So getting down to the base of it, what actually separates the two. I mean I can see some differences yeah. Divine is seen as good necromancy is seen as evil. Divine seems to restore the person's body whole again while necormany just shoves soul into a usually decayed corpse. Necromancy seems to often have control over what is brought to life while those brought by by a divine power maintain free will. Am I missing anything major here? Lets discuss more.
All of the resurrection spells, including the ultimate True Resurrection limited to divine casters Clerics and Druids, is a Necromancy spell.
Divine is not "good" and Necromancy is not "evil". There are evil Clerics, there are evil Druids, there are evil Gods. They are often those of as good and evil but in the actual system of magic these distinctions do not actually apply.
Healing spells like Cure Wounds is Evocation because its about manipulating and summoning energy to boost healing and life force. Necromancy is a school of magic that involves controlling the forces of life and death - either to keep it away like Death Ward and used to protect and help people or to negate life force (necrotic damage) and harm people (Inflict Wounds for etc) and manipulate souls (magic jar, soul cage, etc). You can be a necromancy that does not ever raise zombies or hurt people and can help people and be good. Then there are clerics of evil gods who use focused divine or celestial energy (radiant) to harm and kill people.
So, in terms of D&D, I do not think you are using the terms correctly or have understood how magic works in the game. Neither are good or evil. Morality is up to the caster not the spell.
Oh, and to add: Divine and Necromancy are not opposites. There is "divine necromancy" like the resurrection spells. The two opposing forces of magic are Divine and Arcane. Divine just means it is sourced from nature or a divine being like a god and these can be good or evil. Arcane means it sourced by mortal creatures like dragons, humanoids, and the like. Again, they include both good and evil. Divine/Arcane is a reference to a source of magic not any alignment.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I do admit, I haven't looked into the matter that closely fairly new the magical works of spell casting. So even better reason to create such topic to educate self. Admit my assertions were based off more pop culture than the rules of DnD.
My comment about that was observational not antagonistic, don't worry. I am glad you made the thread: I love talking about this stuff!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I think there's also a context of agency in comparing the two categories. With one, the player is resurrected and regains some large measure of their own agency to be played by the player the way the player wants. With the other, the corpse is raised as an undead servant of the necromancer.
At least that's the way I look at it. Might be oversimplified. Blurring the distinction is where things can get interesting and fun.
Yes. Whether its reanimated corpses and skeletons and ghouls or fully live breathing and restored. It is all a manipulation of souls, life and death in every case and therefore Necromancy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Ok, then have to rethink a quirk of a character then. As stands right now, they are, among other things a bit of a germaphobe and hates the thought of leaving corpses around to be brought back as zombies, so when ever she can, she just burns the corpse of fallen foes, and then tries to persuade the stronger members of the team to pulverize the skeleton into duest so that can't be used either. Under the old way I was thinking, they would be fine with a person being brought back by "holy" means brought back whole and not zombified. So either now its a total stand against Necromancy meaning against bringing someone back that just died as well, or be little hypocritcal and be against the "icky" forms of necromancy.
You can play it as being against "undeath" and perversion of life that undead are. It's the main concept behind a Grave cleric.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Well being a germaphobe still fits the fear of zombies, for they spread disease and just gross. As for how she got into the habit of burning bodies. Her backstory is "Mother was a bit of a witch, can substitute another common letter still works." So when her mother finally passed on, she did not want deal with her anymore so to prevent her from coming back burned her body, paid an orc to smash her skeleton, and hopes her vengeful spirit isn't following her.
I think any character whose background has a strong sense of the proper order of birth>life>death or just a strong aversion to the undead might have no problem embracing the concept of resurrection while simultaneously despising a necromancer and the spells used to reanimate corpses into undead minions. In addition to representing the viewpoint of the Grave Domain cleric, as Cyb3rM1nd said, it offers an interesting conflict and a moral position that as a DM, I'd love to have the chance to play into my world. As an aside, I'm part way through a homebrew Paladin oath, which is similar to the Grave Domain, but it is more reactionary and specifically hostile against undead and those who tolerate them. It's more like an inquisitor. So I have put a bit of thought into this and I am happy to sift this discussion for ideas to integrate.
The way I have always understood it is that "Resurrection" and similar magics restores the soul and requires the permission of the soul being restored. Reanimating Zombies, Skeletons, and most other what I term "Bestial" undead does not provide a soul, the only animating factor is magic. Intelligent undead are not normally created by spell but have other means of creation or procreation - these may (or may not) have a soul depending upon local lore and GM fiat.
They are exactly the same. It is only the intent of the caster and the way in which a resurrection spell is used, that makes one or the other. Binding a soul to an object (whether that an animate object like a corpse, or an inanimate object like a statue) with the intent on using that soul for your own proposes, is necromancy. Where as restoring a souls natural vessel (a body) so that body can live again, but without any intent of using that soul for your own purposes or bending it to your will, is divine resurrection.
Both however are resurrection spells but the intents of the necromancer and the cleric are different and it is these differences in intent that make one evil (necromancy) and one good (divine).
This can be seen in those characters who buck the trend and use necromancy for good or divine resurrection for evil.
In short, both are magic and magic is neither good or evil; light or dark, rather; it is the will of the caster that makes it so.
So getting down to the base of it, what actually separates the two. I mean I can see some differences yeah. Divine is seen as good necromancy is seen as evil. Divine seems to restore the person's body whole again while necormany just shoves soul into a usually decayed corpse. Necromancy seems to often have control over what is brought to life while those brought by by a divine power maintain free will. Am I missing anything major here? Lets discuss more.
All of the resurrection spells, including the ultimate True Resurrection limited to divine casters Clerics and Druids, is a Necromancy spell.
Divine is not "good" and Necromancy is not "evil". There are evil Clerics, there are evil Druids, there are evil Gods. They are often those of as good and evil but in the actual system of magic these distinctions do not actually apply.
Healing spells like Cure Wounds is Evocation because its about manipulating and summoning energy to boost healing and life force. Necromancy is a school of magic that involves controlling the forces of life and death - either to keep it away like Death Ward and used to protect and help people or to negate life force (necrotic damage) and harm people (Inflict Wounds for etc) and manipulate souls (magic jar, soul cage, etc). You can be a necromancy that does not ever raise zombies or hurt people and can help people and be good. Then there are clerics of evil gods who use focused divine or celestial energy (radiant) to harm and kill people.
So, in terms of D&D, I do not think you are using the terms correctly or have understood how magic works in the game. Neither are good or evil. Morality is up to the caster not the spell.
Oh, and to add: Divine and Necromancy are not opposites. There is "divine necromancy" like the resurrection spells. The two opposing forces of magic are Divine and Arcane. Divine just means it is sourced from nature or a divine being like a god and these can be good or evil. Arcane means it sourced by mortal creatures like dragons, humanoids, and the like. Again, they include both good and evil. Divine/Arcane is a reference to a source of magic not any alignment.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I do admit, I haven't looked into the matter that closely fairly new the magical works of spell casting. So even better reason to create such topic to educate self. Admit my assertions were based off more pop culture than the rules of DnD.
My comment about that was observational not antagonistic, don't worry. I am glad you made the thread: I love talking about this stuff!
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I think there's also a context of agency in comparing the two categories. With one, the player is resurrected and regains some large measure of their own agency to be played by the player the way the player wants. With the other, the corpse is raised as an undead servant of the necromancer.
At least that's the way I look at it. Might be oversimplified. Blurring the distinction is where things can get interesting and fun.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
so just clear, every single spell that brings a person back to life, falls under the category of "Necromancy"
Yes. Whether its reanimated corpses and skeletons and ghouls or fully live breathing and restored. It is all a manipulation of souls, life and death in every case and therefore Necromancy.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Ok, then have to rethink a quirk of a character then. As stands right now, they are, among other things a bit of a germaphobe and hates the thought of leaving corpses around to be brought back as zombies, so when ever she can, she just burns the corpse of fallen foes, and then tries to persuade the stronger members of the team to pulverize the skeleton into duest so that can't be used either. Under the old way I was thinking, they would be fine with a person being brought back by "holy" means brought back whole and not zombified. So either now its a total stand against Necromancy meaning against bringing someone back that just died as well, or be little hypocritcal and be against the "icky" forms of necromancy.
You can play it as being against "undeath" and perversion of life that undead are. It's the main concept behind a Grave cleric.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Is she a cleric?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Well being a germaphobe still fits the fear of zombies, for they spread disease and just gross. As for how she got into the habit of burning bodies. Her backstory is "Mother was a bit of a witch, can substitute another common letter still works." So when her mother finally passed on, she did not want deal with her anymore so to prevent her from coming back burned her body, paid an orc to smash her skeleton, and hopes her vengeful spirit isn't following her.
nope Sorceress
I think any character whose background has a strong sense of the proper order of birth>life>death or just a strong aversion to the undead might have no problem embracing the concept of resurrection while simultaneously despising a necromancer and the spells used to reanimate corpses into undead minions. In addition to representing the viewpoint of the Grave Domain cleric, as Cyb3rM1nd said, it offers an interesting conflict and a moral position that as a DM, I'd love to have the chance to play into my world. As an aside, I'm part way through a homebrew Paladin oath, which is similar to the Grave Domain, but it is more reactionary and specifically hostile against undead and those who tolerate them. It's more like an inquisitor. So I have put a bit of thought into this and I am happy to sift this discussion for ideas to integrate.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The way I have always understood it is that "Resurrection" and similar magics restores the soul and requires the permission of the soul being restored. Reanimating Zombies, Skeletons, and most other what I term "Bestial" undead does not provide a soul, the only animating factor is magic. Intelligent undead are not normally created by spell but have other means of creation or procreation - these may (or may not) have a soul depending upon local lore and GM fiat.
They are exactly the same. It is only the intent of the caster and the way in which a resurrection spell is used, that makes one or the other. Binding a soul to an object (whether that an animate object like a corpse, or an inanimate object like a statue) with the intent on using that soul for your own proposes, is necromancy. Where as restoring a souls natural vessel (a body) so that body can live again, but without any intent of using that soul for your own purposes or bending it to your will, is divine resurrection.
Both however are resurrection spells but the intents of the necromancer and the cleric are different and it is these differences in intent that make one evil (necromancy) and one good (divine).
This can be seen in those characters who buck the trend and use necromancy for good or divine resurrection for evil.
In short, both are magic and magic is neither good or evil; light or dark, rather; it is the will of the caster that makes it so.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.