Why is Necromancy evil but Conjuration is not?

[Naanomi]

Ravnica?

(The UA on that one never really did it for me, but I do understand the theme ... )

In the Ravnica book, but probably fairly setting neutral

[Malifice]

You seem to be going back and forth on what 'counts' for the discussion. RAW in 5e necromancy is simply not evil, raising dead bodies doesn't change your alignment or force you to not follow a good Deity or anything like that. Necromancy is more often considered evil because you're taking people's dead bodies and (in the eyes of many societies) defiling them, and because if you don't keep control of the undead they go on a rampage, but this is a setting choice not fundamental to 5e. It's the same way that warlocks are not evil per RAW, but in many setting most warlocks fall somewhat under the 'evil' banner because of their patrons. Conjuration doesn't fall under 'evil' as often because you're not defiling anyone's body, and with most conjurations the conjured creatures don't persist past the conjuration. Note that summoning demons or devils is often considered as evil as necromancy in settings. In medieval European history, defiling the dead was considered extremely bad - lots of early anatomists and doctors had to secretly graverob to find bodies to examine or practice on - and so was making deals with the devil or his demonic servants. Tolkein specifically drew on this and incorporated it into his world, with Sauron first appearing as "the necromancer". Animosity towards both conjuration and necromancy stems from this bit of history and mythology; I think if the cultural background was based more on pre-Christian polythesim in Europe or things like voodoo instead of Christian Europe and Tolkein, there wouldn't be such a stark 'necromancy and devil summoning = evil' thread running through backgrounds.

Look at that RAW again.

Animating the dead is not good and only evil creatures do so frequently.

[sophontteks]

Its evil for the same reasons force lightning is.

Dark magic.

It's also evil to willingly create a monster worse than Jeffrey Dahmer, using a person's corpse and that same dark magic.

Necromancy is a school of magic publicly taught to wizards in school. Its not dark magic. Raising the dead as undead, however, is.

Similiarly there is nothing evil about conjuration, but summoning demons is definately an exception.

[Malifice]

Necromancy is a school of magic publicly taught to wizards in school. Its not dark magic. Raising the dead as undead, however, is.

Raising the dead with necromancy expressly uses 'foul evil black magic'.

Says so in the zombie and skeleton entry in the MM.

[sophontteks]

Raising the dead with necromancy expressly uses 'foul evil black magic'.

Says so in the zombie and skeleton entry in the MM.

I know. Thats exactly what I said.

[Malifice]

I know. Thats exactly what I said.

Oh good. Were in agreement.

[Millstone85]

In the ancient editions animated dead and undead were created by channeling energy from the negative material plain. As a consequence they were frequently described as having an insatiable hunger for the positive energy of life.

I am pretty sure that's still how it works.

Like a dome above the other planes, the Positive Plane is the source of radiant energy and the raw life force that suffuses all living beings, from the puny to the sublime. Its dark refleclion is the Negative Plane, the source of necrotic energy that destroys the living and animates the undead.

[Man_Over_Game]

In "Science-y" terms, Necromancy from the DnD universe, as a whole (as in, more than just 5e), uses Negative Energy which is the literal element of Evil. Being subjected to it can kill living people or even forcefully change your alignment to become Evil in some cases.

In "Philosophy" terms, using Undead is generally described as warping the soul and the body in a way that's against their will, usually on a creature that had free will. This is reflected by the fact that being undead prevents you from being impacted by Resurrection abilities. Even if you don't agree that you're using the original soul to control the body, it's hard to deny that there are rules that imply you are impacting the soul's ability to return to life. To me, this translates as you basically grabbing the soul, forcing it back into its body, and controlling it against its will (which makes the most sense as to why it can't opt to be resurrected).

Additionally, most binding of Conjuration doesn't use souls. The creatures you're binding don't have free will, and are bound to their alignments. Or, in other terms, part of their existence is being dragged around by powers beyond them. They are compelled to do evil, but now are compelled to fight for you. They never had a soul or free will in the first place, and so you're not actually making them do anything that they'd hate doing more than what they'd already be doing.

[sophontteks]

Oh good. Were in agreement.

So we are, sorry. Maybe I misunderstood what you were orginally saying.

[sophontteks]

In "Science-y" terms, Necromancy from the DnD universe, as a whole (as in, more than just 5e), uses Negative Energy which is the literal element of Evil. Being subjected to it can kill living people or even forcefully change your alignment to become Evil in some cases.

In "Philosophy" terms, using Undead is generally described as warping the soul and the body in a way that's against their will, usually on a creature that had free will. This is reflected by the fact that being undead prevents you from being impacted by Resurrection abilities. Even if you don't agree that you're using the original soul to control the body, it's hard to deny that there are rules that imply you are impacting the soul's ability to return to life. To me, this translates as you basically grabbing the soul, forcing it back into its body, and controlling it against its will (which makes the most sense as to why it can't opt to be resurrected).

Additionally, most binding of Conjuration doesn't use souls. The creatures you're binding don't have free will, and are bound to their alignments. Or, in other terms, part of their existence is being dragged around by powers beyond them. They are compelled to do evil, but now are compelled to fight for you. They never had a soul or free will in the first place, and so you're not actually making them do anything that they'd hate doing more than what they'd already be doing.

Well don't forget that summoning demons is strictly conjuration and its not only evil, its downright dangerous. Control over the demon is limited and creating paths for demons to enter the material realm is beyond taboo. Out of the Abyss comes to mind when discussing the consequences at an extreme.

And the world is about a balance of positive and negative energy. The use of negative energy in magic is not evil for its own sake despite its state.

[Man_Over_Game]

Well don't forget that summoning demons is strictly conjuration and its not only evil, its downright dangerous. Control over the demon is limited and creating paths for demons to enter the material realm is beyond taboo. Out of the Abyss comes to mind when discussing the consequences at an extreme.

Sure, I'm not saying that's not a good reason to describe Conjuration as evil (I even have Conjuration as being slightly evil in my quiz), but just as to why Necromancy is considered inherently evil where Conjuration isn't.

Wizard Necromancy magic uses the element of pure evil, and it forces souls with free will to not have it. Conjuration doesn't. To me, it's not a matter of opinion or necessity/recklessness. If you use the Evil element, it's Evil, but working with Evil people or Evil creatures is fair game.

And the world is about a balance of positive and negative energy. The use of negative energy in magic is not evil for its own sake despite its state.

Normally, I'd agree with you, but simply going to a plane of Good/Evil energy can impact you based off of alignment (at least, in older editions). There is a piece of weird planar science associated with the powers of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. It's not as important in 5e, but neither are things like Paladin/Cleric piety.

[sophontteks]

Sure, I'm not saying that's not a good reason to describe Conjuration as evil (I even have Conjuration as being slightly evil in my quiz), but just as to why Necromancy is considered inherently evil where Conjuration isn't.

Wizard Necromancy magic uses the element of pure evil, and it forces souls with free will to not have it. Conjuration doesn't. To me, it's not a matter of opinion or necessity/recklessness. If you use the Evil element, it's Evil, but working with Evil people or Evil creatures is fair game.

But is it considered evil?
Do they not teach all wizards necromancy in school?
Its just another school of magic, publically taught, commonly used, which has the potential to do some seriously evil stuff.

But thats no different then the other schools. Mind control, reading thoughts, fireballs, summoning demons etc etc. Surely they teach wise use of all magic to wizards knowing full well how dangerous magic in general can be.

When you cast spells you use the magic around you. You are not visiting another plane or summoning its magic. Negative and positive energy exist in the material plane. They exist in balance.

[rlc]

For most people, perception is reality, especially if nobody bothers challenging it.

[sithlordnergal]

You know, I would actually say Necromancy is more Neutral then Evil. It is percieved as "evil" due to Necromancers raising Undead...but at the same time spells like Revivify, Ressurection, True Ressurection, and Raise Dead are also Necromancy spells. Necromancy just gets a bad rap from evil Necromancers.

[MoiMagnus]

In "Science-y" terms, Necromancy from the DnD universe, as a whole (as in, more than just 5e), uses Negative Energy which is the literal element of Evil.

Since AD&D disagree with this (standard good-aligned healing is classified as necromancy), it would not surprise me if some DnD settings had non-evil Necromancy. But you're probably right for most of them.

[Man_Over_Game]

You know, I would actually say Necromancy is more Neutral then Evil. It is percieved as "evil" due to Necromancers raising Undead...but at the same time spells like Revivify, Ressurection, True Ressurection, and Raise Dead are also Necromancy spells. Necromancy just gets a bad rap from evil Necromancers.

There's a bit of difference between Holy magic and Arcane magic, especially regarding Necromancy. Clerics can cast Necromancy just fine, because they're beseeching their god for divine intervention. The god, who has some leeway with where souls go, can resurrect just fine as part of the cosmic balance. They are not forcing a soul, they're just offering a bridge for the soul to cross, and that's fine. Free will is never impacted (and free will/alignment is very important for planar powers/gods).

Wizards, on the other hand, treat Necromancy as the energy manipulation of Life. Tug some from here to heal me there. Note that none of the spells you mentioned are available to Wizards, and the closest thing they get to a healing spell is using Life Transference (a Necromancy spell) to drain their own health to heal someone else. In every other instance of Wizard Necromancy, they're either stealing someone else's life or creating undead.

Necromancy, as in the Element, isn't inherently evil, because it simply just means the manipulation of life (where Evocation is the element of energy creation, which includes healing energy). However, Wizard Necromancy almost assuredly is.

[jaappleton]

Conjuration might be MORE evil.

A corpse? Look, nobody was using it.

Summon an Elemental? Jeff the Earth Elemental is late for dinner now. His wife already thought he was cheating, now she DEFINITELY thinks so and wants a divorce. You ended a marriage just because you wanted backup against the vampire, you jerk.

[OverLordOcelot]

Look at that RAW again.

Animating the dead is not good and only evil creatures do so frequently.

What book and page#? It's not in the alignment rules, spellcasting rules, or animate dead spell IIRC.

[Unoriginal]

Casting Ray of Enfeeblement isn't more evil than casting Firebolt. No matter the energies involved, it's only the use you're doing of the tool that has a moral impact (or not).

On the other hand, concerning animating corpses, there's something that people have to consider: "naturally"-occuring undead.

Not only Ghosts, but various undead, even Zombies and Skeletons, can happen without the intervention of any sapient forces. Places struck by great tragedies or intense acts of hatred can, sometime, result in the dead bodies getting occupied by evil spirits, leading to them continuing what the body was doing before death in a danse macabre as a default, when they're not actively seeking life to destroy. Others are the result of the person dying after committing a great evil or having unfinished business, leaving them to stalk the world of the living as the immaterial shadows of what they were or as deformed corpses. And a Paladin who betray their oaths and die without repentance will rise as a Death Knight, potentially resulting in the suffering of thousands.

Someone who uses a spell like Animate Dead is someone who knows of all those things, know how much a blight on the world it can be, and go "well, let's make more of them artificially".

[Millstone85]

What book and page#? It's not in the alignment rules, spellcasting rules, or animate dead spell IIRC.

It is in fact in the chapter on spellcasting.

Necromancy spells manipulate the energies of life and death. Such spells can grant an extra reserve of life force, drain the life energy from another creature, create the undead, or even bring the dead back to life.
Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

[KOLE]

Don't forget that several of the Conjuration summoning spells have the same drawback. For example, with Conjure Fey, Conjure Elemental, and Summon Greater Demon, if you lose Concentration or the summoned creature succeeds on a saving throw, the summoner loses control and they turn hostile.

I'd say summoning a Demon and then losing control so that it goes on a murderous rampage is just as "evil" as raising undead and then losing control so they go on a murderous rampage.

There’s a lot of lore about magic practicioners convenin with demons/fiends being an evil act. Just because it doesn’t specifically call out the school of Conjuration doesn’t mean it isn’t established.

In the same way, casting a Necromancy school spell such as False Life or Chill Touch usually doesn’t raise eyebrows, but Animate Dead specifically does.

[Naanomi]

Summoning spells create an hour of danger at most... animated undead that lose control are a danger potentially indefinitely (leaving aside the non-mechanically represented cosmological damage it may also be causing)

[Asmotherion]

Necromancy is viewed as evil because it's lore is textbook "i use the force of evil unpure death to replace/mimick/ridicule the forces of life".

Conjuration is neutral. You can conjure good neutral or evil beings (or forces) and have them do the opposit of their alignment. it's neutral by itself... what matters is how you use it.

That is if you believe in the sort of thing such as good or evil. For a Boccobian for example "it's just magic. Use at your own jugment (translation: you probably have like 18 int... use it when you decide on something instead of following your impulses). Boccob doesn't care 'cause you're insignificant."



if you were to break down every single aspect of D&D into perspective and overanalyse it: Throwing a Fireball is also evil because you never can calculate for casualties. And so is dealing a death blow because the monster or humanoid you just killed might have a fammily. This means all PCs are either Evil or Neutral at best and only NPCs living a completely mundane life ever have a chance to be "pure good". The answer is: Don't think about it.

[Naanomi]

That is if you believe in the sort of thing such as good or evil. For a Boccobian for example "it's just magic. Use at your own jugment (translation: you probably have like 18 int... use it when you decide on something instead of following your impulses). Boccob doesn't care 'cause you're insignificant."

if you were to break down every single aspect of D&D into perspective and overanalyse it: Throwing a Fireball is also evil because you never can calculate for casualties. And so is dealing a death blow because the monster or humanoid you just killed might have a fammily. This means all PCs are either Evil or Neutral at best and only NPCs living a completely mundane life ever have a chance to be "pure good". The answer is: Don't think about it.

The Great Wheel Cosmology has a lot to say about that... killing isn’t evil, because beings from the Plane of Good sometimes kill; same with using fire magic... and it doesn’t matter if Boccob cares or not; the *universe* knows

[Paleomancer]

A good rule of thumb to understanding the arbitrary nature of how magic is defined good or evil, is that "magic" historically was tied to the litany of insults and slurs used by a given religion to criticize rival faiths. In terms of folklore, a necromancer is literally just someone who speaks with the dead... often by summoning them (if you visit a psychic, technically you and the psychic are both committing necromancy ). A conjurer is someone who summons, bargains with, and often binds with supernatural beings... which includes undead (and overlaps with warlock). A priest petitions a god/the gods for answers... and might be answered by a holy spiritual being (including the dead) or bind supernatural beings (see the Tarrasque, in fact) - also overlaps with warlock. A sorcerer does all of the above and their ancestor did not sleep with a dragon.

Another part is how we ascribe "real-life" meanings to imaginary creatures. With undead, you have the general human fears of mortality, common beliefs in souls or afterlife, and strong cultural taboos against defiling the dead. A necromancer who creates undead is something most people are likely to find repugnant. Elemental spirits in the form of actual mobile elemental forces don't actually exist (even in mythology - you can thank alchemy for most of that), so there is no real or perceived basis in actual life to say whether binding them would be right or wrong. Golems in modern fiction are essentially magical robots, and vary in how intelligent/mindless they are. Once upon a time, summoning faerie beings might have been seen as dangerous, nigh suicidal, but thanks to Disney and Tolkien, people largely have forgotten that mythological fey were treacherous, capricious, and often violent beings that would kidnap children as pets and hunt travelers for sport... As noted by previous posters, summoning fiends is, like binding undead, considered an evil act, but traditionally, fiends in mythology are closer to incorporeal undead than actual flesh-and-blood entities, so we get considerable overlap with necromancy (and in fact, binding demons could be considered both necromancy and conjuration by etymological definitions). Summoning animals to fight for us is something people still kind of do in real life (think guard or hunting dogs), we just had more creatures to that list than normally feasible.

[Hail Tempus]

People sometimes seem to tie themselves in moral knots trying to justify why their character, who is built around raising and controlling undead, isn’t actually evil. What’s the point? Unless your DM bans evil characters, what’s the problem with just putting NE on your character sheet and raising undead to your (dark) heart’s content?

A good character wouldn’t try to rationalize why it’s okay to create zombies or summon demons. If you have to do such serious moral gymnastics to justify your actions, your character probably isn’t good to begin with.

[Asmotherion]

The Great Wheel Cosmology has a lot to say about that... killing isn’t evil, because beings from the Plane of Good sometimes kill; same with using fire magic... and it doesn’t matter if Boccob cares or not; the *universe* knows

Well it kind of matters to someone who wants access to his offered afterlife. if your God doesn't care it means that you're free to do whatever you want to do and be your true alignment not because your god dictates you to follow some rules but because that's your "true self". And in a Universe were things such as the Afterlife or the existance of Gods is a scientific fact it's a pretty big deal.

As for the killing can be justified... i follow the logic but not necesserally agree with it which is why i prefear not to overthink it. it does pose the question "is too good actually evil"? Let's imagin a world without Demons/Devils and evil beings/outsiders. The next "most evil" thing in polar oposition are evil humanoids etc. When they're out it's neutral beings who are not evil but just "not pure enough". Follow my logic?

[KorvinStarmast]

People sometimes seem to tie themselves in moral knots trying to justify why their character, who is built around raising and controlling undead, isn’t actually evil. What’s the point?

Same point as murder hobos claiming to be neutral.

Unless your DM bans evil characters, what’s the problem with just putting NE on your character sheet and raising undead to your (dark) heart’s content?

A fair question, but some people do not like that often being evil has consequences. Escapism often conflicts with accepting consequences ...

A good character wouldn’t try to rationalize why it’s okay to create zombies or summon demons. If you have to do such serious moral gymnastics to justify your actions, your character probably isn’t good to begin with.

Some people grasp that, some don't.

[Willie the Duck]

Quick note: I will let others discuss the state of RAW for 5e. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

The main reason necromancy is seen as evil seems to come down to consent - those bodies in the graveyard did not consent to become sweet skeleton archers before they died.

That... would be a pretty good justification for why raising the dead would be considered wrong. I think calling it the main reason that necromancy is seen as evil is flat out wrong (not that I've conducted a poll or anything, I just highly doubt it). Regardless, it would be an after-the-fact justification.

The answer for the more general question of 'why is making undead servitors generally* considered something that evil characters do. And that goes back to Gygax. Mind you, Necromancers specifically didn't show up until AD&D 2e, which was after Gygax left the company, but much of the groundwork of evil enemy wizards with undead servants had already been laid down.
*and let's not quibble here about if it is or isn't in a given edition, or how much. Clearly there is variation.

Now, as others have mentioned, there are historical and folklore pieces to contend with. As Paleomancer mentions, a Necromancer was originally someone who contacted the dead, so it was more of what we think of as a diviner. As many people mentioned about graverobbery, it is disrespecting someone else's loved ones' bodies. From a pure social order aspect, if you find a dead body at Joe's house, you really want it to be a reason to call either the coroner or the constable (a situation where 'I have a permit to do this,' or, 'that person consented to become my rotting butler' would be unwelcome). Of course 'the restless dead' are some of folklores' most consistent heavy hitters. So well before the 20th century, there's plenty of reasons why 'guy/gal who trucks with the living dead' is going to pigeonhole one as the villain in a story.

When we get to the 20th century, there is of course Tolkien. As OverLordOcelot points out, Sauron was originally "the necromancer." But even moreso, it's helpful to remember D&D's other main influence: pulp and schlock. Hammer Horror, Weird Tales, Detective Comics, Night of the Living Dead... all that is interwoven into the DNA of D&D as tightly as Tolkien ever was. And in that, if there even was a person out there controlling the shambling zombies or drifting ghosts, they certainly weren't the heroes of the story.

So that's the inspiration. Each edition has done differently how or why undead or those that summon/control them are evil/tend to be evil/are committing evil acts/are seen as evil/etc. Justifications like negative energy plane* or the like are just that. I think the game has overall done a decent job of walking the line of allowing necromancers to be a standard issue thematic bad guy most of the time, but leave some open space for people who want to play that character to justify it if they and their DM want. It's going to come down to a DM call anyways, so leaving it nice and vague is probably best.
*and anyone remember back in 1e when mummies were linked to the positive energy plane?

[The Jack]

Cause skulls are bad
and mindless skeletons make good minions for -stupid evil- characters who nobody living would follow.
And people get freaked out about dead bodies. It's why we bury or burn the dead and have reservations about organ donation.
And popcorn flicks.
There's a bit of tribalism (living VS dead)
and a fear of magic.


The Negative energy plane is evil, but why is harnessing it bad? People don't become monstrous when we use fire or a poison in a small enough dose to be beneficial.

Evil wizards get up and decide they want to wear black and use skeletons. Now, I understand you can see it as 'the dark side of the force' and using it corrupts you, but by that token do you not require using holy magic make you more good? At which point, can you not game the system and ensure that you use both opposites to keep your head level? And why make Animate dead taint you when firebolt, fireball, charm person and such are all malicious.


Pragmatic mages always beats out Stupid Evil in terms of character and flavour. They're far more fun to play. I want to use Animate Dead to inflate my manpower and reduce casualties in a conflict; surely that's noble use?

From my experience better GMs are more relaxed in what's good or evil.