Good alligned god for a Necromancer?

[Unoriginal]

Two thoughts to this:

1. She's intentionally a "reformed Kelemvorite" in a world that also has "orthodox Kelemvorites", which is both a throwaway joke about how religions fragment into denominations, and also a conscious choice to have her character's beliefs be in conflict with other worshipers of the same god. The idea of worshiping a god that might not condone your actions was the entire point of picking Kelemvor instead of Jergal or whatever.

It's entirely possible that her views are displeasing to Kelemvor but she just hasn't done anything bad enough to get herself fully smote yet. She's also not a cleric or paladin, so it's not like Kelemvor is granting her spells every morning in tacit approval of her actions. And he has made his displeasure with her clear on more than one occasion when she crossed a big line (most of her necromancy is just reanimating corpses, but she's brushed up against her own hard rule of "no soul stuff" recently).

"Is necromancy evil?" has been a persistent theme and source of conflict in our campaign since its beginning, when half my players wrote "I abhor necromancy in all its forms" into their PC backstory and a third player rocked up with a good-aligned necromancer PC. From a storytelling perspective, I much prefer to ask questions that lead to interesting conflicts/conversations than I do declaring "this god believes XYZ, no compromise, so you'll have to pick a different god." Can my player create a nigh-heretical believer that Kelemvor tolerates...perhaps even comes to value? I like playing in the uncertainty of that space and prodding the edges of the world.

Thank you for answering, in that case I understand perfectly. "I think my god approves, but he doesn't" is an effective drama generator, and so is "character has a nearly impossible goal, but maybe...".

Ultimately, my player brought Kelemvor to the table along with her character concept, and I liked the vibes, and we ran with it. Maybe our version of Kelemvor isn't a necromancy absolutist like the "canon" version is, but he's still an imposing figure with a mortal ascension story, a complicated connection to the god of magic, an aloof demeanor, a "fair but cold" personality, and a sense of inevitability to his behavior befitting a god of death.

I dispute the claim that he's unrecognizable just because one of his (non-Divine-caster) followers believes that he's okay with "flesh and bone" necromancy so long as you don't try to cheat death or interfere with a soul's journey to the afterlife.

Well in any case, he wouldn't unrecognizable if it's just one of his followers believing something that isn't the case. That's the PC projecting a trait on Kelemvor, not Kelemvor having that trait.

It's not like your version of Kelemvor has a Lich as the head of his religion. Or if one of his noted miracles was raising all of the dead on a battlefield into a zombie horde to save a city of his worshipers.

It's far more important to me that the characters, tone, and internal worldbuilding are consistent than whether our table's worldbuilding matches up with every minor detail from decades worth of comics-style hodgepodge source material.

When we see something we want to use, we take it and make it our own. It stops being, say, "canon" Kelemvor and starts being our table's version of Kelemvor. Which is something that every table in existence does already to varying degrees. Even a DM who pauses the whole game to research and confirm whether or not a PC is allowed to have a certain belief if they worship a certain god in a certain time period will inevitably create "their" version of that god just via the natural mutations of collaborative storytelling.

I 100% agree here.

I'm starting a new campaign soon as the DM, and it will involves me roleplaying both Tiamat and Asmodeus. By doing so, I'm necessarily going to make them different characters from anyone else's interpretations, to a certain extent. That's just what happens when you take and work with existing characters.

However, I also believe that making them *too* different would be a disservice for the characters in most cases. Which is why I think it's important to avoid it.

Of course, what is "too different" depends on subjective preferences and opinions.

In any case, thank you again for your answer.

[Ionathus]

In any case, thank you again for your answer.

Absolutely! Thanks for your thoughts.

I agree wholeheartedly that there are certain core things that you can't change about a character without taking away what makes them special and, as you said, raising questions of why you even wanted to use that character in the first place. I like that you cited Batman earlier, since comics are such a great example of this: the source material has been so convoluted from almost a century of additions that it's impossible to have one "canon" version of Batman, but generally it's pretty easy to "know it when you see it," so to speak.

Of course some people will see those "core" things differently: for example, Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins features Batman straight-up letting someone die, which was fine for a lot of viewers but really upset other fans who believe that "no killing" is, like you said, non-negotiable for Batman.

[Schwann145]

It's worth pointing out, I think, that anyone can worship Kelemvor without following his edicts.
It would be really weird, but totally possible.

It's only *clerics* (and Paladins, I suppose) that have to worry about what Kelemvor thinks, because he's the one granting them their power(s).
If a Wizard necromancer claims to follow Kelemvor but uses undead, he's a bad follower but nothing is stopping him.
If a Cleric of Kelemvor tries animating the dead, they're likely to simply fail outright because Kelemvor wouldn't grant them that magic.

If the DM decides to allow it, that's also fine, but at that point we get back to the question of, "if you're going to fundamentally change who Kelemvor, the god, is, then why insist on using him?"

[Ionathus]

It's worth pointing out, I think, that anyone can worship Kelemvor without following his edicts.
It would be really weird, but totally possible.

It's only *clerics* (and Paladins, I suppose) that have to worry about what Kelemvor thinks, because he's the one granting them their power(s).
If a Wizard necromancer claims to follow Kelemvor but uses undead, he's a bad follower but nothing is stopping him.
If a Cleric of Kelemvor tries animating the dead, they're likely to simply fail outright because Kelemvor wouldn't grant them that magic.

I should be totally honest about this: Kelemvor in my setting is going along with it, at least for right now. He doesn't like it, but as you said the PC isn't a member of the clergy so he's not taking a direct hand in her actions. I liked the line that my player drew in the sand -- "I see nothing wrong with reusing dead bodies for good goals, but I will never interfere in longevity or soul magic" -- and I decided that Kelemvor would dislike that approach but not find it smite-worthy. And then she grew in power, and her thirst for knowledge and mastery of magic started to remind him of another wizard he once knew...

Short answer is: it's complicated, and Kelemvor is probably doing things and holding opinions in my campaign that he wouldn't in "canon" Forgotten Realms. But I stand by the story it's allowed us to tell.

If the DM decides to allow it, that's also fine, but at that point we get back to the question of, "if you're going to fundamentally change who Kelemvor, the god, is, then why insist on using him?"

This statement was buried in my last essay of a post, so here it is again (with all the cowardice and hedging trimmed away )

Maybe our version of Kelemvor isn't a necromancy absolutist like the "canon" version is, but he's still an imposing figure with a mortal ascension story, a complicated connection to the god of magic, an aloof demeanor, a "fair but cold" personality, and a sense of inevitability to his behavior befitting a god of death.

I dispute the claim that he's unrecognizable just because one of his (non-Divine-caster) followers believes that he's okay with "flesh and bone" necromancy so long as you don't try to cheat death or interfere with a soul's journey to the afterlife.

[Blatant Beast]

If the DM decides to allow it, that's also fine, but at that point we get back to the question of, "if you're going to fundamentally change who Kelemvor, the god, is, then why insist on using him?"

I also would contend that Special K tolerating a good aligned Necromancer, is not a fundamental alteration of Special K’s character. The mantle of the God of the Dead, is a role that Special K has taken on.

Special K, would have, complete discretion in some areas involving Death, but in others, the God of Death would have administrational dominion, not discretional.

Special K is neither Omnipotent nor Omniscient. Any real world Law Enforcement agency has to make strategic priority decisions regarding investigations and prosecutions, as a practical matter.

Special K, and it’s agents only have so much power…is a good aligned Necromancer going to be capturing the lion’s share of interest from Special K, or would that interest more likely be focused on larger, Undead threats such as the Lich Leader of Thay, or Larlock?

[Keltest]

I also would contend that Special K tolerating a good aligned Necromancer, is not a fundamental alteration of Special K’s character. The mantle of the God of the Dead, is a role that Special K has taken on.

Special K, would have, complete discretion in some areas involving Death, but in others, the God of Death would have administrational dominion, not discretional.

Special K is neither Omnipotent nor Omniscient. Any real world Law Enforcement agency has to make strategic priority decisions regarding investigations and prosecutions, as a practical matter.

Special K, and it’s agents only have so much power…is a good aligned Necromancer going to be capturing the lion’s share of interest from Special K, or would that interest more likely be focused on larger, Undead threats such as the Lich Leader of Thay, or Larlock?

Kelemvor doesn't "tolerate" necromancers, good aligned or otherwise. He universally opposes the creation of undead, period. If you do necromancy without that, fine, he doesnt care. If you do that without doing any other necromancy, nope, he wants you to stop. If you do so while claiming to worship him, that gives him a lot of tools to try and get you to stop, especially if you're a cleric rather than a wizard or warlock.

[Unoriginal]

Kelemvor doesn't "tolerate" necromancers, good aligned or otherwise. He universally opposes the creation of undead, period. If you do necromancy without that, fine, he doesnt care. If you do that without doing any other necromancy, nope, he wants you to stop. If you do so while claiming to worship him, that gives him a lot of tools to try and get you to stop, especially if you're a cleric rather than a wizard or warlock.

I wouldn't say it gives him a lot of tools unless you're a Cleric or Paladin.

I mean, worshiping him wrongly means he's aware of you and your transgression, so he could send his church and his Outsider servants after you, and maybe *try* to talk you out of this path in a vision, but he wouldn't be able to just hit you with ligthning bolts where you stand.

Once the PC in Ionathus's campaign dies and meets Kelemvor, though... well the kindest thing he can do would be to peacefully hand her soul to a god who actually fit her beliefs, like Osiris, rather than accept her in his afterlifem

Because let's be honest being stuck in a true neutral afterlife when you're lawful good is pretty bad, but adds the fact everyone else there will loath you for having spent your life creating undead.

[Blatant Beast]

Does it, though?

Clearly, Special K has no power to inherently stop Necromancy.
Szass Tam, Larlock, Accerack, Dragon-Lichs, Ghosts, the Fields of the Dead..etc, etc.

So, the best that Special K can do is send Divinely Inspired Messages to his followers, or task an Extraplanar Agent, to mess with the Player Character in question.

Obviously, we have seen historical examples of powerful elected officials issuing insults towards private citizens , which is an action on some level, that begs one to question if that is the best use of time, given the responsibilities inherent with the mantle of their roles.

If Special K has an obsession over one lone, good aligned Necromancer Wizard, would acting on that obsession really the best use of their and their dedicated follower’s time?

Is the God of Death, really going to spend time and resources, terrorizing one lone PC adherent, out of pique, when clearly Special K lacks the resources to destroy Thay or other more important necromantic threats?

Thematically, that would make Special K both ineffectual and petty as a god…perhaps time for someone else to wear the Mantle of God of Death.

Ultimately, though, what matters, is not the ‘correct’ answer, what matters is being able to tell a good story. Ionathus’ anedocte, would seem to confirm that allowing some divergence in views between worshipper and worshipped, allows space for great story telling in a real game of D&D.

Real Game of D&D vs The ‘correct’ answer from D&D Trivial Pursuit.

[Unoriginal]

Does it, though?

Clearly, Special K has no power to inherently stop Necromancy.
Szass Tam, Larlack, Accerack, Dragon Lichs, Ghosts, the Fields of the Dead..etc, etc.

So, the best that Special K can do is send Divinely Inspired Messages to his followers, or task an Extraplanar Agent, to mess with the Player Character in question.

Obviously, we have seen historical examples of a President tweeting insults towards private citizens, which is something on some level, that begs one to question if that is the best use of time, given the responsibilities inherent with the mantle of the role.

Is the God of Death, really going to spend time and resources, terrorizing one lone PC adherent, out of pique, when clearly Special K lacks the resources to destroy Thay or other more important necromantic threats?

Thematically, that would make Special K both ineffectual and petty as a godÂ…perhaps time for someone else to wear the Mantle of God of Death.

There are two things you don't take into account here:

1) By worshipping Kelemvor, the necromancer is the one contacting the God of Death and unwittingly telling him she's disrespecting his edicts and personal preferences.

Szass Tam may be a greater threat to Kelemvor's goals, but Tam does not spend his time business-calling the God of Death to tell him he's done the opposite of what Kelemvor ask of his followers.

So it would be a "too low a threat to justify the big guns, but too highly visible to ignore outright" situation.

2) Having someone spread incorrect belief about you *is* a problem when you're a god. A god who doesn't step in when someone spread incorrect dogma risks to either lose worshipers. Or maybe even be shaped by that dogma into a different god, although that is rarer.

So in any case it would be understandable if Kelemvor is keeping an eye on that one mortal.

[Keltest]

Worshiping a god means more than just saying "I follow this god" though. Different gods have different rituals, holy days, ceremonies, etc... and actively engaging in that faith means interacting with other followers, to say nothing of possibly getting attention from Kelemvor himself.

Im genuinely struggling to think of a circumstance where you could know of Kelemvor and who he is and what he is about without also learning that he is aggressively opposed to the undead in all forms. Its not like its just a little wrong, its the complete opposite of his doctrine.

[Ionathus]

Worshiping a god means more than just saying "I follow this god" though. Different gods have different rituals, holy days, ceremonies, etc... and actively engaging in that faith means interacting with other followers, to say nothing of possibly getting attention from Kelemvor himself.

Im genuinely struggling to think of a circumstance where you could know of Kelemvor and who he is and what he is about without also learning that he is aggressively opposed to the undead in all forms. Its not like its just a little wrong, its the complete opposite of his doctrine.

This is an honest question, not a rhetorical tactic: where is the source for that? Both my player and I researched Kelemvor for this campaign and found nothing in the PHB appendix about Kelemvor's ultimate and no-exceptions hatred of all undead.

If we're going off of 5e's available materials, it seems like the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide gets more into it, but we haven't read that. The Forgotten Realms Wiki mentions it, once, but only halfway down the page:

The death clergy, as they were known, had many duties...their final and arguably most important task was the destruction of undeath in all its various forms as it was an affront to Kelemvor.

I don't think I read that far when we initially set up the character. To me, this quote at the top of the wiki article felt like the clearest summation of the god's philosophy:

Death is but part of life: fear it not, evade it not, and view it not as evil. To fear death delivers you into the hands of those who can bring death down upon you. Die with dignity, neither raging nor seeking to embrace undeath. Do honor to the dead, for their strivings in life brought Faerun to where it is now, and to forget them is to forget also where we are now—and why. -- Kelemvor's charge to his followers

And that quote does mention undeath, but specifically in context of "embracing" undeath to avoid dying. Which, to be clear, the PC still opposes fervently (which led to a funny moment where the Necromancer in the party was the most reluctant about letting the paladin of Bahamut cast Revivify!)

So if there's another, better source for this that I could have used, that would be helpful to know! You and several others have talked about this like it's a pretty blatantly, painfully obvious divergence from "canon" Kelemvor but I feel like I'm missing something. Did it show up in a popular module? Was Kelemvor huge in the 3.5e days? I've been in this community for years and the idea that Kelemvor isn't Kelemvor unless he equally hates all undead, intelligent/soul-carrying or not, was news to me in this thread.

[Keltest]

In 3rd edition, I believe, there was a prestige class for followers of Kelemvor called Doomguides specifically dedicated to hunting down and destroying undead. A lot of his lore comes from 2e and 3e, since 5e has criminally underdeveloped pretty much all of its settings.

[Unoriginal]

This is an honest question, not a rhetorical tactic: where is the source for that? Both my player and I researched Kelemvor for this campaign and found nothing in the PHB appendix about Kelemvor's ultimate and no-exceptions hatred of all undead.

It's mentioned in the Sword Coast's Adventure Guide (and maybe the Xanathar's too, my search result is being unclear here):

In fact, all the faithful of Kelemvor despise the undead and work to some degree to eliminate them, for undead of any sort are seen as an abomination of the natural order. This belief obviously puts Kelemvor's faithful at odds with necromancers, priests of Myrkul, and others who promote the creation of the undead, and it also causes conflict from unexpected sources. For instance, priests of Kelemvor routinely destroy any writings about the creation of the undead that they find - an act that offends those who value knowledge for its own sake, such as the faithful of Oghma and Deneir. And there also exist undead that aren't evil, such as the baelnorn, which the elves consider holy. Kelemvor's devotees seek the end of such beings regardless of that fact.

[Zevox]

Once the PC in Ionathus's campaign dies and meets Kelemvor, though... well the kindest thing he can do would be to peacefully hand her soul to a god who actually fit her beliefs, like Osiris, rather than accept her in his afterlifem

Because let's be honest being stuck in a true neutral afterlife when you're lawful good is pretty bad, but adds the fact everyone else there will loath you for having spent your life creating undead.

Oh, a character such as this would definitely be judged as one of the False. Choosing Kelemvor as your patron and the going against his teachings so seriously makes that pretty cut and dry. They'd be given a punishment in the City of the Dead for their afterlife based on the severity of the violation - and considering how strongly opposed to the creation of the undead Kelemvor is, it'd probably not be a matter of light community service. And since Kelemvor already went through a whole thing learning that he needs to treat his duty as judge of the dead impartially, and give no one special treatment and that's why he shifted from Lawful Good as a human to Lawful Neutral as a god, the odds of him doing anything else are miniscule to none.

So, yeah, a character like that can exist (as a Wizard who isn't dependant on Kelemvor for their magic at least), as long as their actions don't become such a problem for Kelemvor that he needs to prioritize dealing with them. But they'd be in for a nasty surprise once they died.

Edit:

This is an honest question, not a rhetorical tactic: where is the source for that? Both my player and I researched Kelemvor for this campaign and found nothing in the PHB appendix about Kelemvor's ultimate and no-exceptions hatred of all undead.

[...]

So if there's another, better source for this that I could have used, that would be helpful to know! You and several others have talked about this like it's a pretty blatantly, painfully obvious divergence from "canon" Kelemvor but I feel like I'm missing something. Did it show up in a popular module? Was Kelemvor huge in the 3.5e days? I've been in this community for years and the idea that Kelemvor isn't Kelemvor unless he equally hates all undead, intelligent/soul-carrying or not, was news to me in this thread.

The Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide brings it up even in its short space devoted to him, as Unoriginal quoted. In addition to that, 3e's Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (FRCS) book and Faiths & Pantheons, an entire book devoted to going into the many gods of the setting in-depth, have a lot more, and are clearer on the subject. I quoted the latter earlier in the thread:

His stance is clear and uncompromising on that point:

"Kelemvor views all undead as abominations, ordering his servants to destroy them at every turn." (Faiths & Pantheons page 33, Kelemvor, paragraph 3.)

"Clerics of Kelemvor consider all undead abominations, and do whatever they can to put them to eternal rest. They contend that those who create undead are fit only for swift and utter destruction (an important difference between the Kelemvorite clergy and that of Jergal, who hold that certain undead have their uses)." (Faiths & Pantheons page 33, Clergy and Temples section under Kelemvor's entry.)

This has been a part of Kelemvor's faith ever since he became a god.

[Theodoxus]

If we're going off of 5e's available materials, it seems like the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide gets more into it, but we haven't read that.

And that quote does mention undeath, but specifically in context of "embracing" undeath to avoid dying.

It's mentioned in the Sword Coast's Adventure Guide (and maybe the Xanathar's too, my search result is being unclear here):

SCAG is canonized 3rd party content, and WotC prime didn't think enough of Kelemvor's hatred of undead to make it one of the primary points of his philosophy.

That tends to make me think that Kelemvor has mollified somewhat between editions. Perhaps he still supports the abolishment of undead, but isn't as gung-ho about it as he once was. Edition changes tend to sneak in these kinds of things, warranted, or purposeful, or not.

[Unoriginal]

Oh, a character such as this would definitely be judged as one of the False. Choosing Kelemvor as your patron and the going against his teachings so seriously makes that pretty cut and dry. They'd be given a punishment in the City of the Dead for their afterlife based on the severity of the violation - and considering how strongly opposed to the creation of the undead Kelemvor is, it'd probably not be a matter of light community service. And since Kelemvor already went through a whole thing learning that he needs to treat his duty as judge of the dead impartially, and give no one special treatment and that's why he shifted from Lawful Good as a human to Lawful Neutral as a god, the odds of him doing anything else are minisculw to none.

So, yeah, a character like that can exist (as a Wizard who isn't dependany on Kelemvor for their magic at least), as long as their actions don't become such a problem for Kelemvor that he needs to prioritize dealing with them. But they'd be in for a nasty surprise once they died.

One could argue that you can't be oneof the False if your belief is 100% sincere, even if your belief is objectively wrong.

As in, you're not a fake believer, your beliefs were just applied to an entity which did not fit them.

It would likely require one of the gods who *do* fit your beliefs to step in and argue on your behalf, though. Which tbf is something the FR deities do when there is uncertainty on such questions, IIRC.

[Zevox]

One could argue that you can't be oneof the False if your belief is 100% sincere, even if your belief is objectively wrong.

As in, you're not a fake believer, your beliefs were just applied to an entity which did not fit them.

That's not what the False are. The False are those who betray their patron deity's faith in some way, and significant violations of their teachings like that are pretty much the clearest example you can get, short of literally being a Cleric of the god and torching their temples or something. Lacking sincerity in your beliefs would make you Faithless and merely paying lip service to a god. Believing in one but not acting sufficiently in accordance with their faith is what makes you False.