Hello! I would like to ask for advise on what alignment this character would be.
At start this was a human druid that got the idea that the life and death cycle would also include undeath. All living creatures die and become nutricion to something else. Undeads sooner or later turns to dust as well, it might just take a bit longer time. As his fellow druids did not like his ideas he begun to study the forbidden arts himself. When he gets powerful enough he will use skeleton archers (disguised in armor/hooded cloaks to not make it totally obvious) to go out and hunt monsters that he sees as real dangers to the balance of nature. He likes other people and would be viewed as nice, with the big exception his views of undeads. Powerful, inteligent undeads (or big masses of undeads) that threaten the balance would still be a targets for him.
In game terms it is a lvl1 druid that is multiclassed into wizard (norcromancer). Instead of slinging fireballs he will have a few skeleton archers with him, disguised as men at arms (covered by armor and hooded cloaks and by use of a disguise kit). This is for roleplaying reasons as any person walking around with obvious undead minions will kind of hamper the mood of the locals. Low level spells will be used to help get advantage to hit for the archers, as skeletons are not really good at hitting things. Faery fire, hold person, web and earthern grasp will be used for that.
Well... depends a lot on the world your DM has created or is using.
In my world raising undead no matter the type, uses energies that are definetely in the unnatural and 'evil', and breaks the cycle of life. So, even when deploying undead for the cause of good, the act is still evil or selfish, because the ends do not justify the means aka the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
But this can be different depending what the story you are playing in is.
Well if you're submitting to the belief of absolute morality (e.g. necromancy is inherently evil) then the answer is pretty straightforward: the druid is Chaotic Evil.
Well if you're submitting to the belief of absolute morality (e.g. necromancy is inherently evil) then the answer is pretty straightforward: the druid is Chaotic Evil.
Not wanting to open that can of worms again, Necromancy is probably never inherently evil, because revivify, etc. are also all Necromancy spells... just saying, there are a lot of ways to answer the above question.
Well if you're submitting to the belief of absolute morality (e.g. necromancy is inherently evil) then the answer is pretty straightforward: the druid is Chaotic Evil.
Not wanting to open that can of worms again, Necromancy is probably never inherently evil, because revivify, etc. are also all Necromancy spells... just saying, there are a lot of ways to answer the above question.
Well the first distinction you have to make is whether or not your setting uses absolute morality as the guiding principle or not. I am assuming this character of yours resides in your own setting (why else would you mention it), in which you told us raising dead is an evil act, implying absolute morality (some acts are inherently evil). I'll reiterate that it's a straightforward answer in this specific case. In other cases with less information or more subjective views on morality, I'd agree that there might be multiple, not so straightforward, answers.
EDIT: For some reason I believed Voras to be OP >_> I'll leave my comment up in case it might still be useful
IMO necromancy and healing are two sides of the same coin.
It might have been the case in previous editions, but in 5E it's clearly not the case. Cure Wounds is an Evocation spell for example, but so is fireball and none of these have anything to do with necromancy.
Revivify, Raise Dead, True Ressurection are all Necromancy, so there is still something not-dark in Necromancy left.
Is the alignment set from how the character views himself, or how society views him? If this character conduct himself to his own set of principles and try to do good, it would make hin lawful good (or neutral) in his own eyes. His former druid friends however might very well view him as chaotic evil. The humans living nearby would likely view him as chaoic good or neutral (depending how many people he has saved) as he is breaking taboos but doing it "for the greater good" (as the diablo 2 necromancer).
Is the alignment set from how the character views himself, or how society views him? If this character conduct himself to his own set of principles and try to do good, it would make hin lawful good (or neutral) in his own eyes. His former druid friends however might very well view him as chaotic evil. The humans living nearby would likely view him as chaoic good or neutral (depending how many people he has saved) as he is breaking taboos but doing it "for the greater good" (as the diablo 2 necromancer).
It would become very obscure if you tried to base your alignment on what every character thought about themselves and each other. Instead, PHB outlines some guiding principles and examples which I summarised in my first comment. The below quote is from PHB:
A typical creature in the game world has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). Thus, nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations. These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.
Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials, some cloud giants, and most gnomes are neutral good.
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.
Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral.
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and goblins are neutral evil.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.
I know this thread is about alignment, but re: your build you mentioned.... multiclassing from Druid (Spore) into Paladin (Oathbreaker) will probably have more synergies for your Spore zombies than Wizard (Necromancer). MADness can be alleviated by leaning on Shillelagh for your melee attacks and boosting Wisdom (which a Spore Druid already wants to do), OR by taking a level of Hexblade to be able to boost Charisma and use that for melee attacks... but either way, you can safely leave Str at 13, leaving you plenty of Point Buy points to put in Wis, Cha, and Con. The only drawback is that both Druids and Paladins include lots of concentration spells in their spell lists... but Paladin smites will still give you plenty of uses for spell slots, even if it isn’t always easy to find useful spells to cast.
As far as alignment goes, use of Animate Dead tends to be evil, not because necromancy is evil per se, but because it's hard to get a reliable supply of reasonably intact corpses without going out and murdering people. This depends on the setting, of course; if you have a bunch of convenient Evil Humanoids, you generally have at least a good temporary source of corpses (this is likely only viable for a few levels; legitimate opponents in higher level games tend to kill your undead faster than they generate usable replacement corpses).
As far as alignment goes, use of Animate Dead tends to be evil, not because necromancy is evil per se, but because it's hard to get a reliable supply of reasonably intact corpses without going out and murdering people. This depends on the setting, of course; if you have a bunch of convenient Evil Humanoids, you generally have at least a good temporary source of corpses (this is likely only viable for a few levels; legitimate opponents in higher level games tend to kill your undead faster than they generate usable replacement corpses).
Good point, but he would not kill people for corpses. The plan was not for him to have an undead horde, but a few skeleton archers disguised as men at arms. If I understand the rules in 5e correctly he would not need a steady supply of "fresh bodies" as a skeleton that gets killed is an unliving object. By that you should be able to use the mending cantrip to repair any damages to the bones themselfs and later reanimate the bones. The few remains that he does need would come from terminally ill people who get the option to sell their remains (after they are dead) against gold payment when signing the contract. The reason for this offer would be given as "research", wich is somewhat true as this character is trying to learn about undeath through his studies.
It is also likely that these "men at arms" will get names as they are just a few, and will come back into play after they die - unless the skeletons get killed in a way that the bones cannot be mended. It might still be evil, but it would be his code of conduct.
I know this thread is about alignment, but re: your build you mentioned.... multiclassing from Druid (Spore) into Paladin (Oathbreaker) will probably have more synergies for your Spore zombies than Wizard (Necromancer). MADness can be alleviated by leaning on Shillelagh for your melee attacks and boosting Wisdom (which a Spore Druid already wants to do), OR by taking a level of Hexblade to be able to boost Charisma and use that for melee attacks... but either way, you can safely leave Str at 13, leaving you plenty of Point Buy points to put in Wis, Cha, and Con. The only drawback is that both Druids and Paladins include lots of concentration spells in their spell lists... but Paladin smites will still give you plenty of uses for spell slots, even if it isn’t always easy to find useful spells to cast.
Thank you for the advise! I agree that your way would result in a much better character mechanically, but it would no longer be the same character concept. The druid was supposed to be an outcast and not have any druid circle, and he was suppposed to have skeletons archers disguised as men at arms. Zombies would simply not work with this concept.
Ah I see. The Oathbreaker can start casting Animate Dead to create skeletons at Paladin 9, a Spore Druid at Druid 5, and a Necromancer Wizard at Wizard 5 or 6. Also, an Oathbreaker Paladin can "Control" an Undead creature like a Skeleton (or even better, an Undying Soldier? A lesser Wight?) they encounter for 1 day at a time as soon as level 3 (in addition to actually being able to provide that minion buffs and advantages.
But a Necromancer Wizard is also a very good choice, not trying to argue about your character choices, just putting the alternatives out there.
Good point, but he would not kill people for corpses. The plan was not for him to have an undead horde, but a few skeleton archers disguised as men at arms. If I understand the rules in 5e correctly he would not need a steady supply of "fresh bodies" as a skeleton that gets killed is an unliving object. By that you should be able to use the mending cantrip to repair any damages to the bones themselfs and later reanimate the bones.
I generally assume that undead that have been destroyed cannot be animated a second time, though the rules leave that unclear.
I know this thread is about alignment, but re: your build you mentioned.... multiclassing from Druid (Spore) into Paladin (Oathbreaker) will probably have more synergies for your Spore zombies than Wizard (Necromancer). MADness can be alleviated by leaning on Shillelagh for your melee attacks and boosting Wisdom (which a Spore Druid already wants to do), OR by taking a level of Hexblade to be able to boost Charisma and use that for melee attacks... but either way, you can safely leave Str at 13, leaving you plenty of Point Buy points to put in Wis, Cha, and Con. The only drawback is that both Druids and Paladins include lots of concentration spells in their spell lists... but Paladin smites will still give you plenty of uses for spell slots, even if it isn’t always easy to find useful spells to cast.
Thank you for the advise! I agree that your way would result in a much better character mechanically, but it would no longer be the same character concept. The druid was supposed to be an outcast and not have any druid circle, and he was suppposed to have skeletons archers disguised as men at arms. Zombies would simply not work with this concept.
It's not forbidden to be both outcast and have a druid circle, it just means he was initiated into a circle by some entity other than his prior druid society. Incidentally, spore druids can cast Animate Dead, so nothing preventing them from having skeletons.
"I generally assume that undead that have been destroyed cannot be animated a second time, though the rules leave that unclear."
As far as I can see the rules never states or even hints something like that. Text from the animate dead spell: "This spell creates an undead servant. Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid within range. Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature. The target becomes a skeleton if you chose bones or a zombie if you chose a corpse (the GM has the creature's game statistics)."
If you cast animate dead on a pile of bones, it becomes a skeleton with its statistics. If the skeleton dies, it becomes a pile of bones. I do not see anything about not being able to animate bones that has been animated before. Some of the bones would probably break when a skeleton gets killed, rectified by the mending cantrip before animating them again. I have never heard of anyone actually doing this, but according to the rules it looks as you can.
If you reanimate the same skeletons over (and over and only have a few of them) a fun thing might be to name them all.
Hello!
I would like to ask for advise on what alignment this character would be.
At start this was a human druid that got the idea that the life and death cycle would also include undeath. All living creatures die and become nutricion to something else. Undeads sooner or later turns to dust as well, it might just take a bit longer time. As his fellow druids did not like his ideas he begun to study the forbidden arts himself. When he gets powerful enough he will use skeleton archers (disguised in armor/hooded cloaks to not make it totally obvious) to go out and hunt monsters that he sees as real dangers to the balance of nature. He likes other people and would be viewed as nice, with the big exception his views of undeads. Powerful, inteligent undeads (or big masses of undeads) that threaten the balance would still be a targets for him.
In game terms it is a lvl1 druid that is multiclassed into wizard (norcromancer). Instead of slinging fireballs he will have a few skeleton archers with him, disguised as men at arms (covered by armor and hooded cloaks and by use of a disguise kit). This is for roleplaying reasons as any person walking around with obvious undead minions will kind of hamper the mood of the locals. Low level spells will be used to help get advantage to hit for the archers, as skeletons are not really good at hitting things. Faery fire, hold person, web and earthern grasp will be used for that.
What alignment would this character have?
I would say Chaotic good, or neutral. also, maybe look at the circle of spores druid for your subclass? it is a necromancy druid subclass...
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I'd say Chaotic Good/Neutral, same as GoodBovine. I see the alignment axis in the following way:
Lawful: The way you act depends largely on the rules around you (global/local laws)
Chaotic: The way you act depends largely on the rules within you (personal creed/emotions)
Good: You are selfless. Often strive for the greater good.
Evil: You are selfish. Often strive for personal gain.
Well... depends a lot on the world your DM has created or is using.
In my world raising undead no matter the type, uses energies that are definetely in the unnatural and 'evil', and breaks the cycle of life. So, even when deploying undead for the cause of good, the act is still evil or selfish, because the ends do not justify the means aka the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
But this can be different depending what the story you are playing in is.
Well if you're submitting to the belief of absolute morality (e.g. necromancy is inherently evil) then the answer is pretty straightforward: the druid is Chaotic Evil.
Not wanting to open that can of worms again, Necromancy is probably never inherently evil, because revivify, etc. are also all Necromancy spells... just saying, there are a lot of ways to answer the above question.
IMO necromancy and healing are two sides of the same coin.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Well the first distinction you have to make is whether or not your setting uses absolute morality as the guiding principle or not. I am assuming this character of yours resides in your own setting (why else would you mention it), in which you told us raising dead is an evil act, implying absolute morality (some acts are inherently evil). I'll reiterate that it's a straightforward answer in this specific case. In other cases with less information or more subjective views on morality, I'd agree that there might be multiple, not so straightforward, answers.
EDIT: For some reason I believed Voras to be OP >_> I'll leave my comment up in case it might still be useful
Revivify, Raise Dead, True Ressurection are all Necromancy, so there is still something not-dark in Necromancy left.
Is the alignment set from how the character views himself, or how society views him? If this character conduct himself to his own set of principles and try to do good, it would make hin lawful good (or neutral) in his own eyes. His former druid friends however might very well view him as chaotic evil. The humans living nearby would likely view him as chaoic good or neutral (depending how many people he has saved) as he is breaking taboos but doing it "for the greater good" (as the diablo 2 necromancer).
It would become very obscure if you tried to base your alignment on what every character thought about themselves and each other. Instead, PHB outlines some guiding principles and examples which I summarised in my first comment. The below quote is from PHB:
maybe start suggesting, instead of arguing?
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
i'd say its alignment doesn't matter...just say its from the city.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
I know this thread is about alignment, but re: your build you mentioned.... multiclassing from Druid (Spore) into Paladin (Oathbreaker) will probably have more synergies for your Spore zombies than Wizard (Necromancer). MADness can be alleviated by leaning on Shillelagh for your melee attacks and boosting Wisdom (which a Spore Druid already wants to do), OR by taking a level of Hexblade to be able to boost Charisma and use that for melee attacks... but either way, you can safely leave Str at 13, leaving you plenty of Point Buy points to put in Wis, Cha, and Con. The only drawback is that both Druids and Paladins include lots of concentration spells in their spell lists... but Paladin smites will still give you plenty of uses for spell slots, even if it isn’t always easy to find useful spells to cast.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
As far as alignment goes, use of Animate Dead tends to be evil, not because necromancy is evil per se, but because it's hard to get a reliable supply of reasonably intact corpses without going out and murdering people. This depends on the setting, of course; if you have a bunch of convenient Evil Humanoids, you generally have at least a good temporary source of corpses (this is likely only viable for a few levels; legitimate opponents in higher level games tend to kill your undead faster than they generate usable replacement corpses).
Good point, but he would not kill people for corpses. The plan was not for him to have an undead horde, but a few skeleton archers disguised as men at arms. If I understand the rules in 5e correctly he would not need a steady supply of "fresh bodies" as a skeleton that gets killed is an unliving object. By that you should be able to use the mending cantrip to repair any damages to the bones themselfs and later reanimate the bones.
The few remains that he does need would come from terminally ill people who get the option to sell their remains (after they are dead) against gold payment when signing the contract. The reason for this offer would be given as "research", wich is somewhat true as this character is trying to learn about undeath through his studies.
It is also likely that these "men at arms" will get names as they are just a few, and will come back into play after they die - unless the skeletons get killed in a way that the bones cannot be mended. It might still be evil, but it would be his code of conduct.
Thank you for the advise! I agree that your way would result in a much better character mechanically, but it would no longer be the same character concept. The druid was supposed to be an outcast and not have any druid circle, and he was suppposed to have skeletons archers disguised as men at arms. Zombies would simply not work with this concept.
Ah I see. The Oathbreaker can start casting Animate Dead to create skeletons at Paladin 9, a Spore Druid at Druid 5, and a Necromancer Wizard at Wizard 5 or 6. Also, an Oathbreaker Paladin can "Control" an Undead creature like a Skeleton (or even better, an Undying Soldier? A lesser Wight?) they encounter for 1 day at a time as soon as level 3 (in addition to actually being able to provide that minion buffs and advantages.
But a Necromancer Wizard is also a very good choice, not trying to argue about your character choices, just putting the alternatives out there.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I generally assume that undead that have been destroyed cannot be animated a second time, though the rules leave that unclear.
It's not forbidden to be both outcast and have a druid circle, it just means he was initiated into a circle by some entity other than his prior druid society. Incidentally, spore druids can cast Animate Dead, so nothing preventing them from having skeletons.
As far as I can see the rules never states or even hints something like that. Text from the animate dead spell:
"This spell creates an undead servant. Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid within range. Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature. The target becomes a skeleton if you chose bones or a zombie if you chose a corpse (the GM has the creature's game statistics)."
If you cast animate dead on a pile of bones, it becomes a skeleton with its statistics. If the skeleton dies, it becomes a pile of bones. I do not see anything about not being able to animate bones that has been animated before. Some of the bones would probably break when a skeleton gets killed, rectified by the mending cantrip before animating them again. I have never heard of anyone actually doing this, but according to the rules it looks as you can.
If you reanimate the same skeletons over (and over and only have a few of them) a fun thing might be to name them all.