In life they worked against society and to ruin lives. Now, in death they work to help society and save lives. By this let their souls be cleaned of the stains from their sins.
Animate the evil and wicked and make them work to protect/help you do good or as free labour for the town or village. Waste not, want not.
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.
It is just slavery, blasphemy, and corpse disturbance all tolled into one. Nothing inherently evil here.
I think the only argument you can make is a "lesser evil for the greater good" one. And be respectful about the process.
Slavery only applies to something that has a sense of will, of self. When you turn iron into swords you're not enslaving the iron. When you make a table out of wood, you're not enslaving the tree. A corpse has no mind, soul, will or sense of self. It's a thing.
The soul is not trapped or brought back. There is nothing in the spell description to indicate this, and the write up of the zombies and skeletons specifically indicate it is the necromantic energy making them move and not a soul and both explicitly state they hold no ties to whatever they once were. It's essentially a very efficient version of applying string and puppeteering. If you died and somebody cast animate dead on your corpse the zombie it makes is not "you" - whatever made you, "you", has gone away, the spell just makes it move how the caster wants. Likewise, the mind these have are not the mind of what they were. The spell takes pieces but can tap into some things but it's still not a real mind - basically it's AI. This is why they have set mental scores instead of using whatever came before. They might retain something like language and the usual basic knowledge but nothing involving identity or the self.
So, there's no enslavement here. Besides if you're against slavery then I imagine you don't get pets or mounts, because technically speaking these are forms of slavery too (especially the latter).
As for being "blasphemous" - says who? If you're not religious, you cannot commit acts of blasphemy and if you are religious then it's only blasphemy if your religion prohibits this type of necromancy.
Defiling of a corpse... Sure. But how wrong is this? This is just a social idea. I'm pretty sure disrespecting the corpse of a murderer, rapist, child abuser, villain, etc is not a horrible idea. Technically speaking if you stopped that villain by killing them, you've committed murder. When you kill a boar to chop it up and eat it, you're defiling its corpse. So, when defining evil we have to take into account "what makes it evil?" Why is it evil to use a corpse that would otherwise do nothing but rot? I mean, the person usually isn't going to give a shit - they're dead and gone. And if they're evil villains, then, well, why does their opinion matter? It's just recycling at the end of the day. The only thing that makes it "evil" or "defiling" is just a social opinion and nothing more (and a rather illogical one at that).
You're also projecting your opinions or game world ideas to the thread author's. For all we know, in their world, the gods and religions or society being served are okie-doke with recycling, especially if they're the bodies of bad people.In fact, from the religious aspect, this could even be seen as a form of penance for the previous inhabitant of the body, and seen as something entirely good and holy. Their game world, not yours.
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.
That is too many words to defend a joke against, geez. I'm too lazy for this.
An undead absolutely has a will of its own, that is why you need to recast the spell every 24 hours or it eats you. And to use a person's body to do the oposite of what they would have in life may not be slavery, but is certainly akin to it.
I didn't have a better single word than blasphemy. "In opposition to every good aligned religion, the laws of nature, and the natural order set by the gods" was too wordy for a joke.
Social opinion is one of the cornerstones of morality which defines good and evil. So, yeah, that.
And I am not projecting my opinions anywhere. If raising the dead wasn't considered evil in their setting, the OP wouldn't be asking for us to help justify it. It wasn't even my opinion, I think it is fine for good characters to use it. It is about how it is used. Like I said in the part of my post that is not a joke "for the greater good."
I've always been of the mind that no knowledge is inherently evil. What you do with that knowledge is what gives it ethical value. A person with medical knowledge can use that knowledge to heal (doctors without boarders) or kill (Hannibal). A person with programming knowledge can create a secure and free system (Linux) or a virus.
If we expand that theory to fantasy magic, that would mean no magic is inherently evil. Not even necromancy. If you raised an army of the dead to fight against a massive force bent on destruction like in Lord of the Rings Return of the King, I'd call that a good use of necromancy. It was only kinda necromancy because the undead spirits already existed, Aragorn just convinced them fight for him. It's comparable though. Or it could be used for evil like in... Army of Darkness.
I think you could definitely create a good necromancer. You might have to go out of your way to explain and RP how you're a good necromancer but I don't think you have to be evil to be a necromancer. Even the iconically good character, the life domain cleric, can raise dead if he or she wants. There is nothing in D&D 5e that forces an alignment on a character because of a class or subclass.
It's also worth noting that even in the Wizard school of Necromancy section of the PHB, it says:
Most people see necromancers as menacing, or even villainous, due to the close association with death. Not all necromancers are evil, but the forces they manipulate are considered taboo by many societies.
You guys brought very interesting arguments about the topic, thx for the quick replies. I'll certainly use some (if not most) of what you said in my game.
Would you have a recommendation for a deity who would go well with that? I would like to add to my background that my wizard once had the help of a cleric of ??? to make good use of the necromancy he already knew about. He then would've become a follower of that deity.
(Sorry if my english is not perfect there... second langage).
You guys brought very interesting arguments about the topic, thx for the quick replies. I'll certainly use some (if not most) of what you said in my game.
Would you have a recommendation for a deity who would go well with that? I would like to add to my background that my wizard once had the help of a cleric of ??? to make good use of the necromancy he already knew about. He then would've become a follower of that deity.
(Sorry if my english is not perfect there... second langage).
Thanks again
(imo) A neutral aligned God would be best to justify putting a commonly considered evil art to use for good. Ioun, goddess of knowledge (true neutral) would be good for the "Knowledge is neither good nor evil. It is only its application that can be judged," argument.
You are forcing them to repent or make restitution. Like having criminals do community service. That's not slavery.
As you pointed out before they dont have their soul, so it is not really restitution (the soul will not even be aware of the body was made undead). Criminals do not have their free will stripped from them and their bodies forced to do community service. You are magically dominating them and forcefully changing their behaviors, you are probably right that slavery isnt the right term, because "slavery" doesn't do it justice.
If the soul isn't in the body, it's not a person. It's just meat. Using it has no moral value, good or evil. It's neutral. If you use it for good, therefore, it's good. The idea that dead bodies are in some way sacrosanct makes no sense in a world where everyone knows for sure there are souls and that they depart upon death.
It's not an ends justify the means thing at all. That would only apply to doing bad things, like killing. In a world where souls depart the body upon death, the body itself has no moral significance and is just meat, no different than a sword or a staff: a tool whose use is good or evil only based on what is done with it.
What if the necromancer uses speak with dead and animates corpses that still have some unfinished business on this world before letting them rest in peace?
When "good" and "necromancy" are being used in the same sentence,l you need to check with the GM to make sure the two can actually go together in the gameworld's cosmology.
For example, in my game world, raising undead drags the animus back from its journey to the afterworld. Once you have raised a corpse as a zombie or skeleton, that person can no longer be raised from the dead as their animus is no longer available (if you cast raise dead on a "dead" zombie, you get a "live" zombie, not the original person). For these reasons, raising undead is evil. No "ifs", no "buts". Evil. There can be no such thing as a "good necromancer".
In another GM's game world, raising undead might simply be a rather specialised type of telekinesis on a dead body. No moral implications at all.
Hi,
I am building a Valdeken Wizard (school of necromancy) and there is a cleric of Pelar in the group.
I am looking for ideas and/or deity to use the Animate Dead spell in a ''good'' way.
Example : Animates slained foes so they have a chance to repent.
The way we RP our game, I know I'll need good explanations if I wanna cast my main spell at all.
Thanks
In life they worked against society and to ruin lives. Now, in death they work to help society and save lives. By this let their souls be cleaned of the stains from their sins.
Animate the evil and wicked and make them work to protect/help you do good or as free labour for the town or village. Waste not, want not.
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.
It is just slavery, blasphemy, and corpse disturbance all rolled into one. Nothing inherently evil here.
I think the only argument you can make is a "lesser evil for the greater good" one. And be respectful about the process.
Slavery only applies to something that has a sense of will, of self. When you turn iron into swords you're not enslaving the iron. When you make a table out of wood, you're not enslaving the tree. A corpse has no mind, soul, will or sense of self. It's a thing.
The soul is not trapped or brought back. There is nothing in the spell description to indicate this, and the write up of the zombies and skeletons specifically indicate it is the necromantic energy making them move and not a soul and both explicitly state they hold no ties to whatever they once were. It's essentially a very efficient version of applying string and puppeteering. If you died and somebody cast animate dead on your corpse the zombie it makes is not "you" - whatever made you, "you", has gone away, the spell just makes it move how the caster wants. Likewise, the mind these have are not the mind of what they were. The spell takes pieces but can tap into some things but it's still not a real mind - basically it's AI. This is why they have set mental scores instead of using whatever came before. They might retain something like language and the usual basic knowledge but nothing involving identity or the self.
So, there's no enslavement here. Besides if you're against slavery then I imagine you don't get pets or mounts, because technically speaking these are forms of slavery too (especially the latter).
As for being "blasphemous" - says who? If you're not religious, you cannot commit acts of blasphemy and if you are religious then it's only blasphemy if your religion prohibits this type of necromancy.
Defiling of a corpse... Sure. But how wrong is this? This is just a social idea. I'm pretty sure disrespecting the corpse of a murderer, rapist, child abuser, villain, etc is not a horrible idea. Technically speaking if you stopped that villain by killing them, you've committed murder. When you kill a boar to chop it up and eat it, you're defiling its corpse. So, when defining evil we have to take into account "what makes it evil?" Why is it evil to use a corpse that would otherwise do nothing but rot? I mean, the person usually isn't going to give a shit - they're dead and gone. And if they're evil villains, then, well, why does their opinion matter? It's just recycling at the end of the day. The only thing that makes it "evil" or "defiling" is just a social opinion and nothing more (and a rather illogical one at that).
You're also projecting your opinions or game world ideas to the thread author's. For all we know, in their world, the gods and religions or society being served are okie-doke with recycling, especially if they're the bodies of bad people.In fact, from the religious aspect, this could even be seen as a form of penance for the previous inhabitant of the body, and seen as something entirely good and holy. Their game world, not yours.
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.
That is too many words to defend a joke against, geez. I'm too lazy for this.
An undead absolutely has a will of its own, that is why you need to recast the spell every 24 hours or it eats you. And to use a person's body to do the oposite of what they would have in life may not be slavery, but is certainly akin to it.
I didn't have a better single word than blasphemy. "In opposition to every good aligned religion, the laws of nature, and the natural order set by the gods" was too wordy for a joke.
Social opinion is one of the cornerstones of morality which defines good and evil. So, yeah, that.
And I am not projecting my opinions anywhere. If raising the dead wasn't considered evil in their setting, the OP wouldn't be asking for us to help justify it. It wasn't even my opinion, I think it is fine for good characters to use it. It is about how it is used. Like I said in the part of my post that is not a joke "for the greater good."
I've always been of the mind that no knowledge is inherently evil. What you do with that knowledge is what gives it ethical value. A person with medical knowledge can use that knowledge to heal (doctors without boarders) or kill (Hannibal). A person with programming knowledge can create a secure and free system (Linux) or a virus.
If we expand that theory to fantasy magic, that would mean no magic is inherently evil. Not even necromancy. If you raised an army of the dead to fight against a massive force bent on destruction like in Lord of the Rings Return of the King, I'd call that a good use of necromancy. It was only kinda necromancy because the undead spirits already existed, Aragorn just convinced them fight for him. It's comparable though. Or it could be used for evil like in... Army of Darkness.
I think you could definitely create a good necromancer. You might have to go out of your way to explain and RP how you're a good necromancer but I don't think you have to be evil to be a necromancer. Even the iconically good character, the life domain cleric, can raise dead if he or she wants. There is nothing in D&D 5e that forces an alignment on a character because of a class or subclass.
It's also worth noting that even in the Wizard school of Necromancy section of the PHB, it says:
You guys brought very interesting arguments about the topic, thx for the quick replies. I'll certainly use some (if not most) of what you said in my game.
Would you have a recommendation for a deity who would go well with that? I would like to add to my background that my wizard once had the help of a cleric of ??? to make good use of the necromancy he already knew about. He then would've become a follower of that deity.
(Sorry if my english is not perfect there... second langage).
Thanks again
You are forcing them to repent or make restitution. Like having criminals do community service. That's not slavery.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
(imo) A neutral aligned God would be best to justify putting a commonly considered evil art to use for good. Ioun, goddess of knowledge (true neutral) would be good for the "Knowledge is neither good nor evil. It is only its application that can be judged," argument.
As you pointed out before they dont have their soul, so it is not really restitution (the soul will not even be aware of the body was made undead). Criminals do not have their free will stripped from them and their bodies forced to do community service. You are magically dominating them and forcefully changing their behaviors, you are probably right that slavery isnt the right term, because "slavery" doesn't do it justice.
Criminals in places without slavery get the choice of whether to do community service. If you do not give them the choice, it's slavery.
I'm doing some bits on playing necromancers int eh wizard thread, check them out for some character ideas of the goodly persuasion
latest one is here:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/wizard/49763-necromancy-primer-part-6-the-van-helsing-undead
If the soul isn't in the body, it's not a person. It's just meat. Using it has no moral value, good or evil. It's neutral. If you use it for good, therefore, it's good. The idea that dead bodies are in some way sacrosanct makes no sense in a world where everyone knows for sure there are souls and that they depart upon death.
Ends justify the means...but man you better like...save the world from a meteor....
It's not an ends justify the means thing at all. That would only apply to doing bad things, like killing. In a world where souls depart the body upon death, the body itself has no moral significance and is just meat, no different than a sword or a staff: a tool whose use is good or evil only based on what is done with it.
What if the necromancer uses speak with dead and animates corpses that still have some unfinished business on this world before letting them rest in peace?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Considering that both Zombies and Skeletons are evil, their creation would also be evil.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
When "good" and "necromancy" are being used in the same sentence,l you need to check with the GM to make sure the two can actually go together in the gameworld's cosmology.
For example, in my game world, raising undead drags the animus back from its journey to the afterworld. Once you have raised a corpse as a zombie or skeleton, that person can no longer be raised from the dead as their animus is no longer available (if you cast raise dead on a "dead" zombie, you get a "live" zombie, not the original person). For these reasons, raising undead is evil. No "ifs", no "buts". Evil. There can be no such thing as a "good necromancer".
In another GM's game world, raising undead might simply be a rather specialised type of telekinesis on a dead body. No moral implications at all.
So, check with your GM first.
Man, I just saw this meme.
“I swear, I shall avenge my brothers death!”
”you have my bow!”
”and my axe!”
”...and your brother.”