Hi, all. (I'm not sure whether to post here or in Tips & Tactics, but this seemed more appropriate as it is a backstory/lore question? I apologize if it's in the wrong spot though...)
I've been working on a character sheet as a possible backup character to the CoS campaign that I'm currently playing in. The character is Boarbrand, a Loxodon cleric-favored necromancer (2 Undying Warlock level dips, and remaining levels in College of Whispers Bard) for a god of the dead (haven't pinned down which yet exactly, though this thread may help?)..
My question is, is there any feasible way to spin Boarbrand's view of necromancy as reasonably understandable in a certain light? And/or if there are "rules" Boarbrand can follow when engaging in necromancy to make it, for lack of a better phrase, ethical? And/or a god he can follow that would not object to this, for a given reason?
So far, the only straightforward take I've managed to come up with is: In his homeland, necromancy is generally accepted (unlike most settings), however, he must first go on a pilgrimage to bring back his own understanding of death / his god's philosophy, from in lands where necromancy is generally shunned by society. It doesn't quite click right for me though...
I went to see if more experienced posters might have any good suggestions on: 1) Ethical necromancy perspectives and/or set of rules to follow? and 2) god of death and/or decay (or even life?) candidates for Boarbrand in line with this concept?
I apologize if my English is strange or off, as it is my second language. Thank you!
In one game we had a Good-aligned Necromancer who would have potential "employees" sign a waiver allowing him to turn them into skeletons or zombies after they died. Also, I think that the Raven Queen is okay with her worshippers ahnging out with non-sentient undead.
A ethical necromancer could believe that employ undead on physical labor would let the living free to enjoy their life (unintelligent undead only, intelligent undead would be slavery), and the ethical necromancer could be devoted to a god that teaches that the living should enjoy their life’s when they can, also, the god could have no hated for necromancy since it doesn’t work with souls, just corpses.
It's just recycling! They're not using their body after they die, are they? It helps preserve the body for a bit as well, and you don't have to drag it with you, it can move itself around.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Maybe it's just me but, I always considered Necromancy to be a terrifying display of power over life and death. I don't think most beings would sugar coat it down into a casual, "ethical" act.
Maybe it's just me but, I always considered Necromancy to be a terrifying display of power over life and death. I don't think most beings would sugar coat it down into a casual, "ethical" act.
Power without responsibility is a terrifying display.
Power with responsibility starts with humility. If the humility is sincere, there is no sugar coating and there's nothing casual about it. One would acknowledge the dangers and bear the heavy burden of restraint against abusing access to such powers.
Yet, the previous reply points out what even the most ethical necromancers will face: stereotyping and fear leading to bigotry.
In the 5e setting, I think one will be hard pressed to have anyone else accept necromancy of any kind as anything other than an abuse of life and death. If someone desires power - and is usually someone with power and influence already, they'll even be more opposed to anyone who may work the arts of life and death no matter how ethical simply because they cannot allow anyone else to appear as a challenge their power.
It will be an incredible burden to RP an ethical necromancer in the 5e settings.
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.
By using someone's corpse to create a skeleton or zombie you aren't harming or bounding the soul, you're just infusing a dead corpse with negative energy.
By using someone's corpse to create a skeleton or zombie you aren't harming or bounding the soul, you're just infusing a dead corpse with negative energy.
Yeah, so some very easy first steps toward ethical necromancy would be "obtain consent and use positive energy instead."
It's a dangerous road. The residual energy no longer bound to a life is often caused something blocking the energy from moving on. More times than not, it's the spirit's own doing, usually emotional disharmony.
Finding peace among so much frustration will be difficult. That's not accounting the energies that deceive for their own purposes.
An ethical necromancer will have to be exceptionally skilled to avoid the pitfalls of dealing with half-delusional entities.
Possible? Sure. Still difficult and a task of endless vigilance.
Ethicality among something with so much darkness will be so rare that few if any will think it's even possible.
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.
It's just recycling! They're not using their body after they die, are they? It helps preserve the body for a bit as well, and you don't have to drag it with you, it can move itself around.
Reduce, reuse, reanimate!
Now, it's actually pretty easy to be a good, ethical necromancer: first of all, nothing's forcing you to animate dead bodies.
With that out of the way, the ethics of animating zombies and skeletons really hinges on whether or not they're inherently evil. By default, D&D is rather annoyingly prone to saying that they are, even though they're nearly mindless shells that don't have any souls and are basically rather gross, organic robots. You could easily have a society in D&D where it's actually the expectation that after death, your body will be reanimated and used as a source of cheap labor and nobody has a problem with this because they know that the soul has already gone on to the afterlife it deserves. It could even be viewed as a good thing- in death, people give back to the community by performing unpleasant or dangerous tasks, thus sparing the living from having to do them.
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.
I play an ethical Necromancer who refers to himself as a half-cleric. It is the closest he has to saving a life, but he can't bring the soul back. The undead are then treated with respect and are never intentionally put in harms way.
This point has been argued to death and back, almost literally, on forums dating back to the late 1980s. But generally speaking, yes it is possible to have ethical necromancy.
Imagine an order of knights to undergo a necromantic ritual when they are at the end of their life span, rising from their graves to defend their Homeland whenever commanded by the rightful King, bound by an eternal oath of service and happily answering the call.
Imagine a small farming village in which the bodies of the dearly Departed work the land alongside their descendantsor perform the drudgery work that are too dangerous for the living. Zombies do not need to worry about getting the plague or any other disease while scooping a latrine. You see this in the golgari guild from ravnica. Where The druids use various forms of fungus tribbles animate and decompose bodies simultaneously, creating an efficient and effective farming industry in which the workers fertilize the soil as they work.
Years ago I created an isolated goblin civilization that have rejected the dark God Maglubiyet, and turns to something more closely resembling ancestor worship mixed with some primitive Shintoism. The ghosts of their ancestors literally stayed around to guide their descendants as an enormous magically linked council. Somewhere between a hive mind and a true democracy of the Dead. With much more time than the average goblin lifespan of 20 to 30 years, they grew in wisdom and helped their descendants civilize. Each generation's armies were trained by the greatest heroes of the last, whether they survive their battles or not. Like if the ghost-filled family shrine from Mulan was visible to everyone in town, and genuinely helpful.
It's just recycling! They're not using their body after they die, are they? It helps preserve the body for a bit as well, and you don't have to drag it with you, it can move itself around.
Reduce, reuse, reanimate!
Now, it's actually pretty easy to be a good, ethical necromancer: first of all, nothing's forcing you to animate dead bodies.
With that out of the way, the ethics of animating zombies and skeletons really hinges on whether or not they're inherently evil. By default, D&D is rather annoyingly prone to saying that they are, even though they're nearly mindless shells that don't have any souls and are basically rather gross, organic robots. You could easily have a society in D&D where it's actually the expectation that after death, your body will be reanimated and used as a source of cheap labor and nobody has a problem with this because they know that the soul has already gone on to the afterlife it deserves. It could even be viewed as a good thing- in death, people give back to the community by performing unpleasant or dangerous tasks, thus sparing the living from having to do them.
There was, in AD&D 2e, on the Isle of Jakandor the Charonti did exactly that!
There's also the matter of intent vs. result. That's not all. There's the character's beliefs as well.
What does the necromancer character believe happens regardless what the rules say happens? This is from the view of the character who is unaware of the metagame. Has the necromancer's culture turned to the belief that a body without a spirit/soul/whatevs is property of the world (since the dead return to the soil or become food for wildlife) and that those who seek to protect the world have full rights to the dead? Does the character believe that necromancy is a power that's already involved in natural death and sees nothing unnatural about manipulating the energies for the good of others?
Let's pull in a real life event: VR so a grieving parent can see their departed child again. (Yes. That has happened already. I cannot fathom how that helps anyone, but I'm no pdoc.)
Could that bear some similarity to necromancy? The intent is good. Not so sure about the result, though. (...and yes. VR doesn't use the actual body, but I'm trying to make analogies here in incongruent settings.)
A short-sighted necromancer will be a hazard regardless of the intent due to the results and will almost certainly be branded as Evil.
So, I have a different question: Is this ethicality as viewed by the general populace or by the necromancer? It'll be a seriously hard-sell for the populace. Even that VR experiment was met with quite a bit of backlash (and I'm not too keen on their idea, either).
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi, all. (I'm not sure whether to post here or in Tips & Tactics, but this seemed more appropriate as it is a backstory/lore question? I apologize if it's in the wrong spot though...)
I've been working on a character sheet as a possible backup character to the CoS campaign that I'm currently playing in. The character is Boarbrand, a Loxodon cleric-favored necromancer (2 Undying Warlock level dips, and remaining levels in College of Whispers Bard) for a god of the dead (haven't pinned down which yet exactly, though this thread may help?)..
My question is, is there any feasible way to spin Boarbrand's view of necromancy as reasonably understandable in a certain light?
And/or if there are "rules" Boarbrand can follow when engaging in necromancy to make it, for lack of a better phrase, ethical?
And/or a god he can follow that would not object to this, for a given reason?
So far, the only straightforward take I've managed to come up with is: In his homeland, necromancy is generally accepted (unlike most settings), however, he must first go on a pilgrimage to bring back his own understanding of death / his god's philosophy, from in lands where necromancy is generally shunned by society. It doesn't quite click right for me though...
I went to see if more experienced posters might have any good suggestions on:
1) Ethical necromancy perspectives and/or set of rules to follow?
and 2) god of death and/or decay (or even life?) candidates for Boarbrand in line with this concept?
I apologize if my English is strange or off, as it is my second language. Thank you!
Yes, ethical necromancy is absolutely possible. Look at the Undying Court of Aerenal in Eberron for inspiration.
You might also look at the Charonti of Jakandor from AD&D2e for inspiration on ethical necromancy.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
In one game we had a Good-aligned Necromancer who would have potential "employees" sign a waiver allowing him to turn them into skeletons or zombies after they died. Also, I think that the Raven Queen is okay with her worshippers ahnging out with non-sentient undead.
Hombrew: Way of Wresting, Circle of Sacrifice
A ethical necromancer could believe that employ undead on physical labor would let the living free to enjoy their life (unintelligent undead only, intelligent undead would be slavery), and the ethical necromancer could be devoted to a god that teaches that the living should enjoy their life’s when they can, also, the god could have no hated for necromancy since it doesn’t work with souls, just corpses.
It's just recycling! They're not using their body after they die, are they? It helps preserve the body for a bit as well, and you don't have to drag it with you, it can move itself around.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Maybe it's just me but, I always considered Necromancy to be a terrifying display of power over life and death. I don't think most beings would sugar coat it down into a casual, "ethical" act.
Power without responsibility is a terrifying display.
Power with responsibility starts with humility. If the humility is sincere, there is no sugar coating and there's nothing casual about it. One would acknowledge the dangers and bear the heavy burden of restraint against abusing access to such powers.
Yet, the previous reply points out what even the most ethical necromancers will face: stereotyping and fear leading to bigotry.
In the 5e setting, I think one will be hard pressed to have anyone else accept necromancy of any kind as anything other than an abuse of life and death. If someone desires power - and is usually someone with power and influence already, they'll even be more opposed to anyone who may work the arts of life and death no matter how ethical simply because they cannot allow anyone else to appear as a challenge their power.
It will be an incredible burden to RP an ethical necromancer in the 5e settings.
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.
As long as the person agrees then why not?
The person may not have any family and does not wish to be buried or cremated.
The person may die in battle and wish to continue fighting for his/her side after they die.
The person may not wish to go to the after life (maybe they made a deal with an archdevil that they now regret?).
The person may wish to complete their experiments or apologize to someone who they wronged before going on to the afterlife.
The person may wish to atone so they don't have to go to an evil afterlife.
There is no dawn after eternal night.
Homebrew: Magic items, Subclasses
By using someone's corpse to create a skeleton or zombie you aren't harming or bounding the soul, you're just infusing a dead corpse with negative energy.
Yeah, so some very easy first steps toward ethical necromancy would be "obtain consent and use positive energy instead."
It's a dangerous road. The residual energy no longer bound to a life is often caused something blocking the energy from moving on. More times than not, it's the spirit's own doing, usually emotional disharmony.
Finding peace among so much frustration will be difficult. That's not accounting the energies that deceive for their own purposes.
An ethical necromancer will have to be exceptionally skilled to avoid the pitfalls of dealing with half-delusional entities.
Possible? Sure. Still difficult and a task of endless vigilance.
Ethicality among something with so much darkness will be so rare that few if any will think it's even possible.
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.
Reduce, reuse, reanimate!
Now, it's actually pretty easy to be a good, ethical necromancer: first of all, nothing's forcing you to animate dead bodies.
With that out of the way, the ethics of animating zombies and skeletons really hinges on whether or not they're inherently evil. By default, D&D is rather annoyingly prone to saying that they are, even though they're nearly mindless shells that don't have any souls and are basically rather gross, organic robots. You could easily have a society in D&D where it's actually the expectation that after death, your body will be reanimated and used as a source of cheap labor and nobody has a problem with this because they know that the soul has already gone on to the afterlife it deserves. It could even be viewed as a good thing- in death, people give back to the community by performing unpleasant or dangerous tasks, thus sparing the living from having to do them.
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 play an ethical Necromancer who refers to himself as a half-cleric. It is the closest he has to saving a life, but he can't bring the soul back. The undead are then treated with respect and are never intentionally put in harms way.
This point has been argued to death and back, almost literally, on forums dating back to the late 1980s. But generally speaking, yes it is possible to have ethical necromancy.
Imagine an order of knights to undergo a necromantic ritual when they are at the end of their life span, rising from their graves to defend their Homeland whenever commanded by the rightful King, bound by an eternal oath of service and happily answering the call.
Imagine a small farming village in which the bodies of the dearly Departed work the land alongside their descendantsor perform the drudgery work that are too dangerous for the living. Zombies do not need to worry about getting the plague or any other disease while scooping a latrine. You see this in the golgari guild from ravnica. Where The druids use various forms of fungus tribbles animate and decompose bodies simultaneously, creating an efficient and effective farming industry in which the workers fertilize the soil as they work.
Years ago I created an isolated goblin civilization that have rejected the dark God Maglubiyet, and turns to something more closely resembling ancestor worship mixed with some primitive Shintoism. The ghosts of their ancestors literally stayed around to guide their descendants as an enormous magically linked council. Somewhere between a hive mind and a true democracy of the Dead. With much more time than the average goblin lifespan of 20 to 30 years, they grew in wisdom and helped their descendants civilize. Each generation's armies were trained by the greatest heroes of the last, whether they survive their battles or not. Like if the ghost-filled family shrine from Mulan was visible to everyone in town, and genuinely helpful.
Try Kelemvor, the god of death and the dead from the Forgotten Realms.
Followup question: is it EVER ethical/morally right to intentionally create an intelligent undead creature like a spectre or a vampire?
I suppose if you had consent it would be okay.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There was, in AD&D 2e, on the Isle of Jakandor the Charonti did exactly that!
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Okay. I guess creating a non-evil ghost or vampire (or ancient dead, or lich) wouldn’t necessarily be an evil act.
There's also the matter of intent vs. result. That's not all. There's the character's beliefs as well.
What does the necromancer character believe happens regardless what the rules say happens? This is from the view of the character who is unaware of the metagame. Has the necromancer's culture turned to the belief that a body without a spirit/soul/whatevs is property of the world (since the dead return to the soil or become food for wildlife) and that those who seek to protect the world have full rights to the dead? Does the character believe that necromancy is a power that's already involved in natural death and sees nothing unnatural about manipulating the energies for the good of others?
Let's pull in a real life event: VR so a grieving parent can see their departed child again. (Yes. That has happened already. I cannot fathom how that helps anyone, but I'm no pdoc.)
Could that bear some similarity to necromancy? The intent is good. Not so sure about the result, though. (...and yes. VR doesn't use the actual body, but I'm trying to make analogies here in incongruent settings.)
A short-sighted necromancer will be a hazard regardless of the intent due to the results and will almost certainly be branded as Evil.
So, I have a different question: Is this ethicality as viewed by the general populace or by the necromancer? It'll be a seriously hard-sell for the populace. Even that VR experiment was met with quite a bit of backlash (and I'm not too keen on their idea, either).
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.