To Justify Necromancy

Echoing the "talk to your GM" advice. Not much we can say as it's largely dependent upon the setting.

I would also add "talk to your fellow players" to that advice. Sometimes the players themselves might be willing to help find ways that their own characters might turn a blind eye to one party member's evil activities (such as in the Order of the Stick and their accepting Belkar as a necessary (ish) evil)--if such activity is seen as evil.

Okay some reasoning to present to other people why it's okay.

1) The most basic one, it's a tool. Mindless undead are no more evil than a sword is. Mind you this might or might not be true depending on the setting, but most characters don't have any objective proof how the world works even if the players do.

2)Self-sacrifice. You know that what you are doing is Evil and will taint your very soul, but you are willing to become that monster to create a paradise that you can never belong to.

3) Limiting targets. If you just use the bodies of animals for example.

4) Claim of authority, now this will not fly with most people, but it is possible. You are the expert who are others to claim they know better what implications your magic has on the bodies or souls. Charismatic(not the stat necessarily) enough person could fast talk this.

5) Lesser evil, sure what you do is morally wrong, but you are going against murderers and demon summoning cult, you have that cat burgular in the group already.

As far as best classes go.

From Paizo: Gravewalker witch, Juju Oracle, Mystic theurge with Juju Oracle(to get 6HDxCL to the other class too) and some Arcane class. Mind you the witch is only better than other arcane stuff if you care for the earlier access to animate dead, since some of the variants need spells not on their list.

Others: Dread Necromancer is by far the best minion necromancer I have seen, there are quite a few of PF conversions floating around.(If not familiar it's 3.5 from Heroes of Horror) Death Mage by SGG is a decent one too.

But really the best advice from this thread is talk with your group, both the GM and the players.

Lord Pendragon wrote:

Playing a "good lich"? Not so much.

Depending on your setting, there are actually good liches. There's definitely more than one kind of lich. Faerun had a type of good lich for elves called Baelnorn who were non evil and lived to serve and protect their people after death(like the Dunmer example above). Dry Liches from Sandstorm, a sourcebook, are any non good and absorbed with their own agenda but don't necessarily turn evil. Alhoon are Illithid liches who defied their elder brain, but still are illithid and therefor you know... brain eating squid monsters, but scarier and undead(And oddly enough LE, which is odd for someone who purposefully broke his people's tenants, no?).

Anyways, you can play it in lots of ways. Scaling life and death, duty after death, by whatever means necessary, blahblahblah, lots of ways. However some people play necromancy as always evil, regardless of that. Changing those minds can be difficult. One group I was with kicked you out if you even hinted at being a little evil in their non-evil game.

Also, 4E has a "good lich" concept. Basically it's an epic path. You wait until you fully understand the process and do so in such a way as to preserve your soul/goodness and not make any deals with undead evil deities.

Lord Pendragon wrote:

Playing a "good lich"? Not so much.

Depending on your setting, there are actually good liches.

I'm well-aware. My comment was a statement on how preposterous I find the notion. ;)

I blame all this "good necromancy" on the sparkle vampires, myself. :p

People just want to have their cake and eat it to.

All this, lets be evil without being evil. It's usually due to having good characters already in a campaign and somebody wanting to do evil things, or a GM outright forbidding evil characters. Then it becomes a dance to see how they can work around it.

Well I can only speak for myself, but I would wager that it's the same with at least some portion.

I never really wanted to play a good necromancer, but if I did they would be more about the speaking with the dead and spirits etc camp. The minion based necromancer would have to have pretty different setting from the standard.

But neutral on the other hand I like. This is because I enjoy settings that have a bit more bleak morality and more complex, dare I say more realistic? I got enough of black-white morality when I was watching kids shows. Now don't get me wrong I find the idea that a setting has objective Evil and Good intriguing but I don't want to play in such a setting really. This is because in the end it is going to be decided subjectivly what is good and evil, usually by the GM. Also it means that if I choose to play non traditional hero I would be limiting what kind of characters others may bring to the table. Another reason is that when the setting is dark a truly good person is all the more impressive.

So in short I like to play in settings where the morality comes with all the shades of grey instead of black and white.

All I can say is that what my group and gm in game up with for our "white" necro. He did the same as what I think a few people in the post have said and ask spirits of long dead warrior or other restless dead that wanted to still help in some way in the fight for good. One example was that our necro had the spirit of a farmer who saw his family killed by BBG and wanted to avenge them so after a few casting of speak with dead from the necro he agreed to inhabit his skeloton again..(note we mostly did this as roleplaying and some casting of animate dead) Our GM basically between the two of them that he would also take a spell faliure if say he was in the heat of battle because hey can't find the right dead guy that wants to help when enemies are trying get you and their swords together. So he has I think a 25% but not sure but he could try "force" the spirit to come but they both decide to make a soul do something it did not want to do was an evil act "that free will and all". So I guess you could say that he was like Love-Hewitt from the show Ghost Whisper but instead of sexy star but not as hot as her. :)So you could say the undead where treated like NPC's that the wizard created because they could have their own ideas of if they wanted to help or not. I took some work on both of their parts but it was pretty cool. That is not so say other NPC didn't think he was some evil wizard, can't tell you how many time we had to keep the towns folk from trying to burn the witch. :)

All this, lets be evil without being evil.

Being evil without being evil is easy if you aren't being evil. Now I ask you, are we evil?

How could one justify a necromancer (minionmancy, mostly) in a mostly good party? For the sake of simplicity, there are no party members who would lose their powers for consorting with a necromancer (i.e. good cleric, paladin), just party members who may disagree with that do to their good alignment. Can it be done? Is journeying with a necromancer an act that could cause someone to shift alignment?

I have one in one of my Carrion Crown games, a NG necromancer. She functions like a pathologist, studying undead and death to better overcome them.

I can buy into Paizo's philosophy that all undead are evil, and that casting a spell to create a zombie is an inherently evil act, regardless of the altruistic intent.

That being said, I did create a good necromancer, not to raise the dead, but to be good at all of the other non-evil necromancy spells.

I Hate Nickelback wrote:

On a side note, what makes the best minionmancers?

According to this 3.5 Handbook its clerics. I have an affinity for clerics myself, because wading into combat as a death knight among your undead army is a glorious feeling to be had.

There's also the True Necromancer prestige class from Tome and Blood. Sure, you need to be level 10 to qualify, but it can be pretty awesome.

I blame all this "good necromancy" on the sparkle vampires, myself. :p

To mention just one example, Diablo II (where you can play a nonevil necromancer) came out in 2000, about five years before Twilight was published.

But don't let that stand in the way of demeaning people who like things you don't like. :p

People just want to have their cake and eat it to.

All this, lets be evil without being evil. It's usually due to having good characters already in a campaign and somebody wanting to do evil things, or a GM outright forbidding evil characters. Then it becomes a dance to see how they can work around it.

No one in this thread have suggested doing evil things. They've suggested playing a necromancer.

MrSin wrote:

I Hate Nickelback wrote:

On a side note, what makes the best minionmancers?

According to this 3.5 Handbook its clerics. I have an affinity for clerics myself, because wading into combat as a death knight among your undead army is a glorious feeling to be had.

There's also the True Necromancer prestige class from Tome and Blood. Sure, you need to be level 10 to qualify, but it can be pretty awesome.

The guide itself says to stay away from true necromancer. I don't have a copy of tome and blood on me, is it any different from the 3.5 version? Those lost caster levels are pretty killer imo.

I blame all this "good necromancy" on the sparkle vampires, myself. :p

Undead have great charisma scores... just sayin'.

Claxon wrote:

All this, lets be evil without being evil.

Being evil without being evil is easy if you aren't being evil. Now I ask you, are we evil?

I feel like you're quoting something but I have no idea what.

But I will answer you this way.

Are you raising the dead? You're being evil. And if your soul hasn't yet found its way to the lowest level of hell, I'll let Asmodeus know you're coming.

Seriously though, I don't like Pathfinder as an investigative game of morality. I like good and evil to be a strong dichotomy with zero grey area. It makes the game easy to play and causes a lot less problems for religious caster based characters. It's a personal preference. I can appreciate that other people like it to be different. I don't. Neither of us is right or wrong because their is no objective measure of which is better because were using different measuring sticks. The only argument that can be made is that the setting of Golarion uses that same sort of dichotomy with very little grey area.

Are you raising the dead? You're being evil.

Says who? You raise one guy from the dead and everyone swears your a necromancer and going straight to the lowest level of hell. Man, its a miracle clerics still get work these days.

And yeah, it wasn't meant to sound like a quote. More a question of logic.

Claxon wrote:

Are you raising the dead? You're being evil.

Says who? You raise one guy from the dead and everyone swears your a necromancer and going straight to the lowest level of hell. Man, its a miracle clerics still get work these days.

And yeah, it wasn't meant to sound like a quote. More a question of logic.

I wasn't referring to the spell raise dead, clearly. I was trying to be funny with the OOC text, but clearly that didn't work.

There's no logic to question. I like the game world of undead are always evil and creating them is also an act of evil.

No one in this thread have suggested doing evil things. They've suggested playing a necromancer.

Cannon Golarion setting, see above statement.

There's no logic to question. I like the game world of undead are always evil and creating them is also an act of evil.

I like a world where you have a freedom of choice and actions determine things rather than arbitrary rulings from an overlord, but whatever. Necromancy itself as a school isn't evil, and raising the dead is a conjuration thing too... apparently.

Claxon wrote:

There's no logic to question. I like the game world of undead are always evil and creating them is also an act of evil.

I like a world where you have a freedom of choice and actions determine things rather than arbitrary rulings from an overlord, but whatever. Necromancy itself as a school isn't evil, and raising the dead is a conjuration thing too... apparently.

See my above post, where I elaborated on my statement after the OOC text.

How could one justify a necromancer (minionmancy, mostly) in a mostly good party? For the sake of simplicity, there are no party members who would lose their powers for consorting with a necromancer (i.e. good cleric, paladin), just party members who may disagree with that do to their good alignment. Can it be done? Is journeying with a necromancer an act that could cause someone to shift alignment?

It is an evil act, but assuming no paladins and a morally flexible party it can be done...but you'll probably have townsfolk, clergy and inquisitors after you.

But conflict is what campaigns are made of...

The problem is that each side of the debate is approaching the concept of Necromancy from different preconceptions about the nature of negative energy. Either it is inherently evil, or it isn't.

The link I posted earlier discusses the effects of either stance and how it effects game mechanics.

Just choose what's best for your game and make the appropriate adjustments to necromantic effects.

The problem is that each side of the debate is approaching the concept of Necromancy from different preconceptions about the nature of negative energy. Either it is inherently evil, or it isn't.

The link I posted earlier discusses the effects of either stance and how it effects game mechanics.

Just choose what's best for your game and make the appropriate adjustments to necromantic effects.

Necromancy isn't inherently evil.

Some necromancy spells are.

Big difference.

If you want to be a necromancer who avoids raise dead and other evil spells, no issue at all.

But that rarely seems to be the case.

Necromancy isn't inherently evil.

Some necromancy spells are.

That's setting specific. Outside of stuff like PFS, that's mutable.

MrSin wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Are you raising the dead? You're being evil.

I wasn't referring to the spell raise dead, clearly. I was trying to be funny with the OOC text, but clearly that didn't work.

There's no logic to question. I like the game world of undead are always evil and creating them is also an act of evil.

137ben wrote:

No one in this thread have suggested doing evil things. They've suggested playing a necromancer.

Cannon Golarion setting, see above statement.

Use Animate Object on the Dead Body? Raises the body but not Necromancy.

Use Animate Object on the Dead Body? Raises the body but not Necromancy.

And it's not evil because it doesn't use negative energy to animate the body. And it's not an undead, so it's not evil. It's an object, that's been animated. It's certainly weird. People won't like it. But nothing inherently evil in its animation. Though, if you go around exhuming bodies to turn into animated objects that might be a bit evil, depending on your outlook. Of course, the question of how you got the body is different from animating it.

Undead in the standard Golarion setting are proof Paizo didn't read their own alignment rules. Also the >2 int true neutral Tarrasque.

I can't take the argument that mindless anything can be evil when the smarter than the average bear Tarrasque is true neutral seriously. Nor can I take seriously the argument that creating undead is evil because of negative energy while other negative energy spells are not evil.

There is no reason for creating mindless undead to be inherently evil other than James Jacobs not liking necromancers.

Undead have a natural tendency towards destruction? You know what else is mindless and has a natural tendency towards destruction? Fire. Is fire evil? A thousand times no.

Undead have a natural tendency towards destruction? You know what else is mindless and has a natural tendency towards destruction? Fire. Is fire evil? A thousand times no.

All spells with the [fire] descriptor now have the [evil] descriptor as well. Take that, clerics of Sarenrae!

Atarlost wrote:

Undead have a natural tendency towards destruction? You know what else is mindless and has a natural tendency towards destruction? Fire. Is fire evil? A thousand times no.

All spells with the [fire] descriptor now have the [evil] descriptor as well. Take that, clerics of Sarenrae!

Don't forget about Proteans! They definitely have a tendency towards destruction!

For a World where necromancy is not consider always Evil , look at Eberron. The Elves there keep their ancient Ancestors around as liches so they can give advice to their children.
And if a Kingdom had a Law that said people who committed very heinous crimes had to pay for their crimes by being turned into a Zombie( Instead of just being executed) and perform Dangerous work would that be evil?

ciretose wrote:

Necromancy isn't inherently evil.

Some necromancy spells are.

That's setting specific. Outside of stuff like PFS, that's mutable.

No, the fact that some necromancy spells have the [evil] descriptor and others don't have nothing to do with campaign setting. Casting an [evil] necromancy spell (well, any spell really) is casting an evil spell. What happens to you as a character depends on the particular setting's philosophy on casting evil spells.

I dunno, the setting I DM in has as a rule that undead creation spells don't have the [evil] descriptor. The fact that this has to be changed just means that the CRB has some setting-specific rules injected into the middle of it. Whether raising the dead is evil (or even [evil]) is dependent upon the setting, as evinced by the existence of settings (not necessarily settings for Pathfinder, but fantasy settings in general) where it has no moral dimension. I don't think it's a big deal that this setting-specific rule is written into the core books, as it's easily changed, but it's still setting-specific. Similarly, you could have a setting where resurrection magic doesn't exist and it would require changes to the rules written in the CRB.

Edit: for an even plainer example, the CRB has a listing of deities of Golarion and their domains. That's pretty obviously setting-specific.

People just want to have their cake and eat it to.

All this, lets be evil without being evil. It's usually due to having good characters already in a campaign and somebody wanting to do evil things, or a GM outright forbidding evil characters. Then it becomes a dance to see how they can work around it.

Maybe it's because I'm a moral nihilist, but I still don't even get why undead are evil. Well, mindless ones anyways.

Maybe it's because I'm a moral nihilist, but I still don't even get why undead are evil. Well, mindless ones anyways.

For a variety of reasons. Desecration of the dead and going against the laws of nature itself isn't usually accepted irl, its then given setting specific fluff to back it like being powered by negative energy and undead only seeking to kill outside of their masters, or undead having their original owners soul trapped in eternal torment or what have you. To be honest its not really that evil and its easy to come up with a good undead, like anything else. Which is why "talk to your GM" is a big part of it. A really big part of it is that certain developers for pathfinder are against undead being anything but evil, and their decision affects everyone around them as they present their ideas as the only ones without alternative.

Pragmatism and nihilism don't tend play nice with objective morality.

Are you raising the dead? You're being evil. And if your soul hasn't yet found its way to the lowest level of hell, I'll let Asmodeus know you're coming.

What if the necromancer is neutral or chaotic? Wouldn't they go to Abaddon or the Abyss?

Anyway, there has been some discussion floating about of using the body as the material for some kind of construct. Fleshgoelms and such seem like a possible way to go, but the flavor is awfully off.

I dunno, the setting I DM in has as a rule that undead creation spells don't have the [evil] descriptor. The fact that this has to be changed just means that the CRB has some setting-specific rules injected into the middle of it. Whether raising the dead is evil (or even [evil]) is dependent upon the setting, as evinced by the existence of settings (not necessarily settings for Pathfinder, but fantasy settings in general) where it has no moral dimension. I don't think it's a big deal that this setting-specific rule is written into the core books, as it's easily changed, but it's still setting-specific. Similarly, you could have a setting where resurrection magic doesn't exist and it would require changes to the rules written in the CRB.

Edit: for an even plainer example, the CRB has a listing of deities of Golarion and their domains. That's pretty obviously setting-specific.

I think you're over thinking it, but whatever. It's ultimately irrelevant because if the setting you play in specifically states that animate dead is not an evil spell, then whatever is stated in the CRB doesn't matter.

I think you're over thinking it, but whatever. It's ultimately irrelevant because if the setting you play in specifically states that animate dead is not an evil spell, then whatever is stated in the CRB doesn't matter.

Hey, what's written in the CRB totally matters. Its the core of the game, why would I want setting specific stuff in it? You write that animating dead is always evil or cannibalism is always evil in the CRB and people get confuzzled and think that's how its supposed to be in every setting. Next thing you know you'll do something silly like tell me monks are lawful only or angry people don't learn to read. Then it devolves into an argument on a forum somewhere...

Animate Dead being [Evil] makes sense if it actually affects the soul of the dead person. It does not make sense if it is essentially just a stronger version of Animate Object (and, personally, I find it repugnant that harmlessly making a tool out of dead matter could be considered more evil than racism (killing orcs for no reason), enslavement (dominate person), and brutal physical torture (boneshatter)). Whether it does or does not affect the dead is not the the CRB, it is a setting specific detail. So yea, Animate Dead being [Evil] really only makes sense as a setting-specific rule. But as you said, it doesn't really matter, so whatever.

The problem is that Necromantic effects aren't thematically consistent.

Animate Dead is Evil, but Soul Bind isn't?

Clearly something doesn't make sense.

The problem is that Necromantic effects aren't thematically consistent.

Animate Dead is Evil, but Soul Bind isn't?

Clearly something doesn't make sense.

Not to mention Death Knell is evil while Enervation and Slay Living aren't, nor are Boneshatter, Dominate Person/Monster, or Modify Memory.

The problem is that Necromantic effects aren't thematically consistent.

Animate Dead is Evil, but Soul Bind isn't?

Clearly something doesn't make sense.

The argument would be that you can do what is included in the spell and not have it be an evil act.

You can put someones soul in a Gem to prevent resurrection an not be committing an evil act.

Making someones dead body your personal slave...not so much.

Doomed Hero wrote:

The problem is that Necromantic effects aren't thematically consistent.

Animate Dead is Evil, but Soul Bind isn't?

Clearly something doesn't make sense.

Not to mention Death Knell is evil while Enervation and Slay Living aren't, nor are Boneshatter, Dominate Person/Monster, or Modify Memory.

Death Knell draws life force from a dying enemy into you. You aren't just killing them, you are stealing from them in the process. That is the evil part.

Killing a bad guy is a necessary "evil" if you will. There is no need to steal from the body, re-animate the body, summon evil, etc...

The justification for killing is that they are evil. The definition of what is evil is important to keep that justification and not make D&D "Murder Hobos and Victims"

Good Heroes kill because they have to. They don't enjoy it, they do what needs be done. Learning a spell that then makes the dead body your slave or steals it's energy...that is what is defined as an evil act that allows the Traveling Good Not Murder Hobos to kill you and still be good people.

If you are unwilling to define evil in the game, to have acts that are evil, then what justifies you killing anyone in the game. Do you need to wait and see if the Zombie Horde has good intentions, or can you understand that the guy who animated the dead is evil and proceed?

The later makes much, much more sense.

Death Knell draws life force from a dying enemy into you. You aren't just killing them, you are stealing from them in the process. That is the evil part.

1. Why does that make it evil?

How could one justify a necromancer (minionmancy, mostly) in a mostly good party? For the sake of simplicity, there are no party members who would lose their powers for consorting with a necromancer (i.e. good cleric, paladin), just party members who may disagree with that do to their good alignment. Can it be done? Is journeying with a necromancer an act that could cause someone to shift alignment?

It would take a necromancer who could do something besides desecrating the dead to make servants or soldiers. You CAN be an effective necromancer in ways that don't involve disturbing the dead.

Or it would take a GM fiat declaration that no one cares what you do with their dead.

If you are unwilling to define evil in the game, to have acts that are evil, then what justifies you killing anyone in the game. Do you need to wait and see if the Zombie Horde has good intentions, or can you understand that the guy who animated the dead is evil and proceed?

Well, there's some things you can do. For example, you can look and see if the zombie horde is attacking everyone. If they are razing the town, you are probably safe to kill them. If they are farming potatoes, you probably shouldn't.

What do you do if you run into a group of elves? Surely you have someway to deal with creatures that aren't always evil but still might be hostile towards you.

The later makes much, much more sense.

No, it makes absolutely no sense.

Quote:

Death Knell draws life force from a dying enemy into you. You aren't just killing them, you are stealing from them in the process. That is the evil part.

1. Why does that make it evil?

2. Assuming you have a good answer to (1), why is Enervation not evil, then?
3. Dominate Person. That is turning someone into your slave, while they are still in the body. You aren't animating some dead hunk of matter, you are actually controlling a living, sentient being. How the heck is that not Evil when animate dead is?

I answered it literally in the quote you used. Literally, the quote you used.

Enervation does not give the caster anything. Death Knell steals life force from a dying creature that is unable to defend itself.

Dominate Person can be used for non-evil purposes. You can use dominate person instead of killing them and actually be doing something undeniably good.

Animate dead is making someones dead child your slave.

Do you really not see the difference?

ciretose wrote:

If you are unwilling to define evil in the game, to have acts that are evil, then what justifies you killing anyone in the game. Do you need to wait and see if the Zombie Horde has good intentions, or can you understand that the guy who animated the dead is evil and proceed?

Well, there's some things you can do. For example, you can look and see if the zombie horde is attacking everyone. If they are razing the town, you are probably safe to kill them. If they are farming potatoes, you probably shouldn't.

What do you do if you run into a group of elves? Surely you have someway to deal with creatures that aren't always evil but still might be hostile towards you.

Quote:

The later makes much, much more sense.

No, it makes absolutely no sense.

Villager: A HORDE OF ZOMBIES ARE COMING!!! Protect us.

Town Guard: Did you check and see if they were coming to do good or evil? Maybe they are bring us cake or something...llet's not jump to any conclusions here....

Doomed Hero wrote:

The problem is that Necromantic effects aren't thematically consistent.

Animate Dead is Evil, but Soul Bind isn't?

Clearly something doesn't make sense.

The argument would be that you can do what is included in the spell and not have it be an evil act.

You can put someones soul in a Gem to prevent resurrection an not be committing an evil act.

Making someones dead body your personal slave...not so much.

You are missing my point entirely. Did you read the link I posted?

My point is that Necromancy, as a school, has an inherent design dichotomy that has to be reconciled by the GM. Each game/setting will handle it differently, but it does have to handled in order to avoid these sorts of arguments.

If all undead are evil, then Animate Dead is also evil because it is specifically for creating evil. If there are undead that are not evil, then Animate Dead isn't necessarily Evil either.

Villager: A HORDE OF ZOMBIES ARE COMING!!! Protect us.

Town Guard: Did you check and see if they were coming to do good or evil? Maybe they are bring us cake or something...llet's not jump to any conclusions here....

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

137ben wrote:

Quote:

Death Knell draws life force from a dying enemy into you. You aren't just killing them, you are stealing from them in the process. That is the evil part.

1. Why does that make it evil?

2. Assuming you have a good answer to (1), why is Enervation not evil, then?
3. Dominate Person. That is turning someone into your slave, while they are still in the body. You aren't animating some dead hunk of matter, you are actually controlling a living, sentient being. How the heck is that not Evil when animate dead is?

I answered it literally in the quote you used. Literally, the quote you used.

Enervation does not give the caster anything. Death Knell steals life force from a dying creature that is unable to defend itself.

Dominate Person can be used for non-evil purposes. You can use dominate person instead of killing them and actually be doing something undeniably good.

Animate dead is making someones dead child your slave.

Do you really not see the difference?

1. No, you still haven't answered the question at all:

As for animate dead vs dominate person:
wow, are you seriously using the "it can be used for good!" argument? You can say that about ANYTHING. Anyways, animate dead does not hurt anyone. The target is an inanimate object with no feelings or life, it is a lump of dead matter.

On the other hand [B}dominate person is literally slavery[/B]. By your standard of "well, it isn't killing them", slavery itself is not evil, since you are letting someone live instead of killing them. Are you seriously suggesting that slavery isn't evil?

ciretose wrote:

Villager: A HORDE OF ZOMBIES ARE COMING!!! Protect us.

Town Guard: Did you check and see if they were coming to do good or evil? Maybe they are bring us cake or something...llet's not jump to any conclusions here....

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

No.

The game is based around good vs evil.

When you start getting into trying to do evil things without being evil, you open yourself up to the above scenario.

If there are good people who raise the dead to do good deeds, why would you assume the zombies are evil?

Oh yeah, there are no good people who do that, because it is inherently an evil act. If I see a guy making Zombies, I kill him. Because he is doing something evil.

If someone asks "Why did you kill that guy" and I say "He raises undead" they give me a high five and we move on.

Now if it isn't...well then I have a conundrum as a player, don't I?

@Doomed Hero - Having some spells be evil doesn't create a problems. If as a GM you decide that all uses of negative energy are evil...that is your call. That isn't by book, that isn't by design.

Hero's kill things. Killing without justification is evil. Fortunately the game is designed to have some things be evil, so that good people can kill them and not be, themselves, evil.

When you see a demon, that is evil. If you see someone who summoned a demon, that guy is evil. Same with undead.

Which is why they designed it that way.