Is it possible to play a good character who practices necromancy, or is the act of raising the dead evil in and of itself? I would argue that no magic is evil unless the casting of the spell required an inherently evil act, such as murder of an innocent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I simply disagree with the game designers. As for the undead being evil, that's impossible, based on the principle that they're mindless. It's impossible to have an alignment if you don't think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is evil, according to the RAW, because of the Evil descriptor attached to it.
The question is, why does it have the descriptor? Is it because of the cultural stigma of necromancy and otherwise 'defiling the dead'? If so, there is a case for it losing the descriptor in certain cultural settings. If not, is it because it creates evil undead? If that is the case, can the spell still be corrupting if it is used for a good cause and if the body to be animated already belonged to an evil creature? Moreover, why are mindless undead evil if they are incapable of thought?
I'm the type of GM who, despite being a Ravenloft/Masque of the Red Death junkie, does not necessarily view it as corrupting, at least no more so than Charm Person, which is about what it equates to if both target an evil individual. Of course, the whole thing about whether Charm Person should be an evil spell is a matter up for debate among others as well, but still, the point remains.
This is why, in truth, I am glad that the White Necromancer class came out, so I can point good/neutral PCs there without bringing up RAW vs rational comparisons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Raising the dead, is not the most good natured thing to do.
I play a gravewalker, a necromancer archetype of the witch. However, the archetype does not require evil alignment. Given, their ability to create aura of evil would place them in the Neutral alignment at best.
That aside, you can focus on necromancy spells, but raising dead is more a thing for the evil and the morally grey. Good intentions but extremer ways in solving things. Prepare for your share of RP when the time comes, society generally kills undead, or at least get the nearest armed force warned.
On your suggestion of mindless undead not being evil, would that sentiment still stand when you are surrounded by zombies who want to chow your brain and flesh? :) If they're controlled they 'might' lack evil alignment, with a N aligned character.
It's also costly to raise the dead, requiring components for every HD of the thing that you raise/create.
Is this for PFS or a home game?
Thank you, Divinitus. You seem to see what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about the RAW so much as whether the RAW is actually right. I feel like animating a body is no different than animating a mud golem. There's no soul in the body anymore, and it may as well be used to kill some bad guys, rather than just sit there.
You're missing the point, Zahir. I'm more trying to have a philosophical discussion on the nature of necromancy in a fantasy world than discuss the rules of the game.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spells that are evil are evil because they are evil.
It's a tautology, not a philosophy.
If you want there to be a reason that it's evil, such that it torments the souls of the people whose bodies are being dug up and used as pack mules, then you can invent that, so long as it's compatible with the game setting (that sort of thing wouldn't fly in a setting with someone like Pharasma, who 'sorts' souls to their final destinations, and is supposed to be unbeatable in that arena, or where souls can be sold to devils, or become petitioners/outsiders/celestials/fiends/possibly gods, etc. and the notion of an animate dead spell uncreating an angel or devil, or 'rescuing' someone from a Hell contract, or 'stealing' someone out of Heaven becomes incompatible with the setting). Certain setting assumptions, such as negative energy and positive energy (and the planes thereof) being non-evil and non-good, respectively, might have to be changed, and that might lead to other logical changes, such as positive energy spells (such as all cure spells) having the [good] descriptor. Evil clerics (and followers of evil gods) will have a *much* harder time of it, and, again, logically, nobody who isn't completely batcrap insane will worship one. But that's not terribly far from the way it already is, as good clerics (and good gods) already hand out better bennies than team evil, making it a harder road to walk, and more of a situation where the followers of the good gods have both the better benefits and, logically, the least self-sacrifice or devotion required to follow the good gods, since it's the obvious better choice, both for in-life gain, and the superior afterlife.
If you don't want those spells to be automatically evil (in that, a specific use could be evil, such as casting fireball at an orphanage, or summoning a lantern archon to light up and burninate a bunch of puppies, but the spell wouldn't have the [evil] descriptor and be evil even if you cast it to rescue a bunch of people from a flood or orc raid or something), then just snap that [evil] descriptor right off and throw it in the ditch, since it flies right in the face of most assumptions about alignment (that it's a *choice* and not something a rock or even non-sapient animal can have), and the 'fluff' of many settings (such as Golarion, with the aforementioned Pharasma).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here we go again!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Canon Golarion, it's pretty much always evil.
In other games, rule it however is best for your story.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It CAN be, depending on the setting and its metaphysics, but by default the answer is no. Necromancy is the magic of life and death, nothing more or less. Remember that all healing magic used to be classified as necromancy before 3rd Edition. Also, regarding the reanimation of undead, the 2nd Edition Necromancer's Handbook specifically cites that as an example of "grey necromancy" (as opposed to "white" healing necromancy, and "black" necromancy, which was more the "Avada Kedavra" stuff). Necromancy has had an unfair tie-in with Evil because that's how the walking dead are traditionally viewed (but it doesn't have to be that way - again, it would all depend on the campaign setting; after all, you could potentially make a game based on conservative Christian beliefs where ALL magic is Evil, period).
Ultimately, morality is what it is; it's a question of how the magic works that would define whether it's Good or Evil. Does it require the enslavement and torture of unwilling dead souls? That makes it Evil. Does it instead simply treat corpses as automatons with no demand on departed souls? That's not Evil, that's recycling. Are you in a setting like EBERRON where the only afterlife available to mortals regardless of alignment is one that sucks, and necromancy permits the dead their best shot at a worthwhile continued existence? Then heck, it might just be Good!
in the process doing a bit of damage to the soul that once inhabited the body.
The rest of your post is cool, but care to have a citation on this bit? As far as I know, raising unintelligent undead has nothing to do with the soul at all, especially as you can cast resurrection on the corpse with no repercussions.
Is it possible to play a good character who practices necromancy, or is the act of raising the dead evil in and of itself? I would argue that no magic is evil unless the casting of the spell required an inherently evil act, such as murder of an innocent.
Yes, you can play a good necromancer. Just not one that raises the dead. Nercomancy is a school of magic that alters the living and the dead. This means that one of the best ways to combat the undead, is with a necromancer.
I wouldn't play the undead raising kind of necromancer if you were going for non-evil, but there are plenty of other spells in the necromancy repertoire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the creature type in the SRD:
"Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead."
I guess not being able to use raise dead sets some kind of precedent, but I could kill, zombify and then resurrect someone an infinite number of times, which doesn't sound much like permanent soul damage.
I can only find mention of JJ talking about undead in *his* games, which is hardly a precedent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it possible to play a good character who practices necromancy, or is the act of raising the dead evil in and of itself? I would argue that no magic is evil unless the casting of the spell required an inherently evil act, such as murder of an innocent.Yes, you can play a good necromancer. Just not one that raises the dead. Nercomancy is a school of magic that alters the living and the dead. This means that one of the best ways to combat the undead, is with a necromancer.
I wouldn't play the undead raising kind of necromancer if you were going for non-evil, but there are plenty of other spells in the necromancy repertoire.
RAW you can play a good necromancer who raises the dead too. Wizards can cast spells with any descriptor and technically casting an evil spell doesn't actually influence your alignment (see infernal healing).
It's pretty silly of course - but the whole thing is pretty silly all in all.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Necromancy deals with a lot of changes to positive and negative energy. Inflict spells, while still necromancy, aren't considered evil even though the act of channeling negative energy through your god's will is generally a rotten thing to do to someone. It's not any more rotten than swinging a greatsword at their face to most people, but regardless, negative energy is what fuels undead and keeps them animate.
Think of how skeletons, zombies, vampires, and liches are portrayed. The more powerful the undead (or more massive the gathering of smaller undead), the colder and more blighted the surrounding areas become from the constant strain of negative energy conduits on the natural world. Knowingly and willingly making such a conduit to the primal force of ruin and decay is evil--nothing good can come of the connection...
...or can it? Zombies make dedicated workers, right? Skeletons don't tire, and can work endlessly to rebuild a destroyed city or carry supplies to orphans and the wounded. Sure, you've got plenty of good intentions, plenty of bodies, and a sack full of onyx gemstones burning a hole in your pocket. Why not?
Well, because they are controlled, but only loosely. Unless you specifically command them not to fight back, they will claw and bite at anything that strikes them. Odd behavior for a creature that should be considered 'mindless,' no? It's not a survival behavior, either--a pack of zombies will chase an attacker off a cliff or into a fire. So what drives them?
The negative energy in each undead pushes them to destroy. Any uncontrolled undead seeks the nearest living thing and grinds the life out of it. Vampires, ghouls, and many other undead are forced to feed, to destroy. It's in their nature. No natural animals can stand to be around them, either.
So before you condemn the animation of zombies and skeletons, remember that they make great workhorses if properly controlled. Same goes for illicit drug use--it's easy, it gets you what you want fast and with no repurcussions, if you can control it.
Evil? Nah, creating mindless packmules isn't evil. It's just a gateway drug.
Is Necromancy inherently evil or not?
No, the school is not evil.
Is it possible to play a good character who practices necromancy, or is the act of raising the dead evil in and of itself? I would argue that no magic is evil unless the casting of the spell required an inherently evil act, such as murder of an innocent.
This is more complex, but due to very explicit game rules, the proper answer is "kind of, sort of, ish" with a strong "leaning toward always yes", due to the [evil] tag, even though, for purposes of Organized Play (which is different from Core RAW), such actions aren't ever going to cause alignment shifts (and thus aren't counted); this latter ruling simply notes that it's drawing upon [evil] to create and enact the spell, but the ultimate intent of the spell, not the tag, is what determines if it's evil or not (similarly [good], [law], [chaos], etc.).
So... yes (unless it's not).
In a personal way, I don't want it to be evil. I loved the pre-retconned Juju Oracle for that express purpose.
However, per RAW, paladins (or maybe multiclass paladin-clerics) who engage in such acts (for example) would immediately be stripped of their powers (unless a GM rules otherwise).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it possible to play a good character who practices necromancy, or is the act of raising the dead evil in and of itself? I would argue that no magic is evil unless the casting of the spell required an inherently evil act, such as murder of an innocent.
Not all necromancers raise dead. Some just focus on negative energy based spells, but if you are raising dead, many GM's will consider it to be evil. In Golarion it is definitely evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you, Divinitus. You seem to see what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about the RAW so much as whether the RAW is actually right. I feel like animating a body is no different than animating a mud golem. There's no soul in the body anymore, and it may as well be used to kill some bad guys, rather than just sit there.
Actually if you want to go away from the rules animating golems should be evil in my opinion. It from a non-rules POV is worse than animating undead at times.
The process of creating a golem binds the spirit to the artificial body, merging it with this specially prepared vessel and subjecting it to the will of the golem's creator.
Note this is not voluntary, and is no better than binding the soul of a person to something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't remember the exact book, but it was mentioned in 3.5, that neutral necromancers generally cause wandering updead. They animated a corpse, because they needed a hole dug then released control of it when it was no longer needed....
It really depends on your view of Necromancy. I've thought about this over the years and have thought of things two different ways. And ultimately it depends on what makes necromancy work...
If your just using magic to animate a corpse, as was mentioned its not that different from a golem. and this wouldn't really be evil.
If on the other hand, Your forcing the soul back into its body and binding it to your will. Then yes, this is evil necromancy.
Some say that intent also matters, and how you handle the situation. undead(specifically zombies) left to their own devices tend to attack people, so animating an undead not destroying it seems evil to me since you know what will happen. Also if you happen to die then you have put others at risk, so at the least a necromancer should keep his undead locked away, so as to protect others, if he wants to avoid the evil tag.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you, Divinitus. You seem to see what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about the RAW so much as whether the RAW is actually right. I feel like animating a body is no different than animating a mud golem. There's no soul in the body anymore, and it may as well be used to kill some bad guys, rather than just sit there.Actually if you want to go away from the rules animating golems should be evil in my opinion. It from a non-rules POV is worse than animating undead at times.
Agreed. Creating a golem always explicitly enslaves a spirit.
The process of creating a golem binds the spirit to the artificial body, merging it with this specially prepared vessel and subjecting it to the will of the golem's creator.Note this is not voluntary, and is no better than binding the soul of a person to something.
Yup, particularly since undead can be used without a guarantee that they will eventually freak out and attack people, as golems do, and golems always involve the binding and enslaving of elemental spirits, while at least some undead don't necessarily involve any spirit enslavement at all.
[tangent]
Although golems, like most (non templated) undead, don't seem to retain any skills, feats, knowledge, memories, alignment, mental ability scores, class levels, etc. from the 'enslaved spirits,' so it's a bit of a mismatch between the flavor text (enslaved spirits) and the mechanics (no rules mechanics confirming the presence of any sort of spirit within the golem).
If there was an elemental trapped in there and bound to serve, in theory, the golem should have the same Int score, skills, etc. available to it. Even if the elemental spirit is just a bound power source, magic should be able to sense and / or affect that elemental spirit (and the same for a human soul 'trapped' in an undead, or actually said to have *become* an undead. If an Int 16, Cha 9 1st level Wizard becomes a shadow, and another Int 9, Cha 17 5th level Paladin becomes a shadow, both of them shouldn't become identical Int 6 and Cha 15 3 HD creatures with ranks in skills like Fly and Stealth that neither Wizard nor Paladin had ranks in...).
The descriptive text and the mechanics just don't seem to mesh particularly well for either of these creature types (barring templated undead, like ghosts or vampires or liches, which actually *do* marry their flavor text to the rules mechanics).
Some sort of variant golems, with their own four-ish templates, determining the effects of them being fueled by bound elemental spirits of air, earth, fire or water, might be an interesting notion for a more consistent golem write-up. Or just golems that ignore the 'enslaved elemental spirit' flavor text entirely (and perhaps have some other explanation for the berserk chance, or no berserk chance at all?), and use the rules as written, which would be super-easier. :)
[tangent]
Still, that doesn't really address inconsistencies with undead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that with the elemental his mind is not attached to the golem. The golem is just leeching of off the elemental's life force. If the caster had a domination type affect over the elemental then I could see the golem always being intelligent.
From a flavor point of view as a GM a golem going beserk should be able to use some intelligence, since he is somewhat free from the golem, just not 100% free. To explain the creature being out of control it is so filled with rage it attacks anything it sees unless the creator is there, and in that case he gets priority. I might use that. :)
For undead some are are direct transformations, and some are just bodies animated with negative energy.
In either event I would say the soul is somewhat bound since you can't raise someone whose body is currently in undead form. <---Not a rule completely, but it makes sense to because by the rules you cant bring an undead creature back to life.
I'd say using necromancy to create undead is inherently evil not only by RAW but by the way it is performed. To create undead, an imitation of living beings infused with positive energy, you infuse a corpse with energy from the negative energy plane and animate it. Creatures native to the negative energy plane seek to snuff out life wherever it resides and the plane itself fuels these desires as it is the antithesis of living. Mindless undead that aren't under the control of another being carry this out on their own accord like they are on autopilot, while intelligent undead are always evil in nature.
The use of necromancy spells for other purposes is seen as taboo but isn't necessarily evil. The act of raising or becoming undead is seen by many as an evil act because you are using an inherently evil energy source to fill a corpse to do your bidding. And once released from service they become unstable killing machines.
This means that one of the best ways to combat the undead, is with a necromancer.
Which is the thought behind my char, though the scenario i'm playing in features a team assault on dracula's castle. All the others are bent on destroying any undead they see. I'm going to have a blast of RP ahead of me.
OP:
You don't need to raise undead to be a necromancer. Debuffing and working with curses (necromancy) is plenty nasty. Add some positive team-aiding makes a neutral (or with good intentions) necromancer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some sort of variant golems, with their own four-ish templates, determining the effects of them being fueled by bound elemental spirits of air, earth, fire or water, might be an interesting notion for a more consistent golem write-up.
Whelp, guess I know what my next project is now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...because you are using an inherently evil energy source....Citation? Negative energy spells don't have the [evil] descriptor.
I think the area where we should be disagreeing with the designers is in their decision not to explain the reasoning behind undead animation being Evil. There are good ways to explain either direction so it's quite possible they have one, but failing to include it is just frustrating.
They have explained it. The creative director doesn't like undead being anything but evil, and think it sets a bad precedent. In the standard setting (golarion), raising undead is always evil because pharasma has decreed it a blasphemy after urgathoa escaped her judgement in the boneyard as the world's first undead creature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... which has nothing to do with skeletons or zombies, as those entities are mindless and soulless, hence not having anything to do with Pharasma's judgement.
There is a supplement, however, that indicates that the existence of a a mindless undead from a judged spirit either a) pulls back the spirit into the shell (???), or b) causes undo "suffering" (for "reasons" one supposes?) to the now-judged and beyond-it-all spirit.
It's one of those things (like psionics) that I vehemently disagree with Mr. James about. But that's "official" Golarion.
My Golarion still has totally-awesome Juju oracles in it.
:)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those looking for non evil-necromancer options, including non-evil undead, you might check out the White Necromancer class from Kobold Press
You can also get the White Necromancer in the New Paths Compendium, also from Kobold Press :)
For those looking for non evil-necromancer options, including non-evil undead, you might check out the White Necromancer class from Kobold Press
You can also get the White Necromancer in the New Paths Compendium, also from Kobold Press :)
Arg! I can't believe I didn't link this! Sorry, Marc! I planned to, I promise! ... I just forgot! :/
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'm sorry to come in on a tangent, but I do think this should be addressed.
Are Undead Evil
Yes... But No.
The Undead hunger eternally in Golarion, and so if they are raised and released, the necromancer would be to blame. Such as the digging the ditch, and letting it wander off scenario mentioned above...
The act of disinterring a corpse, while gruesome and a social stigma, I think is not evil, (No more evil than putting the body there through axe-work or swordplay) and using magic to make a skeletal worker/warrior is (to me) no different than summoning a monster to do the work for you (without a time limit).
I can show that this isn't causing the soul any harm, in some circumstances.
circumstance 1
An adventurer is slaughtered, and the team cannot recover all of the body, so they grab a piece, a rib for example. Rushing back to the temple the cleric meditates and casts Resurrection on the deceased. The adventurer is restored to life.
The rest of the body becomes animated as the big bad necromancer is cleaning his slaughterhouse.
Does the adventurer all of a sudden start screaming in agony as his soul is pulled from his new living body back into his old decaying corpse to serve as the energy that makes it walk? No. The adventurer will feel violated when he finds out that his old body is wandering around being a pack mule, but his soul is not in the equation.
circumstance 2
There is no rule stating /human/ corpses are the only ones that may be animated with the animate dead spell. So if I kill a chicken, and eat it, then I reanimate its skeleton to carry something (a scroll or letter) to one of my teammates. It will go straight there and straight back, and then I will destroy it. Is that evil? The soul of the chicken will not be held in limbo for all of eternity, because it is animated by /NEGATIVE ENERGY/ which is what the spell states, not the soul of the chicken... which was too weak to light a match, its animated by the spell which created it.
I agree that the spell may be marked as /evil/ by its descriptor, but I also disagree with it. Also, who cares if it is /evil/?
I raise the corpse of a fallen ally, to charge into an orphanage, rescue a few children, and come back to me. We walk to the abbey where the cleric lives, and then I kill the corpse so my ally can be reanimated. Did I do something evil? according to the gods yes. according to me. I did what I had to, and if the gods wish to weigh my soul and bring up the fact that I made my fallen ally into a monster, I will tell them to ask the orphans whose lives were saved if they would have preferred to die and I simply walk past instead.
I think having Gods who despise necromancy and the undead is fine. and if the gods want to punish me for having done so, I have no problem with that. But simply raising a creature to carry my bags, should not put me in the same boat as... murderers, thieves, and people who commit atrocities against people simply because of their race. (the rest of the party)
-Death Keeper
Thejeff,
What houserules? I am pointing out that there isn't some soul funnel attached to the spell.
Necromancy isn't evil according to me. I said that the rules /do/ state that it has the evil descriptor. I just do not think it is a big deal, and as long as you are not making and releasing them, or using them to torment the living, you should have no problem creating undead as a good character.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This talk of necromancers trurning loose animated undead after using them for a simple chore makes me think of one of those emotional scenes where a person releases an animal that they were taking care of back into the wild.
"Go Skeleton, be free and live... er unlive out there in the beautiful world. Return to nature, which is not where you came from, and be what have always been... since I used magic to make you that way."
In my own setting, the god of death and order does animate some undead, but these are never the kind that can spawn more undead on their own and they are from the corpses of willingly devoted followers (I don't mean to sound like they willing were to be killed to make the undead, but instead were okay with the fact that corpses would be used this way upon their death). Mostly they are for the purposes of protecting the graves of those the church is entrusted to watch over. Is the use of the appropriate spells an evil act? Sure, why not, but since the deity is Lawful Neutral, as are most of his clerics, what does he care if a few evil acts are done once in awhile in his name. Heck, his follower even do good acts from time to time as well, as crazy is that is.