I’m reminded of the Charonti from Jakandor in AD&D2e.
Were the Charonti necromancers (like Charon the Ferryman)?
In their society, there was no religion. But in their “faith” system and culture, it was considered an honor to have your body raised to serve your family to make their lives easier, or if you were a family servant (like Downton Abbey), possibly your boss’s family. Families even cared for their undead servants because they used to be family members or beloved servants. It was a way to bring both a source of labor for the society, and a piece of mind to the dying who were leaving loved ones behind.
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.
This, all these arguments currently going on about evil creatures and races in D&D Boils down to this. There are literal planes of evil, and some higher beings on those planes created subjects with a will to match their own. Does not matter how a Zombie or Skeleton was created, because those creatures are the domain of Orcus, so his Evil lives on in them. He created the first undead, making them in his image, Note: Not actually sure of the real lore, but just using the Demon of Undeath as an example of why all undead are considered evil.
Yeah but the great thing about D&D is that we can take our ability to think abstractly and apply it to the game. Where a literal plane of evil doesn’t have to be that way if you don’t want it to be. You could create a world ruled by necromancers and all other forms of magic are the evil magic or whatever. But I think the fact that D&D was created as good vs evil from its inception creates a mental roadblock for some people that can’t see necromancy as anything but evil. My final opinion is that it is both good and evil, and it is neither.
Yeah but the great thing about D&D is that we can take our ability to think abstractly and apply it to the game. Where a literal plane of evil doesn’t have to be that way if you don’t want it to be. You could create a world ruled by necromancers and all other forms of magic are the evil magic or whatever. But I think the fact that D&D was created as good vs evil from its inception creates a mental roadblock for some people that can’t see necromancy as anything but evil. My final opinion is that it is both good and evil, and it is neither.
Originally, Good and Evil weren’t considered at all. The original alignment was only Lawful/Chaotic. They added Neutral and G/E later.
Even if you believe that necrotic = evil and souls mean necro stuff is wrong, Necromancy is NOT evil.
Because it also contains spells like Raise Dead and Life Transference.
Their is one and only one Evil with a capital E school of Magic.
The Evil School of Magic is ENCHANTMENT.
There is not a single spell of 4th level or higher that would be legal in a free country. Most of the lower level spells are also evil.
There are multiple non-damaging spells that instantly turn people Hostile to you. Ever been bullied as a kid? That is basically what Viscous Mockery is. There is of course the ultimate Date **** spell "Modify Memory". Yes, there are a few positive spells, such as Bless. But nothing as good as Raise Dead. Honestly, people could go without the few good Enchantment spells, if it meant removing the evil ones.
Necromancy is evil by fiat of the Game Creators, based on prejudice. Enchantment is evil because the spells it do vile, horrible things.
Are tasers more 'evil' than firearms or melee weapons? (confusion, hold monster, antipathy used as a security system component, power word stun) Are firearms more evil than swords? (power word: kill). Against non-sentient beasts, is charm or dominate more evil than animal handling? Or evil at all? Or even against sentient opponents as a non-violent subdual technique, releasing them as soon as they are captured and only using the method against actual threats?
Not all necromancy is evil either. As you say, raises. However the OP is not complaining about prejudice against raises.
These spells are not Taser spells. What makes something evil is not what you intend to use it for, but what people COULD use it for. The mere fact you had to put in so many conditions (non-sentient beasts, as non-violent subdual), proves my point.
Look at Modify Memory, it is the most vile, evil thing you can do to someone. Come, let me spend 10 minutes with your daughter, don't worry when it is all over she won't remember a thing.
Even if you believe that necrotic = evil and souls mean necro stuff is wrong, Necromancy is NOT evil.
Because it also contains spells like Raise Dead and Life Transference.
Their is one and only one Evil with a capital E school of Magic.
The Evil School of Magic is ENCHANTMENT.
There is not a single spell of 4th level or higher that would be legal in a free country. Most of the lower level spells are also evil.
There are multiple non-damaging spells that instantly turn people Hostile to you. Ever been bullied as a kid? That is basically what Viscous Mockery is. There is of course the ultimate Date **** spell "Modify Memory". Yes, there are a few positive spells, such as Bless. But nothing as good as Raise Dead. Honestly, people could go without the few good Enchantment spells, if it meant removing the evil ones.
Necromancy is evil by fiat of the Game Creators, based on prejudice. Enchantment is evil because the spells it do vile, horrible things.
Are tasers more 'evil' than firearms or melee weapons? (confusion, hold monster, antipathy used as a security system component, power word stun) Are firearms more evil than swords? (power word: kill). Against non-sentient beasts, is charm or dominate more evil than animal handling? Or evil at all? Or even against sentient opponents as a non-violent subdual technique, releasing them as soon as they are captured and only using the method against actual threats?
Not all necromancy is evil either. As you say, raises. However the OP is not complaining about prejudice against raises.
These spells are not Taser spells. What makes something evil is not what you intend to use it for, but what people COULD use it for. The mere fact you had to put in so many conditions (non-sentient beasts, as non-violent subdual), proves my point.
Look at Modify Memory, it is the most vile, evil thing you can do to someone. Come, let me spend 10 minutes with your daughter, don't worry when it is all over she won't remember a thing.
I agree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I don’t think Charm spells are inherently evil (I sometimes play enchanters), but I guess that’s cause I unconsciously block out the horrible possibilities. When I game I don’t wanna think about stuff like that. Gaming is escapism for me. Intelligent escapism, but still escapism.
Back to the main thread. I still think it would be very hard for a necromancer to be good being constantly exposed to all that dark negative energy. Neutral maybe, but not good. But maybe my opinion would change if I read the Charonti sourcebook.
Yeah but the great thing about D&D is that we can take our ability to think abstractly and apply it to the game. Where a literal plane of evil doesn’t have to be that way if you don’t want it to be. You could create a world ruled by necromancers and all other forms of magic are the evil magic or whatever. But I think the fact that D&D was created as good vs evil from its inception creates a mental roadblock for some people that can’t see necromancy as anything but evil. My final opinion is that it is both good and evil, and it is neither.
Originally, Good and Evil weren’t considered at all. The original alignment was only Lawful/Chaotic. They added Neutral and G/E later.
Without alignments taken into consideration the general concept is typically good vs evil. Throughout fantasy as a whole historically speaking. Usually.
I don’t think Charm spells are inherently evil (I sometimes play enchanters), but I guess that’s cause I unconsciously block out the horrible possibilities. When I game I don’t wanna think about stuff like that. Gaming is escapism for me. Intelligent escapism, but still escapism.
Back to the main thread. I still think it would be very hard for a necromancer to be good being constantly exposed to all that dark negative energy. Neutral maybe, but not good. But maybe my opinion would change if I read the Charonti sourcebook.
There were three sourcebooks for that setting, the one that focused on the Charonti was Jakandor, Isle of Destiny.
I don’t think Charm spells are inherently evil (I sometimes play enchanters), but I guess that’s cause I unconsciously block out the horrible possibilities. When I game I don’t wanna think about stuff like that. Gaming is escapism for me. Intelligent escapism, but still escapism.
Back to the main thread. I still think it would be very hard for a necromancer to be good being constantly exposed to all that dark negative energy. Neutral maybe, but not good. But maybe my opinion would change if I read the Charonti sourcebook.
There were three sourcebooks for that setting, the one that focused on the Charonti was Jakandor, Isle of Destiny.
Which is better, the one that focuses on the Charonti or the one that focuses on Jakandor as a whole?
I don’t think Charm spells are inherently evil (I sometimes play enchanters), but I guess that’s cause I unconsciously block out the horrible possibilities. When I game I don’t wanna think about stuff like that. Gaming is escapism for me. Intelligent escapism, but still escapism.
Back to the main thread. I still think it would be very hard for a necromancer to be good being constantly exposed to all that dark negative energy. Neutral maybe, but not good. But maybe my opinion would change if I read the Charonti sourcebook.
There were three sourcebooks for that setting, the one that focused on the Charonti was Jakandor, Isle of Destiny.
Which is better, the one that focuses on the Charonti or the one that focuses on Jakandor as a whole?
There was one for the Charonti called Jakandor, Isle of Destiny, one that focused on the only other society on the island, the Knorr, called Jakandor, Island of War, and then there was a DM campaign book called Jakandor, Land of Legend.
All three of them have some interesting stuff, but if you mostly want the Charonti perspective then grab Isle of Destiny. If you want the DM’s secrets behind the whole thing, you will also want the Land of Legend. (And if you want the Knorr perspective of the Charonti then Island of War is useful.)
Same (the character l was channeling was TN) (l'm the OP in-case anyone forgot lol)
I don’t think necromancy is per se an evil act, but I also don’t think a good character would be able to animate undead and remain within their alignment. But since you’re neutral that shouldn’t be a problem.
That depends on why they were animating the dead and how regularly they made a habit of doing so. Situations like "we're about to be overrun by the enemy and everyone will be slaughtered" and "I'm going to ride into battle on the back of a polka-powered zombie T-Rex" are justified.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
All moral measures are constructs. It is unlikely that everyone will agree.
My measurement of Good and Evil is the level of altruism and egoism. This does not mesh well with those who do things defined as Good by whatever tenets they follow if the ultimate purpose is to receive a reward (such was spending eternity in the Twin Paradises after death).
I don't believe that there is pure Altruism or pure Egoism. One who wants to help others must still care about their own health. One who wants power must consider those who actually grant it. So, I measure Good as Altruism with only necessary Egoism and Evil as excess Egoism with bare minimum Altruism.
Where does Necromancy fall in that scale of mine? Can someone raise dead with more Altruism than Egoism?
To say it's impossible would require one to make judgments on possibilities likely yet unknown. Nobody's omniscient. I proposed possibilities on a measure of Altruism and Egoism. It's not objective, but neither is putting any kind of personally justified requirements of moral measures such as local legal edicts or social insight from other societies.
If you wish to claim it is impossible, do so with the acknowledgement that it is your measure by which you do so. I stated that it is possible by my measure and make no claims of objectivity.
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.
That depends on why they were animating the dead and how regularly they made a habit of doing so. Situations like "we're about to be overrun by the enemy and everyone will be slaughtered" and "I'm going to ride into battle on the back of a polka-powered zombie T-Rex" are justified.
😂😂😂😂😂
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In their society, there was no religion. But in their “faith” system and culture, it was considered an honor to have your body raised to serve your family to make their lives easier, or if you were a family servant (like Downton Abbey), possibly your boss’s family. Families even cared for their undead servants because they used to be family members or beloved servants. It was a way to bring both a source of labor for the society, and a piece of mind to the dying who were leaving loved ones behind.
Talk about your ethical necromancy.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This, all these arguments currently going on about evil creatures and races in D&D Boils down to this. There are literal planes of evil, and some higher beings on those planes created subjects with a will to match their own. Does not matter how a Zombie or Skeleton was created, because those creatures are the domain of Orcus, so his Evil lives on in them. He created the first undead, making them in his image, Note: Not actually sure of the real lore, but just using the Demon of Undeath as an example of why all undead are considered evil.
Yeah but the great thing about D&D is that we can take our ability to think abstractly and apply it to the game. Where a literal plane of evil doesn’t have to be that way if you don’t want it to be. You could create a world ruled by necromancers and all other forms of magic are the evil magic or whatever. But I think the fact that D&D was created as good vs evil from its inception creates a mental roadblock for some people that can’t see necromancy as anything but evil. My final opinion is that it is both good and evil, and it is neither.
Originally, Good and Evil weren’t considered at all. The original alignment was only Lawful/Chaotic. They added Neutral and G/E later.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
These spells are not Taser spells. What makes something evil is not what you intend to use it for, but what people COULD use it for. The mere fact you had to put in so many conditions (non-sentient beasts, as non-violent subdual), proves my point.
Look at Modify Memory, it is the most vile, evil thing you can do to someone. Come, let me spend 10 minutes with your daughter, don't worry when it is all over she won't remember a thing.
I agree.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I don’t think Charm spells are inherently evil (I sometimes play enchanters), but I guess that’s cause I unconsciously block out the horrible possibilities. When I game I don’t wanna think about stuff like that. Gaming is escapism for me. Intelligent escapism, but still escapism.
Back to the main thread. I still think it would be very hard for a necromancer to be good being constantly exposed to all that dark negative energy. Neutral maybe, but not good. But maybe my opinion would change if I read the Charonti sourcebook.
I have played a True Neutral necromancer before.
Without alignments taken into consideration the general concept is typically good vs evil. Throughout fantasy as a whole historically speaking. Usually.
Michael Moorcock’s Elric series was the first one to make it Law versus Chaos.
There were three sourcebooks for that setting, the one that focused on the Charonti was Jakandor, Isle of Destiny.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Which is better, the one that focuses on the Charonti or the one that focuses on Jakandor as a whole?
There was one for the Charonti called Jakandor, Isle of Destiny, one that focused on the only other society on the island, the Knorr, called Jakandor, Island of War, and then there was a DM campaign book called Jakandor, Land of Legend.
All three of them have some interesting stuff, but if you mostly want the Charonti perspective then grab Isle of Destiny. If you want the DM’s secrets behind the whole thing, you will also want the Land of Legend. (And if you want the Knorr perspective of the Charonti then Island of War is useful.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Okay, so I’ll start with Jakandor, Land of Legend and work my way backward. Sounds interesting.
Same (the character l was channeling was TN) (l'm the OP in-case anyone forgot lol)
I don’t think necromancy is per se an evil act, but I also don’t think a good character would be able to animate undead and remain within their alignment. But since you’re neutral that shouldn’t be a problem.
That depends on why they were animating the dead and how regularly they made a habit of doing so. Situations like "we're about to be overrun by the enemy and everyone will be slaughtered" and "I'm going to ride into battle on the back of a polka-powered zombie T-Rex" are justified.
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.
The Knorr were more tropy, but I enjoyed the setting.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
All moral measures are constructs. It is unlikely that everyone will agree.
My measurement of Good and Evil is the level of altruism and egoism. This does not mesh well with those who do things defined as Good by whatever tenets they follow if the ultimate purpose is to receive a reward (such was spending eternity in the Twin Paradises after death).
I don't believe that there is pure Altruism or pure Egoism. One who wants to help others must still care about their own health. One who wants power must consider those who actually grant it. So, I measure Good as Altruism with only necessary Egoism and Evil as excess Egoism with bare minimum Altruism.
Where does Necromancy fall in that scale of mine? Can someone raise dead with more Altruism than Egoism?
To say it's impossible would require one to make judgments on possibilities likely yet unknown. Nobody's omniscient. I proposed possibilities on a measure of Altruism and Egoism. It's not objective, but neither is putting any kind of personally justified requirements of moral measures such as local legal edicts or social insight from other societies.
If you wish to claim it is impossible, do so with the acknowledgement that it is your measure by which you do so. I stated that it is possible by my measure and make no claims of objectivity.
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.
😂😂😂😂😂