crimes carrying the death penalty. Stealing food won't get you turned into a zombie. Killing your neighbor would. As would tomb robbing. But that was the laws of this character's land. By the objective RAW of alignment and action in D&D, casting an Evil spell on an evil creature - even one that is "inherently evil" like a dragon or "iredeemably evil" like a demon - is an evil act. This character comes from a society that is more Neutral than Good, and believes that the punishment of being denied the afterlife, which to them is the greater evil of making someone undead, is a far greater punishment than simply death.

In reality there is nothing wrong with a neutral character casting evil spells as to the best of my knowledge there is no system in dnd that tracks how casting evil spells, or even good spells for that matter, directly changes your alignment.

Eh...arguable. 3.5e DMG, page 134 states that a continued trend of actions more in keeping with an alignment other than a character's own over a long period of time to be no less than one week of in-game time, may result in a change of alignment by one step closer towards the alignment being demonstrated. Which is why "evil deeds for a good cause" is considered a "slippery slope".
But no, one act could not change your alignment.

My thoughts? To anybody trying to get such a character to fly, ask your gm. If they are okay with the whole casting evil spells for the good of the state without affecting your alignment then problem solved. Its that whole gm overrides all RAW material thing.

That's the intent of this character, though, is to provide a concept for a character who could and would cast Evil spells, but have a strict discipline regarding the use of those spells (no animating buried corpses, respect for the properly honored dead), who would not fall victim to the "slippery slope".

By the way, this character's culture-imposed restrictions is not just limited to tombs and proper cemetaries. If the party comes across a bandit camp who has lost some members, and the bandits have a few graves on the outskirts of their camp, each grave marked with a simple pile of stones, then those bodies are off-limits to him. The bandits may not have had the means to bury with pomp or ceremony, but they were buried with respect and their grave marked. But any bandits the party kills whose bodies are now lying on the ground? Fair game.
If a bunch of soldiers who dies in a major battle were buried in a mass grave, and there is a single monument of plaque for all of them, those bodies are off-limits. If some evil necromancer animates a bunch of them, this character is within his rights to use Rebuke Undead to steal control of them and use them himself. He didn't violate the sanctity of the tomb, nor did he allow it to happen. But once they're already undead, they're fair game because they're already had that sancitity violated. And unless the undead in question is a corpse of one of HIS people, he is under no obligation to return it to rest and proper burial. Namely because he's only a member of the clergy of HIS culture, and it would be a gross impropriety to bury the faithful of another deity with the rites he is familiar with.
So if you had a situation where he chased down some tomb-robbers who violated one of his people's tombs and animated some zombies, he could take control over them and use them to kill the tomb robbers (he may actually be inclined to let the zombies have the killing blow, as poetic justice). But he would then be obligated to kill the zombies and return the bodies to their resting places and recite the prayers for the dead over them.
The way this character's position as State Necromancer works is that he's not only a religious personage, he's also a judicial one. His organization handles the dispensation of justice (like judges, not like police) for the living, as well as burial preparation for the dead. He's not the kind of clergyman who would deliver sermons to the masses in a worship services kind of way, but he could be called upon to officiate at a funeral. But his position as a judge means he's more or less invested (by "divine right") to judge the living and pass sentence. So even as an adventurer, he would be dedicated to stamping out evil for the sake of Good, and advancing the cause of Good, but would not be of Good alignment himself because he 1) doesn't really care about the "dignity of sentient beings" and 2) knows full well that animation into undeath is Evil, but views it as an appropriate punishment for the wicked. In that sense he's sort of a "I choose not to be purely Good so that others can be" kind of hero. But he's still opposed to Evil in the world. DOes that make sense? I know it was kind of a ramble.

[Rubik]

http://www.fimfiction.net/story/61802/foal-necromancer

[RedMage125]

And to that I say "screw that, any mindless creature is TN; who cares what the rules say".

Except that mindless undead are explicitly animated with Evil Magicks, and those magicks that keep it ambulatory infuse its awareness.

The difference is other mindless creatures. Vermin are mindless, but attack the living based purely off instinct to protect their hive and to obtain food. They are Neutral.

Golems, if given no standing orders and not under control by someone, will not do anything. They are also Neutral.

Zombies and Skeletons, if uncontrolled, are driven by a blind hatred of the living, and will attack any living thing they come across. They are Evil. I seem to remember one book saying that the presence of living creatures was an anethma to them.

Indeed. I'd actually go one step further than that and remove the good and evil descriptors from spells entirely, as well as the thing about poison being evil. Good and evil, at least by my reckoning, should have very little to do with what weapons you use, and a lot more to do with what you use them for. There are probably some cases where the evil descriptor is justified, but the whole system of aligned spells is one that I consider to be overwhelmingly a net negative for the game. It's just a big ol' headache. Even creating evil creatures shouldn't necessarily be evil if you then use those evil creatures to save an orphanage, and if no bad things come of the fact of the existence of those evil creatures.

Except for the potentially damaging effect on the soul of the person whose corpse you used? What about intelligent undead who retain memories of the person they once were? Even if they are commanded by a powerful cleric/necromancer, is that not Evil to create them?
Furthermore, the Book of Vile Darkness states that the creation of undead creates a "mockery of life". Good and Evil are objective forces in D&D. The designer's call when they made the game was that those objective forces consider the creation of such a mockery an objectively Evil act.

Granted, what you do with such tools once they exist is up to you. If you have absolute command of a host of zombies, and use those zombies to save an orphanage and harm no one, is that evil? No, it's clearly Good. A little gross and scary for those poor orphans, but Good. But the person who animated those zombies commited an evil act when he made them. I'm noo saying you couldn't use them for Good (hell, the character I described in the OP would use them for such), you can. Just making them is Evil.

And as an aside, because in my last alignment thread on the wizards boards I ended up recanting one of my points...can you point out where in the rules that it says poison use is objectively Evil? I know a lot of PrCs that get the Poison Use ability require evil alignment, but not all (Black Dog in Dragonmarked comes to mind). A lot of the stuff in BoVD talks about new poisons, and examples of people using poison to do evil things, but in the list of evil acts in the chapter "Defining Evil", poisoning someone is not mentioned. After all, using a tranquilizing poison to end a combat with minimal bloodshed isn't evil, is it? I believe that the RAI is that the use of poison is something that most Good people find distasteful, while evildoers have no compunctions against it. But by RAW use of poison in 3.5e is not an explicitly Evil act. As contrasted to creating undead, dealing with fiends, damaging someone's soul, etc.

[eggynack]

Except for the potentially damaging effect on the soul of the person whose corpse you used? What about intelligent undead who retain memories of the person they once were? Even if they are commanded by a powerful cleric/necromancer, is that not Evil to create them?

I can't really see anything in the monster entry where the person's soul is being harmed. If you can find some intrinsic harm that is caused by the creation of undead, that could be valid though.

Furthermore, the Book of Vile Darkness states that the creation of undead creates a "mockery of life". Good and Evil are objective forces in D&D. The designer's call when they made the game was that those objective forces consider the creation of such a mockery an objectively Evil act.

These things are clearly evil by RAW. I mean, the game pretty much outright says that. I'm saying they shouldn't be.

Granted, what you do with such tools once they exist is up to you. If you have absolute command of a host of zombies, and use those zombies to save an orphanage and harm no one, is that evil? No, it's clearly Good. A little gross and scary for those poor orphans, but Good. But the person who animated those zombies commited an evil act when he made them. I'm noo saying you couldn't use them for Good (hell, the character I described in the OP would use them for such), you can. Just making them is Evil.

As above, I'm saying they shouldn't be. If making a zombie is just evil because it's evil, and you're not really harming anyone by making it, then it shouldn't be evil.

And as an aside, because in my last alignment thread on the wizards boards I ended up recanting one of my points...can you point out where in the rules that it says poison use is objectively Evil?

I'm not entirely sure. My instinct is that it'd be somewhere in the BoED, probably somewhere around the ravages section.

[RedMage125]

I can't really see anything in the monster entry where the person's soul is being harmed. If you can find some intrinsic harm that is caused by the creation of undead, that could be valid though.


These things are clearly evil by RAW. I mean, the game pretty much outright says that. I'm saying they shouldn't be.

As above, I'm saying they shouldn't be. If making a zombie is just evil because it's evil, and you're not really harming anyone by making it, then it shouldn't be evil.

You are, however, inputting your own sense of what is good or evil into D&D concepts. A modern interpretation, I might add, that focuses on individuals and what is "not harmful".

The default setting of D&D includes Objective forces of Good & Evil that make up the cosmos. Even deities are beholden to these forces. They are unyielding and unswayed by justification, no matter how sincere.

As D&D is fantasy, the creators reserve the right to spin anything they want from wholecloth, and say "this is true for this fantasy construct". In this instance, Objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, as well as what defines those words. When people say "this thing shouldn't be evil because of justification X, even though the RAW says it is", I respond with "so you can accept that in D&D there are dragons, undead, magic, demons, and any other number of fantastic and otherwise imaginary things, but when they say 'for the purposes of the default setting of D&D, this thing is Evil', that's too much for you?". I don't understand. Especially if you accept that demons are inherently Evil. If even one thing can be inherently evil, why can another not be?

You have a different preference, I get that. I'm not telling you to change your preferences. I'm telling you that since it's fantasy, when the RAW says "this is true", then it's true.

I'm not entirely sure. My instinct is that it'd be somewhere in the BoED, probably somewhere around the ravages section.

So...just to be clear...you think that the RAW that says "using poison is evil" is located in the Book for Super-Goodness, under the section about poisons that can the SUper-Good characters from the book get to use on creatures otherwise immune to poison?

I'm really not trying to be mean, but that is seriously how I read that.

[OldTrees1]

Looks good.

Did you know that Wee Jas really likes Arcane casters? Your devoted servant of Wee Jas could be a straight Dread Necromancer.

[RedMage125]

Looks good.

Did you know that Wee Jas really likes Arcane casters? Your devoted servant of Wee Jas could be a straight Dread Necromancer.

I mad mention of that. That his position as a clergyman could be purely flavor text, since his "religious duties" as a clergyman would be restricted to performing funeral service.

Wee Jas also has no opposition to undead so long as "the corpses ar eobtained legally", which fits in perfectly with this character's particular MO.

[eggynack]

You are, however, inputting your own sense of what is good or evil into D&D concepts. A modern interpretation, I might add, that focuses on individuals and what is "not harmful".

So does the game. That's the whole point. I don't think this should be a part of the game. If all demons are intrinsically evil, that is presumably because they do evil stuff on a constant basis. The question, I suppose, is why the game needs zombification to be inherently evil. My assertion is that it does not, and that that whole rule is a net negative. You're acting like you think I don't know that the game has animate dead is inherently evil in game, per the rules. I do know that, and I think that it's a thing that shouldn't be true.

So...just to be clear...you think that the RAW that says "using poison is evil" is located in the Book for Super-Goodness, under the section about poisons that can the SUper-Good characters from the book get to use on creatures otherwise immune to poison?

Yes. To be more specific with my citation, because I now have time to do a citation, the book of exalted deeds, page 34, says, "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent." I don't exactly think it makes sense, but that's the whole point.

[RedMage125]

So does the game. That's the whole point. I don't think this should be a part of the game. If all demons are intrinsically evil, that is presumably because they do evil stuff on a constant basis.

Negative. Demons (and all evil outsiders) are literally MADE of evil. The evil energies of their home planes are a part of their physical composition. When they are killed, those energies return to their plane and make a new demon.

The question, I suppose, is why the game needs zombification to be inherently evil. My assertion is that it does not, and that that whole rule is a net negative.

Undead are animated by evil magicks and that evil is a part of their physical makeup as well.

You're acting like you think I don't know that the game has animate dead is inherently evil in game, per the rules. I do know that, and I think that it's a thing that shouldn't be true.

I think you don't get the "why" of undead being inherently evil, just like you demonstrated that you don't get the "why demons are inherently evil". which is why you think that there's a disconnect between the way the rules work and they way you THINK they should.

Houserule what you like, I'm just saying there's no disconnect in resonation between the fluff and the crunch.

Yes. To be more specific with my citation, because I now have time to do a citation, the book of exalted deeds, page 34, says, "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent." I don't exactly think it makes sense, but that's the whole point.

Huh...that's amazing. I was at work before, too, and didn't have my books on me. Weird that it's no in the BoVD, where all the other dissertations on what is and is not evil goes.

It's consistent, at least.

[Rubik]

Undead are animated by evil magicks and that evil is a part of their physical makeup as well.

You mean the Neutrally EEEEEvil Neutral energies of the Neutral Negative Energy Plane? Which are Neutral?

Because Neutral totally equals Evil.

[eggynack]

I think you don't get the "why" of undead being inherently evil, just like you demonstrated that you don't get the "why demons are inherently evil". which is why you think that there's a disconnect between the way the rules work and they way you THINK they should.

Houserule what you like, I'm just saying there's no disconnect in resonation between the fluff and the crunch.

That's pretty much what I'm saying, I suppose. In particular, I'm saying that this part of the game, where there are some tools and actions that are intrinsically evil beyond their actual harmful impact on people, is a bad part of the game. It's a thing that isn't the most problematic when applied to demons, but it is a lot more problematic when applied to spells. We could always play a few rounds of, "Why is this thing evil?" And, "Why is this thing evil, while this similar thing is not evil?" if you like, but it'd be retreading a lot of old ground. I'll start you off with a few classics. Why is deathwatch evil? Why is poison use evil, while ravages and the spell poison are non-evil? And, one of my personal favorites, why is claws of the savage (BoVD, 88) evil, and why is claws of the bebilith (BoVD, 88) frigging corrupt? Seriously, they don't even justify those with flavor. The evil descriptor is just a really poorly designed part of the game.

Huh...that's amazing. I was at work before, too, and didn't have my books on me. Weird that it's no in the BoVD, where all the other dissertations on what is and is not evil goes.

I think it makes some sense. That section is establishing the evil nature of poison, such that it can then create a non-evil poison. The latter would be essentially impossible without the former. The really odd thing is that it's evil at all.

[Jeff the Green]

Casting [Evil] spells and using Evil creatures are both minor evil deeds. If you balance them out (say, use your undead to save orphans) it's easy to be Good.

[Rubik]

Spells should only have alignments when they actually channel energies of those alignments, such as Magic Circle Against/Protection From G/E/C/L. Everything else makes no sense, causes a lot of logical inconsistencies, and should be dropped.

The same applies for racial and alignment prereqs for feats and PrCs. If it's not directly related to a race's abilities (such as the elan racial feats in CPsi, of all things), it shouldn't have race as a prereq. And most alignment prereqs are stupid, as well. Imagining a Good-aligned assassin isn't at all hard, nor is imagining Good uses for, say, Mindrape. There's no logical reason why all arcane archers need to be elves, or why you can't have a halfling chameleon or a human shadowcraft mage.

Senseless restrictions take a lot of imaginative character creation and roleplay out of the game, which makes the game less fun. It's terrible.

[Corrin Avatan]

So, you want to be a follower of Pharazma (pathfinder deity).

I'm running Carrion Crown currently, and the Church of Pharasma uses necromancy spells, but not in the traditional sense you're familiar with, which I'll get to in a moment.

They will cast Speak with Dead to assist in the grieving process (husband's last words to his wife were unkind, and she dies while he was away, so he asks for forgiveness , or casting gentle repose to stop rotting before an investigator can inspect, stuff like that). In fact, the necromancers who follow Pharasma are called White Necromancers, in that they study Necromancy school spells that don't have to do with creating undead (which Pharasma considers blasphemy).

Regarding the trope of the Necromancer you have, I see no reason why you can't be a Good necromancer. You just don't do evil acts. Now, if you don't like that creating undead is considered an evil act, well, houserule it or use the White Necromancer class from Kobold Press http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-...te-necromancer

But outside of the spells that specifically say they are evil acts, there is no reason why you can't be a Good necromancer.

[RedMage125]

So, you want to be a follower of Pharazma (pathfinder deity).

I'm running Carrion Crown currently, and the Church of Pharasma uses necromancy spells, but not in the traditional sense you're familiar with, which I'll get to in a moment.

They will cast Speak with Dead to assist in the grieving process (husband's last words to his wife were unkind, and she dies while he was away, so he asks for forgiveness , or casting gentle repose to stop rotting before an investigator can inspect, stuff like that). In fact, the necromancers who follow Pharasma are called White Necromancers, in that they study Necromancy school spells that don't have to do with creating undead (which Pharasma considers blasphemy).

Regarding the trope of the Necromancer you have, I see no reason why you can't be a Good necromancer. You just don't do evil acts. Now, if you don't like that creating undead is considered an evil act, well, houserule it or use the White Necromancer class from Kobold Press http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-...te-necromancer

But outside of the spells that specifically say they are evil acts, there is no reason why you can't be a Good necromancer.

I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to have missed the point entirely. This character can and will use undead as tools, even animate them himself, WITHOUT needing a DM to houserule away the "evil act". He has a strict ethos regarding the animation of undead and how and when to use it, that keeps him from sliding into Evil alignment himself. Dread Necros cannot be good, so he's Lawful Neutral, and in many ways, his outlooks and beliefs are similar to a LG character, save that, he views it as morally acceptable to use Evil magicks on those who are evil.

I think you should re-read the first few paragraphs of the OP. The goal was to make a non-evil character who legitimately embodies what the word "necromancer" evokes in fantasy-that is, a caster who raises and commands undead. Not some kind of "technically a necromancer" that does not use or deal with undead.

[Windstorm]

I like it, I think it works and is a good justification for playing a class and archetype (not in the pathfinder sense) that seldom sees use without causing problematic party dynamics and other issues.

one thing you might find of use is the statement (AFB atm so no explicit citation) in complete divine, that says that consistent actions in the spirit and code of your deities alignment can shift you toward that alignment, in the same way that casting evil spells shunts you toward evil.

considering that every action you take in using an evil spell is likely for this character in the spirit and code of his deity, you could make an argument that the alignment shifts cancel each other out and he remains LN by virtue of acting within his code.

tbh it depends greatly on the number of evil spells he casts in contrast to all other alignment affecting actions the character takes. with how you describe it, as a DM I'd have a very difficult time justifying an alignment shift towards evil for that character when everything is weighed in balance.

[RedMage125]

Thank you. That was the goal.

[RedMage125]

Didn't address this before, wanted to get to it now.

You mean the Neutrally EEEEEvil Neutral energies of the Neutral Negative Energy Plane? Which are Neutral?

Because Neutral totally equals Evil.

Just because Negative Energy is not in and of itself Evil, does not mean it can't be used for evil. Inflict spells do not have alignment descriptors.

A dagger is not an Evil thing. Human sacrifice...is.

I said the magicks used to animate undead are Evil. Animate Dead, Create Undead, Create Greater Undead...these are Evil spells that use negative energy. That does not mean negative energy is Evil, only that those spells are.

Spells should only have alignments when they actually channel energies of those alignments, such as Magic Circle Against/Protection From G/E/C/L. Everything else makes no sense, causes a lot of logical inconsistencies, and should be dropped.

I see your point, and agree with you as far as to say that your point is logical, coherent, and consistent.

That said, the default ruling laid down by the designers of 3.5e is that certain acts are Evil. Trafficking with a fiend for one's soul. Damaging or harming the soul of another. These are acts that the designers of 3e labelled as "objectively Evil". Creation of Undead, due to the violation of the natural order to create a mockery of the cycle of Life&Death, was decided to be an Evil act. The BoVD has the exact wording on this in the chapter "Defining Evil" (which, regardless of the value one holds for the crunchy bits of the book, that section contains excellent treatises on Evil in D&D). I also addressed this in an earlier post, but there seems to be some connection between the soul of the person who provided the corpse and the undead creature, even a mindless one, because that person cannot be raised from the dead, even by 9th level spells that don't require any part of the body. So, at the very least, the decision to make Undead Creation an objectively Evil act is logical and internally consistent.

The same applies for racial and alignment prereqs for feats and PrCs. If it's not directly related to a race's abilities (such as the elan racial feats in CPsi, of all things), it shouldn't have race as a prereq. And most alignment prereqs are stupid, as well.

Almost every restrictive prereq, whether racial or alignment, for any class, can-almost without exception-be ascribed as a flaw not with alignment, but with restrictive Class Design, meant to keep certain classes within the archetype envisioned by the creators of D&D. Lawful Monks, for example. If you look at the monks class abilities, many are said to come from "the hours spent in meditation" or something to that effect. Monks are meant to mechanically reflect the classic fantasy archetype of the wuxia martial artist, and the alignment restriction is meant to reinforce that, to the point of excluding character concepts that are too different.

Imagining a Good-aligned assassin isn't at all hard, nor is imagining Good uses for, say, Mindrape.

Not familiar with Mindrape just offhand, but I think the Assassin thing was to reflect the designers' opinion that "assassin" is only in reference to a hired contract killer (never mind that earlier editions of D&D provide other options for that), and that such disregard for the value of human life to be able to kill for money would only be acceptable to Evil-aligned people.

There's no logical reason why all arcane archers need to be elves, or why you can't have a halfling chameleon or a human shadowcraft mage.

Arcane Archers, I think, assumes that the Elven people are the ones who developed the ability to blend archery and magic in that manner, and keep the secrets of that power close to their chest and do not share them.
Chameleon seems to me to reflect that humans are more adaptable and more mutable in strengths and weaknesses than any other race. Human adaptability is more a defining trait of the race that any other individual trait. Dwarves are gruff in social dealings, physically hardy, and knowledgeable about stonework. This is a trait all dwarves share. Elves are frequently aloof (due to their long lifespans), graceful, and skilled with sword and bow. Humans are so varied that adaptability is pretty much a defining trait of the race as a whole (maybe not each individual human, but altogether). Chameleon is supposed to be the ultimate expression of that adaptability. So unlike Arcane Archers, who are race restricted by virtue of the elves no teaching anyone else, Chameleons are race-restricted by virtue of other races not being flexible enough to gain the ability to radically alter their mindsets and class abilities on the fly. It's almost like the 3e version of 2e's Dual-classing, which only humans could do. Other races were not able to drastically switch the path they set themselves on, even though they could walk a split path from the get-go.
Don't like gnomes, not familiar with Shadowcraft Mage, had to even look up what book it was in and what the restriction was.

That's my hypothesis, by the way. I am in no way espousing that what I have stated is fact.

Senseless restrictions take a lot of imaginative character creation and roleplay out of the game, which makes the game less fun. It's terrible.

My hypotheses aside, I agree that more options would be better, going forward. If a DM removed such restrictions, it would not at all negatively affect my fun nor my personal feeling of resonance between fluff and crunch.

[hamishspence]

Casting [Evil] spells and using Evil creatures are both minor evil deeds. If you balance them out (say, use your undead to save orphans) it's easy to be Good.

Or, at least, nonevil - as Heroes of Horror points out.

[Psyren]

I'm personally of the belief that Animate Dead should have the evil descriptor removed. The other undead making spells should keep it, as they make creatures evil in alignment; Animate Dead just makes meat puppets and therefore shouldn't be any more evil than Fireball. It all comes down to how you use it.

Not so. The fluff reason in Libris Mortis (which makes sense) is that necromancy spells "thin the veil"; every undead on the Prime down to the lowliest skeleton is a walking connection to the NEP, or contains a sliver of it. These connections weaken the Prime's "immune system," as it were, increasing the chances that uncontrolled undead can slip through to our realm or spontaneously animate here. Thus, creating small numbers of undead may not make you outright evil, but it is at best irresponsible - a form of collateral pollution akin to making random patches of land radioactive.

It's thus a minor evil act because you have no way of controlling the unintended consequences that your necromancy could have on innocents you may never even meet - yet you do it anyway. At least with a fireball you (for the most part) can control who it hurts and when, and casting a plethora of fireballs does not increase the chances that a random peasant's hut far away will spontaneously combust.

[RedMage125]

Not so. The fluff reason in Libris Mortis (which makes sense) is that necromancy spells "thin the veil"; every undead on the Prime down to the lowliest skeleton is a walking connection to the NEP, or contains a sliver of it. These connections weaken the Prime's "immune system," as it were, increasing the chances that uncontrolled undead can slip through to our realm or spontaneously animate here. Thus, creating small numbers of undead may not make you outright evil, but it is at best irresponsible - a form of collateral pollution akin to making random patches of land radioactive.

It's thus a minor evil act because you have no way of controlling the unintended consequences that your necromancy could have on innocents you may never even meet - yet you do it anyway. At least with a fireball you (for the most part) can control who it hurts and when, and casting a plethora of fireballs does not increase the chances that a random peasant's hut far away will spontaneously combust.

Do you have a page number for that? It's really excellent, and I just piped in on a thread about the Evil descriptor in Animate Dead over at the WotC boards, and would LOVE to cite that reference.

Also, may I plagarize your "pollution" analogy? I love it.

[eggynack]

Do you have a page number for that? It's really excellent, and I just piped in on a thread about the Evil descriptor in Animate Dead over at the WotC boards, and would LOVE to cite that reference.

It's on page 7, under "Atrocity calls to unlife". I wouldn't necessarily cite it as ultimate proof for the evil of necromancy though, as it's listed as one of several possible theories for how undead work. It is an odd little book section.

[OldTrees1]

pg 7. It (Negative Energy as a Draining Force) is merely one of the 5 listed theories on the origins of undeath.

I prefer the one right before it (Negative Energy as a Supporting Force) which says that a negative energy life force is just like a positive energy life force.

[Talderas]

I can't really see anything in the monster entry where the person's soul is being harmed. If you can find some intrinsic harm that is caused by the creation of undead, that could be valid though.

A person which has been raised as undead cannot be revived using Raise Dead.
A person which has been raised as undead cannot be revived using Resurrection or True Resurrection until the undead that is his body has been destroyed.

[OldTrees1]

A person which has been raised as undead cannot be revived using Raise Dead.
A person which has been raised as undead cannot be revived using Resurrection or True Resurrection until the undead that is his body has been destroyed.

Those spells require uniquely identifying body and soul. Animate Dead interferes with the body component of those spells.