Alignment discussion reguarding clerics and the perception of good vs evil.

[adriana]

In regards to the undead just going rogue and killing everyone, remember there are good undead as well. Look at the crypt wardens and sacred watchers in BOED. Surely it's possible to have some undead that are filled with the same kind of energy and won't go munch on the first person they see if there master dies.

[SowZ]

The implication is that uncontrolled undead behave as though evil, and hunt and kill the living whenever possible, even the mindless ones. Because of the malevolent spirits. In short, zombies that don't have a master act like in a zombie movie, as opposed to acting like C-3PO when its powered down (which is what the MM suggests, and which is, frankly, moronic...we don't need more robots in a game that has robots).

Couldn't we eliminate that risk by placing the zombies in a large concrete facility with no living things to kill? Have it be a massive factory where the zombies churn out goods and food all day, every day, for free. Distribute the goods to the people as incredibly cheap or free products.

It could serve the function of one of the slavery-based utopias proposed by the Greeks, but without any of the human suffering.

[JusticeZero]

"Possible", "Some ".. Not something that you can rely on to negate a general trend, I'd say.

[Phelix-Mu]

Couldn't we eliminate that risk by placing the zombies in a large concrete facility with no living things to kill? Have it be a massive factory where the zombies churn out goods and food all day, every day, for free. Distribute the goods to the people as incredibly cheap or free products.

It could serve the function of one of the slavery-based utopias proposed by the Greeks, but without any of the human suffering.

Or people could learn that the best rewards come from hard work and personal virtue, not from a life free from expensive bread and disappointing movies. Just because undead can alleviate some problems doesn't mean we can carte blanche the whole thing. Your zombie will outlive you; if someone evil comes along, creating zombies is "okay," there are actually plenty around to hijack, and it will be okay right up until he uses them to do [evil scheme].

If we come right down to it, part of the problem with the game is that magic makes totally hyperbolic things possible with minimal personal investment. For good, hard work, effort, patience, and the like are all really important, and magic really just makes those virtues seem totally superfluous. Things that make virtues seem superfluous are evil, and clearly the game never intended for all magic to be evil.

Example: Conjuration magic allows for conflicts to be solved with violence without anyone actually dying. But isn't violence still wrong? Yes, yes it is, but magic makes it seem cheap and easy, consequence-free. The consequence of relying on conjuration magic-fueled violence is that violence starts to seem acceptable, but good says it is not. If something is worth fighting for, put your own life on the line and only hurt people when necessary (cause "do unto others..."). Phoning the whole thing in is basically step one in some fiend convincing you to run your life via skype, trusting that everything will work out, cause you made plans that say everything will work out.

Jeff Goldbloom says that mathematics proves not everything will work out.

EDIT: zomg, just stayed up the final half of the night posting on alignment debates. There isn't enough caffeine in the world to solve the catastrophe that will be tomorrow. Goodbye, dear friends, I am going to go collapse. Great discussion, though.

[eggynack]

The implication is that uncontrolled undead behave as though evil, and hunt and kill the living whenever possible, even the mindless ones. Because of the malevolent spirits. In short, zombies that don't have a master act like in a zombie movie, as opposed to acting like C-3PO when its powered down (which is what the MM suggests, and which is, frankly, moronic...we don't need more robots in a game that has robots).

It's a possible outcome, but as I noted, it's one that I think can be plausibly averted. Really, I think that this question, the morality of animate dead, can be effectively split into two separate ones. The first, the one you've been trying to answer, is whether animating a corpse should always/usually be evil. It's possible that it is, likely because of some universal and impossible to counteract ramification, but it's not definite.

The second, the one I was proposing an answer to, is whether the spell animate dead itself should be intrinsically evil. As in, let's say that you got permission from the guy before he was all corpsified and gross, animated his body, and then immediately killed the zombie. By the current rules, that act would be evil, and I don't think it should be. Such is the nature of my argument, I think. The other topic is interesting as well, and I'd be open to further discussing it, but this latter topic is the essential one I had in mind.

IIRC, beyond them being walking metaphysical Superfund sites powered by preventing the soul from going on to its reward (as seen from things like how RAW, you cannot Resurrect or Reincarnate a pile of skin, muscle, brains and internal organs left behind from creating a CR1 Skeleton), unattended undead go rogue after awhile and start attacking people. It's been awhile since I've had the book in hand though.

I'm not sure that that's necessarily the cause. Another plausible interpretation is that you can't resurrect an animated corpse because the corpse is already being used for something, and the magic inhabiting it interferes with resurrection. Basically, it could be a body end issue rather than a soul end issue.

[thedmring]

I don't see why this is still being argued since by raw undead are evil. Pg 7 of Libris, which should be considered as the primary source material for undead talks about the nature of undead and what fuels them. In D&D they're evil. Animating them is an evil act. Thus a cleric who is animates them is performing evil acts willingly and should be labeled evil accordingly.

Case closed.

[Pan151]

I don't see why this is still being argued since by raw undead are evil. Pg 7 of Libris, which should be considered as the primary source material for undead talks about the nature of undead and what fuels them. In D&D they're evil. Animating them is an evil act. Thus a cleric who is animates them is performing evil acts willingly and should be labeled evil accordingly.

Case closed.

I can't possibly fathom why anyone would ever contest the validity of "they're evil because they're evil" as an explanation.

[adriana]

I can't possibly fathom why anyone would ever contest the validity of "they're evil because they're evil" as an explanation.

I know right? that should win an award.

[hamishspence]

I don't see why this is still being argued since by raw undead are evil.

Some are. Not all. Ghosts spring to mind. And undead are capable of alignment change.

[JusticeZero]

You are arguing that two spells to bring back the dead that do not require a complete body will fail depending on whether the part of the body that the spell didn't need present are being used by an animation spell, and that this doesn't imply a soul effect? That's a bit of a stretch.

[Pan151]

You are arguing that two spells to bring back the dead that do not require a complete body will fail depending on whether the part of the body that the spell didn't need present are being used by an animation spell, and that this doesn't imply a soul effect? That's a bit of a stretch.

They still require at least part of a body (even just ashes in the case of true resurrection). Problem is, if your body is animated as a zombie, then you have no body - all the parts, even those cut off before the animate spell was cast, now belong to the zombie.

You can still make do with double Wish though (one to create a new body, one for replicating resurrection). There's nothing that prevents it.

[jedipotter]

I don't see why this is still being argued since by raw undead are evil. Pg 7 of Libris, which should be considered as the primary source material for undead talks about the nature of undead and what fuels them. In D&D they're evil. Animating them is an evil act. Thus a cleric who is animates them is performing evil acts willingly and should be labeled evil accordingly.

Case closed.

Sure 3E says ''undead are evil, case closed'', but not all of D&D agrees. 2E had evil, neutral and good undead.

Neutral undead were the ones who died with something left undone or those that could not leave their duty. A guard might rise and an undead to again man his post or person who dies lost in the wilderness might rise and still be trying to get home. A ''lost undead trying to get home'' is not evil, nor is the ''guard who could not leave his post, even in death.''

Good undead are ones who died with unfinished good to do. A great example is the ones who choose undead to watch or protect something or someone. The evil artifact that needs a guard ''for all time''. Or the person who does not wish to leave their family.

The 2E Forgotten Realms were full of them. Lots of elves chose unlife to do things after death. There were tons of elf liches around. And ghosts too.

[eggynack]

I don't see why this is still being argued since by raw undead are evil. Pg 7 of Libris, which should be considered as the primary source material for undead talks about the nature of undead and what fuels them. In D&D they're evil. Animating them is an evil act. Thus a cleric who is animates them is performing evil acts willingly and should be labeled evil accordingly.

Case closed.

There are arguments that are not rules arguments. This is one of them. It's like I'm saying, "I think that the two weapon fighting line should be compressed down into one feat," and you're saying, "By the RAW, the two weapon fighting line is not one feat." The latter is practically a premise of the former, rather than an argument against it.

[AMFV]

There is a trend I've noticed in recent alignment threads (like the chaotic good one) to treat regular alignment as though people were Paladins. Good people can do evil things, sometimes even habitually. The nearest equivalent I can think of to the Undead thing (and it's not a perfect analogy, mind) is a nurse that takes drugs to get her through the shift. She's doing something wrong, and it'll eventually come back to bite her, or somebody else. But the net result is good at least for the present moment, she's functional, she's got it under control (or so she thinks). It's the same with using necromancy for good. You can be a good character and have evil habits, they just can't consume your character, maybe they just take that one morally ambiguous shortcut, and it pulls them toward neutral, but they still are good enough to stay good.

[adriana]

My argument against all undead being evil by nature again is the deathless in BOED. What if the necromancer sought dead saints, or other "holy" ghosts to aid in her/his fight? Say she had a wisard/sorcerer to cast some divination spell that allowed her to communicate with the body of the deceased and ask for permission to use their body.

Also keep in mind that some of the best zombies are not human at all. Hydras make damn good zombies. Is raising the dead of something that was trying to eat you inherently evil? It's not like you can ask the hydra if you can use it's corpse. The same goes for say a red dragon. Say it threatens to burn a village down and you slay it. are you going to ask it's dead spirit if you can borrow it's body? Probably not. So you raise it for good purposes to slay other demons or dragons or what ever. Is that evil? It may be a slippery slope, but is it evil?

[AMFV]

My argument against all undead being evil by nature again is the deathless in BOED. What if the necromancer sought dead saints, or other "holy" ghosts to aid in her/his fight? Say she had a wisard/sorcerer to cast some divination spell that allowed her to communicate with the body of the deceased and ask for permission to use their body.

Also keep in mind that some of the best zombies are not human at all. Hydras make damn good zombies. Is raising the dead of something that was trying to eat you inherently evil? It's not like you can ask the hydra if you can use it's corpse. The same goes for say a red dragon. Say it threatens to burn a village down and you slay it. are you going to ask it's dead spirit if you can borrow it's body? Probably not. So you raise it for good purposes to slay other demons or dragons or what ever. Is that evil? It may be a slippery slope, but is it evil?

Remember that Deathless is a special case, and they are animated by different energies.

[adriana]

Remember that Deathless is a special case, and they are animated by different energies.

Fair enough. You make a solid point.

[yoshi67]

I've had this talk with several others, including a few DMs because I've wanted to play a Dread Necromancer and they usually run games along the good side of the axis. This is what we have come to conclude.

The BOED/BOVD has rules to make a necromancer good, or about as close to good as a neutral character gets, but they are specialized books. The DMs I talked to said the rules are meant for more complicated games involving morality and the concepts would have to apply to whole encounters or the entire campaign, so they only use those if they plan on playing a campaign specifically using those rules, and would ban a single player from using them to justify an action due to the nature of the books.

The standard game considers necromancy evil. Most spells are evil-aligned, so it's the act of raising and controlling the dead that is evil. That does not mean you can't play a LN character who is also a necromancer. In fact, NPCs would probably treat you just like any other adventurer and would welcome you into their town and tavern and give you access to stores. But as soon as you visit the graveyard and bring back grandma (even if it's just her body) to beat down an orc, the pitchforks and torches come out.

I'm playing a cleric of Clangeddin Silverbeard, the dwarf god of battle. He is LG, and taken from his description he has no problems with followers killing evil enemies, but asks that they respect the bodies of fallen warriors, even those of evil enemies. I would have a problem with a good necromancer due to my automatic respect for corpses even if you were using them for a good purpose.

You can make an argument for a good necromancer, citing his outlook, morals, or philosophy and create an entire race or religion built on the use of zombies or undead for good. However, it also depends on the outlook of everyone else in the game. Yes, there are cannibal tribes who might think raising the dead is a great way to honor them, but would you fault them if I went to one of their towns and buried a body and they killed me for desecrating a corpse by not eating it? It ultimately comes down to the majority morality, and if most people in your game view raising corpses as disrespecting the dead, your probably gonna be labeled as evil.

So for a good necromancer to be viable, a DM would have to houserule a campaign specifically to allow for one by making one socially acceptable. That's not too difficult. But then there's the rules that would have to be changed or ignored, and this is usually more work than a DM is willing to put in so you can play a character without getting chased out of every town or having weird rule interactions. So, you can have a good necromancer, and there are even rules designed for one, but it is very complicated and DMs usually won't want to bother with it, since it goes against the nature of the game.

[AMFV]

I've had this talk with several others, including a few DMs because I've wanted to play a Dread Necromancer and they usually run games along the good side of the axis. This is what we have come to conclude.

The BOED/BOVD has rules to make a necromancer good, or about as close to good as a neutral character gets, but they are specialized books. The DMs I talked to said the rules are meant for more complicated games involving morality and the concepts would have to apply to whole encounters or the entire campaign, so they only use those if they plan on playing a campaign specifically using those rules, and would ban a single player from using them to justify an action due to the nature of the books.

The standard game considers necromancy evil. Most spells are evil-aligned, so it's the act of raising and controlling the dead that is evil. That does not mean you can't play a LN character who is also a necromancer. In fact, NPCs would probably treat you just like any other adventurer and would welcome you into their town and tavern and give you access to stores. But as soon as you visit the graveyard and bring back grandma (even if it's just her body) to beat down an orc, the pitchforks and torches come out.

I'm playing a cleric of Clangeddin Silverbeard, the dwarf god of battle. He is LG, and taken from his description he has no problems with followers killing evil enemies, but asks that they respect the bodies of fallen warriors, even those of evil enemies. I would have a problem with a good necromancer due to my automatic respect for corpses even if you were using them for a good purpose.

You can make an argument for a good necromancer, citing his outlook, morals, or philosophy and create an entire race or religion built on the use of zombies or undead for good. However, it also depends on the outlook of everyone else in the game. Yes, there are cannibal tribes who might think raising the dead is a great way to honor them, but would you fault them if I went to one of their towns and buried a body and they killed me for desecrating a corpse by not eating it? It ultimately comes down to the majority morality, and if most people in your game view raising corpses as disrespecting the dead, your probably gonna be labeled as evil.

So for a good necromancer to be viable, a DM would have to houserule a campaign specifically to allow for one by making one socially acceptable. That's not too difficult. But then there's the rules that would have to be changed or ignored, and this is usually more work than a DM is willing to put in so you can play a character without getting chased out of every town or having weird rule interactions. So, you can have a good necromancer, and there are even rules designed for one, but it is very complicated and DMs usually won't want to bother with it, since it goes against the nature of the game.

Well just because necromancy is evil, does not mean that all of the practitioners of necromancy are necessarily evil. Also the BoED and BoVD don't really present rules for good necromancy. Deathless are a special exception but they aren't raised by a spellcaster for his or her own ends, which allows partially for their Good stance. You can certainly be a good necromancer, you just have to be aware that your character is going to have some issues with necromancy later on.

[JusticeZero]

Well just because necromancy is evil, does not mean that all of the practitioners of necromancy are necessarily evil..

Another point raised often is that [Evil] necromancy might make you (E)vil, but it does not necessarily make you evil. In this case, does it actually matter much?

[adriana]

Well just because necromancy is evil, does not mean that all of the practitioners of necromancy are necessarily evil. Also the BoED and BoVD don't really present rules for good necromancy. Deathless are a special exception but they aren't raised by a spellcaster for his or her own ends, which allows partially for their Good stance. You can certainly be a good necromancer, you just have to be aware that your character is going to have some issues with necromancy later on.

I think there will be social consequences as most do view it as evil. I don't think it would corrupt the necro cleric unless he allowed it.
Now the undead going rogue after the cleric died would cause issues unless the cleric was undead and this immortal as far as aging goes.

[AMFV]

Another point raised often is that [Evil] necromancy might make you (E)vil, but it does not necessarily make you evil. In this case, does it actually matter much?

Well they're synonymous as far as the game world goes. So it does matter, but the question is, "is necromancy enough to make you Evil?" And I don't think it is in all cases, a Paladin would certainly fall if they performed necromancy, but somebody who does Good, is very likely to do enough to enough to balance it out in the end. As I pointed it's like the drug-addicted nurse, it doesn't make you a bad person, but it is something wrong you're doing. Good characters do not need to never do anything evil. Hell even Paladins don't need to always do good, they can atone.

I think there will be social consequences as most do view it as evil. I don't think it would corrupt the necro cleric unless he allowed it.
Now the undead going rogue after the cleric died would cause issues unless the cleric was undead and this immortal as far as aging goes.

Certainly as I've said it is evil... but it's not necessarily something that makes the character evil. It just pushes them in that direction. They wouldn't be Exalted, but they could even still be good.

[adriana]

Well they're synonymous as far as the game world goes. So it does matter, but the question is, "is necromancy enough to make you Evil?" And I don't think it is in all cases, a Paladin would certainly fall if they performed necromancy, but somebody who does Good, is very likely to do enough to enough to balance it out in the end. As I pointed it's like the drug-addicted nurse, it doesn't make you a bad person, but it is something wrong you're doing. Good characters do not need to never do anything evil. Hell even Paladins don't need to always do good, they can atone.




Certainly as I've said it is evil... but it's not necessarily something that makes the character evil. It just pushes them in that direction. They wouldn't be Exalted, but they could even still be good.

I can agree with that to an extent. It certainly gives the character depth. I do agree they're definitely not going for saint hood.

[AMFV]

I can agree with that to an extent. It certainly gives the character depth. I do agree they're definitely not going for saint hood.

I mean it would be rough to be a Paladin or an Exalted character and practice necromancy, but it's not impossible to be Good otherwise, you just have to balance out. Although it could lead to a lot of problems later or possible falling into evil later, so you have to be mindful of that, as I said to my mind it's comparable to drug addiction, you do it, because you think it's necessary, because you don't think you can get by with out it, and there's some point where you'll slip up.

[yoshi67]

Well just because necromancy is evil, does not mean that all of the practitioners of necromancy are necessarily evil.

That was the point of my post. You can play as a neutral or good necromancer in your eyes, but it depends on how other people in your world look at it too. Also it has a lot to do with your DM.

I think these arguments ask a question, but really are looking for an answer to something else. A theoretical answer is turned into fuel for a realistic expectation.

"Can you theoretically play a good necromancer?" - Yes.
"Is it realistic to play a good necromancer?" - Not really, it is just too hard without changing rules, but you might find a DM who is willing to take on the challenge.

[JusticeZero]

Well they're synonymous as far as the game world goes.

Well, no, they aren't. Often they are, in the traditional stereotypes, but there are exceptions. For instance, one can theoretically summon demonic forces to repair a damaged hospital. That's "good" and [Evil] at the same time. What that adds up to varies from one setting to another. I track the [Evil] in that case, since being (E)vil doesn't affect your behavior.

[AMFV]

That was the point of my post. You can play as a neutral or good necromancer in your eyes, but it depends on how other people in your world look at it too. Also it has a lot to do with your DM.

I think these arguments ask a question, but really are looking for an answer to something else. A theoretical answer is turned into fuel for a realistic expectation.

"Can you theoretically play a good necromancer?" - Yes.
"Is it realistic to play a good necromancer?" - Not really, it is just too hard without changing rules, but you might find a DM who is willing to take on the challenge.

You don't have to change the rules... First off, casting Evil spells has no explicit corruptive effect, it doesn't magically turn you evil, any more than cheating on a test magically turns you chaotic. There is no falling for standard characters. Yes a Paladin can't do it. And yes an Exalted character ought not too. But you can have a good character that does bad things, not in an ends justify the means sort of way, but maybe they're working on it. A fighter who is unnecessarily cruel, a Bard who winds up selfishly using women and then leaving them discarded, a Wizard who studies lore that's a just a little bit evil, but he doesn't want to use it for evil, if it weren't for his damnable curiosity. These characters can be good, they can try, they can do Good things, enough to balance out. They just have problems, and all characters are flawed.

Secondly, society's viewpoint is irrelevant, it doesn't affect alignment, while it might present a stumbling block or potential issues that you have to deal with, just because people disapprove of something doesn't make it evil, although in this case it is. But doing something people disapprove of, doesn't make it evil.

[adriana]

One question still remains. Can a CN or LN cleric who happens to do necromancy take holy transformation or is he/she tied to infernal due to being negatively charged? Same with visage of the deity. My outlook remains the same that since they are neutral they can raise the dead and smite evil at the same time. Since dnd seems to be centered more around fighting evil baddies holy transformation and the "good" side of visage of the deity tends to be more useful. It's an interesting twist if you consider the act of necromancy evil but not the person wielding it evil unless certain acts are made.

[AMFV]

One question still remains. Can a CN or LN cleric who happens to do necromancy take holy transformation or is he/she tied to infernal due to being negatively charged? Same with visage of the deity. My outlook remains the same that since they are neutral they can raise the dead and smite evil at the same time. Since dnd seems to be centered more around fighting evil baddies holy transformation and the "good" side of visage of the deity tends to be more useful. It's an interesting twist if you consider the act of necromancy evil but not the person wielding it evil unless certain acts are made.

You shouldn't be negatively charged, there's no ruling that it does anything like that. It's just evil to do, you should even still be able to channel positive energy, the spells don't change your makeup, I mean if you use them enough and for crappy ends you'd eventually become Evil. But there are plenty of Neutral Necromancers in D&D. The act is evil, but the person may not be. If you are neutral and your deity is also neutral, you can completely cast [Good] Spells, without any restrictions.

Well, no, they aren't. Often they are, in the traditional stereotypes, but there are exceptions. For instance, one can theoretically summon demonic forces to repair a damaged hospital. That's "good" and [Evil] at the same time. What that adds up to varies from one setting to another. I track the [Evil] in that case, since being (E)vil doesn't affect your behavior.

And in the real world terrorist organizations repair hospitals to better their public image so that they can recruit more suicide bombers. I think I may see where your earlier issues were. In D&D, ends do not justify means. Raising an Undead will always be evil, not matter how much good you do with it. Furthermore your behavior affects being Evil, summoning Demons to repair a hospital is definitely questionable, but summoning Demons may not be in all cases Evil (See the Malconvoker, although it's not really clear if that's evil, it's on the fence), but if the demons come willingly and agree to help, then they likely have other motivations and the end result will be Evil and evil, as with the organizations that use hospital repair and disaster aid as a means to perpetuate further violence.

[adriana]

You shouldn't be negatively charged, there's no ruling that it does anything like that. It's just evil to do, you should even still be able to channel positive energy, the spells don't change your makeup, I mean if you use them enough and for crappy ends you'd eventually become Evil. But there are plenty of Neutral Necromancers in D&D. The act is evil, but the person may not be. If you are neutral and your deity is also neutral, you can completely cast [Good] Spells, without any restrictions.

Well what I mean by negatively charged is I was rebuking undead and not turning and I was casting spontaneous inflict wounds so I could heal my minions out of combat. I got flack from my group about attempting to use holy vs infernal.