Another to consider: In-game, RP cultural understanding of the Afterlife regardless of 5e rules.
Evil is an intent, not an act. It would be nice to be so simple, but players kill "evil" creatures all the time.
...and in one story I saw, players killed a bunch of "mercenaries holding a 'friend' hostage" who were actually bodyguards of the "hostage". They were protecting him and his dangerous knowledge from the one who hired the adventurers - which by extension, meant protecting him from the adventurers working for said villain. Oops.
Are those players Evil?
It's all about the intent, not the act.
If the character's understanding of the afterlife doesn't lend itself to believing Necromancy to be an Evil act, is the character Evil?
This is a terrible argument. If you do something horrible to someone, regardless of your intent, the person in question still suffered. Too many people want to believe that the horrendous things that they do to others is not "evil" because they don't believe it to be wrong.
I believe it is both. Do something horrible to do something good. You’re doing both “good AND evil” not “good OR evil”. It is easier on our brains to just compartmentalize it all though.
Another to consider: In-game, RP cultural understanding of the Afterlife regardless of 5e rules.
Evil is an intent, not an act. It would be nice to be so simple, but players kill "evil" creatures all the time.
...and in one story I saw, players killed a bunch of "mercenaries holding a 'friend' hostage" who were actually bodyguards of the "hostage". They were protecting him and his dangerous knowledge from the one who hired the adventurers - which by extension, meant protecting him from the adventurers working for said villain. Oops.
Are those players Evil?
It's all about the intent, not the act.
If the character's understanding of the afterlife doesn't lend itself to believing Necromancy to be an Evil act, is the character Evil?
This is a terrible argument. If you do something horrible to someone, regardless of your intent, the person in question still suffered. Too many people want to believe that the horrendous things that they do to others is not "evil" because they don't believe it to be wrong.
You tried to simplify it - the very thing I stated that is isn't.
If a person is doing something horrible and they know it, the intent is to do something horrible. ...and that is not remotely the situation I referenced.
If they don't know it's a horrible thing (and good luck trying to justify the slow murder of someone when an understanding of pain should be well-known so don't bother trying that argument here), the intent to do something horrible is not there. If the character has never experienced death, their understanding of the afterlife might be incomplete or highly inaccurate and never know what the act entails for the recipient.
Don't try to change the perspective to your viewpoint. It has to be the character's understanding, not yours.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Another to consider: In-game, RP cultural understanding of the Afterlife regardless of 5e rules.
Evil is an intent, not an act. It would be nice to be so simple, but players kill "evil" creatures all the time.
...and in one story I saw, players killed a bunch of "mercenaries holding a 'friend' hostage" who were actually bodyguards of the "hostage". They were protecting him and his dangerous knowledge from the one who hired the adventurers - which by extension, meant protecting him from the adventurers working for said villain. Oops.
Are those players Evil?
It's all about the intent, not the act.
If the character's understanding of the afterlife doesn't lend itself to believing Necromancy to be an Evil act, is the character Evil?
This is a terrible argument. If you do something horrible to someone, regardless of your intent, the person in question still suffered. Too many people want to believe that the horrendous things that they do to others is not "evil" because they don't believe it to be wrong.
You tried to simplify it - the very thing I stated that is isn't.
If a person is doing something horrible and they know it, the intent is to do something horrible. ...and that is not remotely the situation I referenced.
If they don't know it's a horrible thing (and good luck trying to justify the slow murder of someone when an understanding of pain should be well-known so don't bother trying that argument here), the intent to do something horrible is not there. If the character has never experienced death, their understanding of the afterlife might be incomplete or highly inaccurate and never know what the act entails for the recipient.
Don't try to change the perspective to your viewpoint. It has to be the character's understanding, not yours.
Another to consider: In-game, RP cultural understanding of the Afterlife regardless of 5e rules.
Evil is an intent, not an act. It would be nice to be so simple, but players kill "evil" creatures all the time.
...and in one story I saw, players killed a bunch of "mercenaries holding a 'friend' hostage" who were actually bodyguards of the "hostage". They were protecting him and his dangerous knowledge from the one who hired the adventurers - which by extension, meant protecting him from the adventurers working for said villain. Oops.
Are those players Evil?
It's all about the intent, not the act.
If the character's understanding of the afterlife doesn't lend itself to believing Necromancy to be an Evil act, is the character Evil?
This is a terrible argument. If you do something horrible to someone, regardless of your intent, the person in question still suffered. Too many people want to believe that the horrendous things that they do to others is not "evil" because they don't believe it to be wrong.
You tried to simplify it - the very thing I stated that is isn't.
If a person is doing something horrible and they know it, the intent is to do something horrible. ...and that is not remotely the situation I referenced.
If they don't know it's a horrible thing (and good luck trying to justify the slow murder of someone when an understanding of pain should be well-known so don't bother trying that argument here), the intent to do something horrible is not there. If the character has never experienced death, their understanding of the afterlife might be incomplete or highly inaccurate and never know what the act entails for the recipient.
Don't try to change the perspective to your viewpoint. It has to be the character's understanding, not yours.
Ignorance should not be an excuse.
I already addressed that. That's your perspective of knowledge.
Their perspective is from their knowledge. It shapes their intent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
You tried to simplify it - the very thing I stated that is isn't.
If a person is doing something horrible and they know it, the intent is to do something horrible. ...and that is not remotely the situation I referenced.
If they don't know it's a horrible thing (and good luck trying to justify the slow murder of someone when an understanding of pain should be well-known so don't bother trying that argument here), the intent to do something horrible is not there. If the character has never experienced death, their understanding of the afterlife might be incomplete or highly inaccurate and never know what the act entails for the recipient.
Don't try to change the perspective to your viewpoint. It has to be the character's understanding, not yours.
Intent is not a requirement to do evil, though. Willful ignorance is a well known alternative means.
Let's revisit your example. The party sees an individual being guarded by armed men and immediately conclude said individual is being held prisoner. On what basis? According to you, the truth is they are bodyguards and he is no prisoner. If that is the case, there should be no indications of confinement other than simply there being armed guards. The guards are almost certainly facing outward, towards possible threats rather than inward towards him. He is unbound and in no obvious signs of actual distress, not calling for help...
And yet they decided these people were evil. Seemingly made no attempt to communicate or ask what they were up to, nor even to demand the release of the 'prisoner,' which would almost certainly have just resulted in laughter and a parley.
It is not enough to simply believe you are in the right to be doing good. One must always actively seek the truth and be careful in one's actions and decisions. Ignorance is only an excuse when you make all reasonable efforts to educate yourself and still lack the relevant information and even then, erring on the side of caution is still an option.
"Willful" is intent.
In D&D, the tempo is typically "get quest - do quest". Once a party has that rhythm, it is acceptable that people may take things for granted - after all, people do it every day. It was also a two-way misunderstanding as the bodyguards knew about the party working for the enemy and treated them as such. Again - not so simple.
Why does everyone want it simple?
Throw in words like "willful" and you define intent. Throw in words like "ignorance" and you've defined your own standard of knowledge upon others who have lived differently than you. Your standards do not apply to anyone but yourself.
Policies are a different matter since policies around the world consider identical acts to be legal or illegal for differing reasons. So, just nip that one in the bud before anyone thinks to try that one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
You tried to simplify it - the very thing I stated that is isn't.
If a person is doing something horrible and they know it, the intent is to do something horrible. ...and that is not remotely the situation I referenced.
If they don't know it's a horrible thing (and good luck trying to justify the slow murder of someone when an understanding of pain should be well-known so don't bother trying that argument here), the intent to do something horrible is not there. If the character has never experienced death, their understanding of the afterlife might be incomplete or highly inaccurate and never know what the act entails for the recipient.
Don't try to change the perspective to your viewpoint. It has to be the character's understanding, not yours.
Intent is not a requirement to do evil, though. Willful ignorance is a well known alternative means.
Let's revisit your example. The party sees an individual being guarded by armed men and immediately conclude said individual is being held prisoner. On what basis? According to you, the truth is they are bodyguards and he is no prisoner. If that is the case, there should be no indications of confinement other than simply there being armed guards. The guards are almost certainly facing outward, towards possible threats rather than inward towards him. He is unbound and in no obvious signs of actual distress, not calling for help...
Except that's not the scenario. The party was hired to rescue a prisoner. Only after slaying the bodyguards do they begin to realize something is wrong, as the "prisoner" is also fighting against them. Come to figure out that the party was hired by the villain, because the "prisoner" knew secrets the villain didn't want known.
Another to consider: In-game, RP cultural understanding of the Afterlife regardless of 5e rules.
Evil is an intent, not an act. It would be nice to be so simple, but players kill "evil" creatures all the time.
...and in one story I saw, players killed a bunch of "mercenaries holding a 'friend' hostage" who were actually bodyguards of the "hostage". They were protecting him and his dangerous knowledge from the one who hired the adventurers - which by extension, meant protecting him from the adventurers working for said villain. Oops.
Are those players Evil?
It's all about the intent, not the act.
If the character's understanding of the afterlife doesn't lend itself to believing Necromancy to be an Evil act, is the character Evil?
Intention and outcome must both be evaluated when determining guilt. It's not one or the other. It's both.
And let's be clear here. Even in the scenario that the players were presented with (killing bodyguards to rescue a "prisoner"), killing the guards is an evil act no matter how you slice it. But under the context the characters had, rescuing a prisoner from the people holding them becomes, in sum, a good act. Killing is evil, but killing bad to rescue innocent can be good.
But the characters don't have all the information. After the fact, they learn that they have just slaughtered loyal bodyguards for a vulnerable person, not rescued that person from bad guys. They did not realize that is what they were doing at the time, but that doesn't lessen the evil of the act -- that's already been established. In this scenario, the intent was good, but the result was evil.
I wonder: why include it in the base game as an option for heroes when it's usually considered evil? Seems really counter productive and without much wriggle room. Patrons for warlocks get a pass but necromancy doesn't. Maybe a necromancer could persuade souls to come back to serve him or her? I had this gnome necromancer concept once... gnomes, not being big or strong generally, relied on magic for defence. This gnome village buried their dead with full honours, cleaned their bones, inscribed them with holy symbols, and raised them as a defence force to take the place of living gnomes. I had the idea it would be seen as an honour to continue protecting your village once you'd passed on and could no longer experience life.
You can't take organs from a cadaver if they did not consent while alive. Tampering with a dead body is illegal and very taboo.
A couple of points for consideration:
(quote taken from organdonation.nhs.uk) The law around organ donation in England has changed. All adults in England are now considered to have agreed to be an organ donor when they die unless they have recorded a decision not to donate or are in one of the excluded groups.
So in the UK you can take the organs from a cadaver unless the person expressly opted not to donate their organs whilst they were alive.
As for tampering with a dead body, isnt that what morticians have done throughout the ages? From the Egyptian folks mummifying their dead and extracting the organs to the modern day with autopsies and crime investigation?
As for removing diginty, you can say a similar thing about charm and dominate spells but those are not viewed as inherently evil.
As for the U.K. case, there's still a mechanism to withdraw consent. And to be honest, I don't know how to square the cases of Egyptian mummies and the sort. I personally find the way we treat the ancient dead abhorrent. For instance, the way we display their bodies and remove various talismans and relics from their mummies is incredibly twisted because to the deceased, the presence of those objects was absolutely vital to their afterlife. Tutankhamen's mask was a ward against evil spirits, and by removing that mask and parading around the world, we completely disregard the dignity and beliefs of the ancient dead. That's just my view.
On the other hand, I don't see morticians as doing something unwarranted, because a proper burial and all of the associated rites is likewise important to the belief structure of many who die. There's a reason we place legal weight on the last wishes of the deceased. Autopsies are also a tricky matter. In forensics, there are competing interests. If an autopsy can shed light on a crime, then there's a compelling interest to do so, at least in a manner as respectful as possible to the deceased and their families.
I wonder: why include it in the base game as an option for heroes when it's usually considered evil? Seems really counter productive and without much wriggle room. Patrons for warlocks get a pass but necromancy doesn't. Maybe a necromancer could persuade souls to come back to serve him or her? I had this gnome necromancer concept once... gnomes, not being big or strong generally, relied on magic for defence. This gnome village buried their dead with full honours, cleaned their bones, inscribed them with holy symbols, and raised them as a defence force to take the place of living gnomes. I had the idea it would be seen as an honour to continue protecting your village once you'd passed on and could no longer experience life.
This is a valid approach. If you interpret good necromancy to involve a conversation with the soul of the dead, then they can give consent. Of course in most cases, this is going to restrict you from using the remains of enemies.
I'd pose this argument: Undead can be used for "good" tasks, for example performing manual labour that would be dangerous for the living. If you obtain the consent of the deceased person, I don't see anything wrong in using their body to help the community. On the other hand, a spell like Eldritch Blast can literally only be used for killing. Which is more evil?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
You tried to simplify it - the very thing I stated that is isn't.
If a person is doing something horrible and they know it, the intent is to do something horrible. ...and that is not remotely the situation I referenced.
If they don't know it's a horrible thing (and good luck trying to justify the slow murder of someone when an understanding of pain should be well-known so don't bother trying that argument here), the intent to do something horrible is not there. If the character has never experienced death, their understanding of the afterlife might be incomplete or highly inaccurate and never know what the act entails for the recipient.
Don't try to change the perspective to your viewpoint. It has to be the character's understanding, not yours.
Intent is not a requirement to do evil, though. Willful ignorance is a well known alternative means.
Let's revisit your example. The party sees an individual being guarded by armed men and immediately conclude said individual is being held prisoner. On what basis? According to you, the truth is they are bodyguards and he is no prisoner. If that is the case, there should be no indications of confinement other than simply there being armed guards. The guards are almost certainly facing outward, towards possible threats rather than inward towards him. He is unbound and in no obvious signs of actual distress, not calling for help...
Except that's not the scenario. The party was hired to rescue a prisoner. Only after slaying the bodyguards do they begin to realize something is wrong, as the "prisoner" is also fighting against them. Come to figure out that the party was hired by the villain, because the "prisoner" knew secrets the villain didn't want known.
Another to consider: In-game, RP cultural understanding of the Afterlife regardless of 5e rules.
Evil is an intent, not an act. It would be nice to be so simple, but players kill "evil" creatures all the time.
...and in one story I saw, players killed a bunch of "mercenaries holding a 'friend' hostage" who were actually bodyguards of the "hostage". They were protecting him and his dangerous knowledge from the one who hired the adventurers - which by extension, meant protecting him from the adventurers working for said villain. Oops.
Are those players Evil?
It's all about the intent, not the act.
If the character's understanding of the afterlife doesn't lend itself to believing Necromancy to be an Evil act, is the character Evil?
Intention and outcome must both be evaluated when determining guilt. It's not one or the other. It's both.
And let's be clear here. Even in the scenario that the players were presented with (killing bodyguards to rescue a "prisoner"), killing the guards is an evil act no matter how you slice it. But under the context the characters had, rescuing a prisoner from the people holding them becomes, in sum, a good act. Killing is evil, but killing bad to rescue innocent can be good.
But the characters don't have all the information. After the fact, they learn that they have just slaughtered loyal bodyguards for a vulnerable person, not rescued that person from bad guys. They did not realize that is what they were doing at the time, but that doesn't lessen the evil of the act -- that's already been established. In this scenario, the intent was good, but the result was evil.
Killing is an evil act? Most D&D parties kill a ton of creatures and they’re not all evil adventurers.
I'd pose this argument: Undead can be used for "good" tasks, for example performing manual labour that would be dangerous for the living. If you obtain the consent of the deceased person, I don't see anything wrong in using their body to help the community. On the other hand, a spell like Eldritch Blast can literally only be used for killing. Which is more evil?
And if there is a reason why using them at all is considered evil? Such as the bodies being linked to the souls, or disease issues or some other valid reason not to used them that outweighs any lives saved? Even just the fact that using them for dangerous construction means fewer jobs in the community could have an offsetting effect.
I'll give an example of a place where necromancy could be considered good. A community where, since all labor (food growing, building, maintenance and sanitation) is performed by undead, the citizens can spend all their time learning and perfecting themselves. They could become great scholars and athletes because they don't have to work to survive. Once they die, they are given the last rites, and are raised respectfully. The people there understand that in death, they help the rest of the community. Becoming undead is treated as a sacred duty, instead of being an evil act.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I'd pose this argument: Undead can be used for "good" tasks, for example performing manual labour that would be dangerous for the living. If you obtain the consent of the deceased person, I don't see anything wrong in using their body to help the community. On the other hand, a spell like Eldritch Blast can literally only be used for killing. Which is more evil?
And if there is a reason why using them at all is considered evil? Such as the bodies being linked to the souls, or disease issues or some other valid reason not to used them that outweighs any lives saved? Even just the fact that using them for dangerous construction means fewer jobs in the community could have an offsetting effect.
I'll give an example of a place where necromancy could be considered good. A community where, since all labor (food growing, building, maintenance and sanitation) is performed by undead, the citizens can spend all their time learning and perfecting themselves. They could become great scholars and athletes because they don't have to work to survive. Once they die, they are given the last rites, and are raised respectfully. The people there understand that in death, they help the rest of the community. Becoming undead is treated as a sacred duty, instead of being an evil act.
I fully agree, it should be dependant on the society in which it occurs, not wholesale across all of DnD. Kinda like how some races are erroneously described as being evil, when in reality it's the society they are a part of that is, not the race itself.
I’m gonna go free all those undead workers, working without pay, they deserve to be free out in the world eating brains and killing people with no regard for human life.
You tried to simplify it - the very thing I stated that is isn't.
If a person is doing something horrible and they know it, the intent is to do something horrible. ...and that is not remotely the situation I referenced.
If they don't know it's a horrible thing (and good luck trying to justify the slow murder of someone when an understanding of pain should be well-known so don't bother trying that argument here), the intent to do something horrible is not there. If the character has never experienced death, their understanding of the afterlife might be incomplete or highly inaccurate and never know what the act entails for the recipient.
Don't try to change the perspective to your viewpoint. It has to be the character's understanding, not yours.
Intent is not a requirement to do evil, though. Willful ignorance is a well known alternative means.
Let's revisit your example. The party sees an individual being guarded by armed men and immediately conclude said individual is being held prisoner. On what basis? According to you, the truth is they are bodyguards and he is no prisoner. If that is the case, there should be no indications of confinement other than simply there being armed guards. The guards are almost certainly facing outward, towards possible threats rather than inward towards him. He is unbound and in no obvious signs of actual distress, not calling for help...
Except that's not the scenario. The party was hired to rescue a prisoner. Only after slaying the bodyguards do they begin to realize something is wrong, as the "prisoner" is also fighting against them. Come to figure out that the party was hired by the villain, because the "prisoner" knew secrets the villain didn't want known.
Another to consider: In-game, RP cultural understanding of the Afterlife regardless of 5e rules.
Evil is an intent, not an act. It would be nice to be so simple, but players kill "evil" creatures all the time.
...and in one story I saw, players killed a bunch of "mercenaries holding a 'friend' hostage" who were actually bodyguards of the "hostage". They were protecting him and his dangerous knowledge from the one who hired the adventurers - which by extension, meant protecting him from the adventurers working for said villain. Oops.
Are those players Evil?
It's all about the intent, not the act.
If the character's understanding of the afterlife doesn't lend itself to believing Necromancy to be an Evil act, is the character Evil?
Intention and outcome must both be evaluated when determining guilt. It's not one or the other. It's both.
And let's be clear here. Even in the scenario that the players were presented with (killing bodyguards to rescue a "prisoner"), killing the guards is an evil act no matter how you slice it. But under the context the characters had, rescuing a prisoner from the people holding them becomes, in sum, a good act. Killing is evil, but killing bad to rescue innocent can be good.
But the characters don't have all the information. After the fact, they learn that they have just slaughtered loyal bodyguards for a vulnerable person, not rescued that person from bad guys. They did not realize that is what they were doing at the time, but that doesn't lessen the evil of the act -- that's already been established. In this scenario, the intent was good, but the result was evil.
Killing is an evil act? Most D&D parties kill a ton of creatures and they’re not all evil adventurers.
Depends on the scenario.
Attacked on the road by a wandering or hunting beast? That's survival, not inherently good or evil, the balance of the encounter becomes neutral.
Bandits attack them on the road? Bandits have made the choice to perform evil acts themselves, and while killing them for it is generally (and contextually) an overreaction, it's not exactly off the table, depending on the choices of the individual bandit. As such, the overall encounter may turn from neutral to good, as the bandits would likely continue performing other evil acts.
Random guardsmen from a town controlled by a tyrant? Now we're in the real grey area, because the party has no way of knowing whether any given guard believes in what the tyrant is doing, or whether they are following orders out of fear of reprisals or ignorance of what the tyrant is doing. Killing them indiscriminately is obviously evil. Ultimately killing the fanatical ones could be justified, but how would the party know which is which? And can the party afford to spend the additional resources and time to capture the entire town guard, in order to sort it out later? That's a pretty obvious no, as well. So what recourse does the party have, exactly, to defeat the tyrant and liberate the citizens he is lording over?
For clarity, an evil act that prevents other evil acts isn't inherently good, either. But it's generally agreed to be tolerable. That's what incarceration tends to be. It's about reform in some places, and about punishment in others. Either way, it removes an individual who has committed some evil from the society as a whole for a duration.
I’m gonna go free all those undead workers, working without pay, they deserve to be free out in the world eating brains and killing people with no regard for human life.
They are essentially mindless though. And in the example provided, are willingly serving out of honour. In return they are respected and cared for. They have no massive needs.
Also, I’d estimate that good and evil does not inherently exist, the concepts were born when humans developed the cognitive capability to comprehend abstract concepts. Whereas in a fictional world like D&D they DO inherently exist because it was created that way from inception. And things like alignments only perpetuate the black and white nature of good and evil.
I believe it is both. Do something horrible to do something good. You’re doing both “good AND evil” not “good OR evil”. It is easier on our brains to just compartmentalize it all though.
You tried to simplify it - the very thing I stated that is isn't.
If a person is doing something horrible and they know it, the intent is to do something horrible. ...and that is not remotely the situation I referenced.
If they don't know it's a horrible thing (and good luck trying to justify the slow murder of someone when an understanding of pain should be well-known so don't bother trying that argument here), the intent to do something horrible is not there. If the character has never experienced death, their understanding of the afterlife might be incomplete or highly inaccurate and never know what the act entails for the recipient.
Don't try to change the perspective to your viewpoint. It has to be the character's understanding, not yours.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
This debate is fascinating.
Ignorance should not be an excuse.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I already addressed that. That's your perspective of knowledge.
Their perspective is from their knowledge. It shapes their intent.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
"Willful" is intent.
In D&D, the tempo is typically "get quest - do quest". Once a party has that rhythm, it is acceptable that people may take things for granted - after all, people do it every day. It was also a two-way misunderstanding as the bodyguards knew about the party working for the enemy and treated them as such. Again - not so simple.
Why does everyone want it simple?
Throw in words like "willful" and you define intent. Throw in words like "ignorance" and you've defined your own standard of knowledge upon others who have lived differently than you. Your standards do not apply to anyone but yourself.
Policies are a different matter since policies around the world consider identical acts to be legal or illegal for differing reasons. So, just nip that one in the bud before anyone thinks to try that one.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Except that's not the scenario. The party was hired to rescue a prisoner. Only after slaying the bodyguards do they begin to realize something is wrong, as the "prisoner" is also fighting against them. Come to figure out that the party was hired by the villain, because the "prisoner" knew secrets the villain didn't want known.
Intention and outcome must both be evaluated when determining guilt. It's not one or the other. It's both.
And let's be clear here. Even in the scenario that the players were presented with (killing bodyguards to rescue a "prisoner"), killing the guards is an evil act no matter how you slice it. But under the context the characters had, rescuing a prisoner from the people holding them becomes, in sum, a good act. Killing is evil, but killing bad to rescue innocent can be good.
But the characters don't have all the information. After the fact, they learn that they have just slaughtered loyal bodyguards for a vulnerable person, not rescued that person from bad guys. They did not realize that is what they were doing at the time, but that doesn't lessen the evil of the act -- that's already been established. In this scenario, the intent was good, but the result was evil.
I wonder: why include it in the base game as an option for heroes when it's usually considered evil? Seems really counter productive and without much wriggle room. Patrons for warlocks get a pass but necromancy doesn't. Maybe a necromancer could persuade souls to come back to serve him or her? I had this gnome necromancer concept once... gnomes, not being big or strong generally, relied on magic for defence. This gnome village buried their dead with full honours, cleaned their bones, inscribed them with holy symbols, and raised them as a defence force to take the place of living gnomes. I had the idea it would be seen as an honour to continue protecting your village once you'd passed on and could no longer experience life.
As for the U.K. case, there's still a mechanism to withdraw consent. And to be honest, I don't know how to square the cases of Egyptian mummies and the sort. I personally find the way we treat the ancient dead abhorrent. For instance, the way we display their bodies and remove various talismans and relics from their mummies is incredibly twisted because to the deceased, the presence of those objects was absolutely vital to their afterlife. Tutankhamen's mask was a ward against evil spirits, and by removing that mask and parading around the world, we completely disregard the dignity and beliefs of the ancient dead. That's just my view.
On the other hand, I don't see morticians as doing something unwarranted, because a proper burial and all of the associated rites is likewise important to the belief structure of many who die. There's a reason we place legal weight on the last wishes of the deceased. Autopsies are also a tricky matter. In forensics, there are competing interests. If an autopsy can shed light on a crime, then there's a compelling interest to do so, at least in a manner as respectful as possible to the deceased and their families.
This is a valid approach. If you interpret good necromancy to involve a conversation with the soul of the dead, then they can give consent. Of course in most cases, this is going to restrict you from using the remains of enemies.
Because the rules don't require you to play a good-aligned character.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I'd pose this argument: Undead can be used for "good" tasks, for example performing manual labour that would be dangerous for the living. If you obtain the consent of the deceased person, I don't see anything wrong in using their body to help the community. On the other hand, a spell like Eldritch Blast can literally only be used for killing. Which is more evil?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Killing is an evil act? Most D&D parties kill a ton of creatures and they’re not all evil adventurers.
I'll give an example of a place where necromancy could be considered good. A community where, since all labor (food growing, building, maintenance and sanitation) is performed by undead, the citizens can spend all their time learning and perfecting themselves. They could become great scholars and athletes because they don't have to work to survive. Once they die, they are given the last rites, and are raised respectfully. The people there understand that in death, they help the rest of the community. Becoming undead is treated as a sacred duty, instead of being an evil act.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I fully agree, it should be dependant on the society in which it occurs, not wholesale across all of DnD. Kinda like how some races are erroneously described as being evil, when in reality it's the society they are a part of that is, not the race itself.
I’m gonna go free all those undead workers, working without pay, they deserve to be free out in the world eating brains and killing people with no regard for human life.
I’m reminded of the Charonti from Jakandor in AD&D2e.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Depends on the scenario.
Attacked on the road by a wandering or hunting beast? That's survival, not inherently good or evil, the balance of the encounter becomes neutral.
Bandits attack them on the road? Bandits have made the choice to perform evil acts themselves, and while killing them for it is generally (and contextually) an overreaction, it's not exactly off the table, depending on the choices of the individual bandit. As such, the overall encounter may turn from neutral to good, as the bandits would likely continue performing other evil acts.
Random guardsmen from a town controlled by a tyrant? Now we're in the real grey area, because the party has no way of knowing whether any given guard believes in what the tyrant is doing, or whether they are following orders out of fear of reprisals or ignorance of what the tyrant is doing. Killing them indiscriminately is obviously evil. Ultimately killing the fanatical ones could be justified, but how would the party know which is which? And can the party afford to spend the additional resources and time to capture the entire town guard, in order to sort it out later? That's a pretty obvious no, as well. So what recourse does the party have, exactly, to defeat the tyrant and liberate the citizens he is lording over?
For clarity, an evil act that prevents other evil acts isn't inherently good, either. But it's generally agreed to be tolerable. That's what incarceration tends to be. It's about reform in some places, and about punishment in others. Either way, it removes an individual who has committed some evil from the society as a whole for a duration.
Not everyone will see it that way.
Also, I’d estimate that good and evil does not inherently exist, the concepts were born when humans developed the cognitive capability to comprehend abstract concepts. Whereas in a fictional world like D&D they DO inherently exist because it was created that way from inception. And things like alignments only perpetuate the black and white nature of good and evil.
Were the Charonti necromancers (like Charon the Ferryman)?