5e doesn’t have a codified source for undead the way some prior editions have, but I believe it’s implied that the animating energy is drawn from the Negative Plane, a realm entirely inimical to living beings. Thus the undead’s desire to destroy life
There's a 2e-4e dragon deity named Null who has two aspects regarding death, the sibling of both Tiamat and Bahamut. One aspect (the Guardian) guides the dead and the other (the Reaver) controls them, both protecting the inevitability of death as sacrosanct. (Not [yet] 5e.)
People (including some dragon deities) revered Null for ushering the dying to their new existence or for armies of undead to be bidden. The Guardian aspect of Null would be for those who respect the dead, but the association with the Reaver would still cause problems with common perspectives in society.
So, there's one suggestion for god/perspective, but it is a precarious one. I doubt any necromancy perceptions wouldn't be precarious unless an entire society was reverent for the property of dying, but that society would likely be shunned by others who typically fear dying.
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.
There's a 2e-4e dragon deity named Null who has two aspects regarding death, the sibling of both Tiamat and Bahamut. One aspect (the Guardian) guides the dead and the other (the Reaver) controls them, both protecting the inevitability of death as sacrosanct. (Not [yet] 5e.)
People (including some dragon deities) revered Null for ushering the dying to their new existence or for armies of undead to be bidden. The Guardian aspect of Null would be for those who respect the dead, but the association with the Reaver would still cause problems with common perspectives in society.
So, there's one suggestion for god/perspective, but it is a precarious one. I doubt any necromancy perceptions wouldn't be precarious unless an entire society was reverent for the property of dying, but that society would likely be shunned by others who typically fear dying.
Considering 5e’s post-Fizban’s attitude towards dragon divinities other than Tiamat and Bahamut (i.e. that they aren’t really gods but actually über powerful greatwyrms with heightened dragonsight), including Chronepsis, Null’s Guardian aspect, I think the chance of Null being ported into 5e and resembling previous editions is zero.
This could be a super awesome concept you have, my idea isn't as good but here it goes.
What if the necromancer is a town mortician, everyone in the town at the age of 18 must choose if they wish to "donate" their body to the necromancer for to keep labor costs of the town down and to keep taxes low (Since the town isn't paying them) but the town treats it like most countries treat being an organ donor? Each person must be 18 because child labor is bad and they have to have it signed before the necromancer can do any with the body. if the dead isn't a body donor, they are treated as normal. If the dead body is a donor, the next of kin could be given a small payment for the corpse as a thank you?
This is a pretty half cooked idea on my end, sorry.
If I'm correct, when you animate a corpse it's original soul is no longer there.
so that would mean that you could make zombies without upsetting the body's original inhabitant, who has know moved on to the afterlife. This is just my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt.
I'm not sure if I mentioned this already, but IRL, we grant rights to the deceased. You can take a life in self defense, but you can't go about using the corpse like a puppet. You can't even harvest organs from a decedent to save a living human without prior consent, which is to say that we assign bodily autonomy to an individual even after their death.
Here's another rewrite that tackles both ownership and emotional impact:
"The issue of reviving the body raises a deeper question: who has the right to decide its fate? Furthermore, the psychological impact on grieving families of seeing a loved one revived but no longer truly themselves shouldn't be ignored."
This phrasing:
Emphasizes the lack of a clear answer on body ownership in this hypothetical scenario.
Shifts from "owns" to "right to decide its fate" for a more nuanced approach.
Highlights the psychological impact on families, using "grieving families" and "no longer truly themselves" to emphasize the potential trauma.
I think it's worth noting that pretty much every single healing spell is in the School of Necromancy.
This is untrue in the current edition; most healing spells are in the school of evocation, and in this years update may become abjuration. Only spells that truly bring the dead back to life (Revivify, Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection) are Necromancy spells.
I'm not sure if I mentioned this already, but IRL, we grant rights to the deceased. You can take a life in self defense, but you can't go about using the corpse like a puppet. You can't even harvest organs from a decedent to save a living human without prior consent, which is to say that we assign bodily autonomy to an individual even after their death.
So for the argument of ethical necromancy, a writ of permission of some kind would make it okay. Yes? (This doesn't mean the local population would think it's okay regardless. Necromancy still carries a stigma, writ or no.)
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.
Something worth considering: Not all undead are created via a mortal practioner casting a spell on a corpse or performing some grand horrific ritual to turn themselves into some form of undead.
An Eidolon (see Mordenkainens Tome of Foes) was a devout/fanatical follower of a god who swore an oath and has their spirit/soul bound to a place. They can be any alignment, which would imply that Necromancy isn't evil in itself, nor does it always draw on the Shadowfell or Negative Planes, it might merely means that drawing power from one of those planes is the most expedient way of doing so for mortal magic.
You could use this as a base for a system of religious state sponsored Necromancy. The "clergy", those with the Acolyte backgroud or levels in Cleric or Paladin, beocme Eidolons when they die to continue to serve the religion and the "ley" followers, commonfolk or other adventuring types, might agree to be raised as zombies and skeletons so they too can serve in death. Particularly powerful members of the clergy may even be raised as Mummies or even Liches so they can continue to guide and shape the faith. Doing so for a goodly religion would be a good way to introduce the Baelnorn/Archliches which were good aligned liches in previous editions.
The overall alignments of those undead are then reflective of the religion they follow rather than a base "evil".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
* Need a character idea? Search for "Rob76's Unused" in the Story and Lore section.
I think in terms of arcane spellcaster, ethical necromancy is easy, but will always appear to be evil in the eyes of commoners. But a wizard following the school of necromancy can always prove that they are good. A holy spellcaster is different. Almost all the gods of death are evil, and commoners see worshipping death as evil. It is possible to build a character that is an ethical necromancer, but it creates a challenge for your DM: How do everyday people react to this character? Do they make warding signs at them? Do they drive them out of the village with pitchforks and torches? Do they reject them a room for the night? Necromancy is extremely powerful, and pairs well with evocation, but in a holy spellcaster it is a blurry line, as blurry as the line between death and undeath. When building an ethical necromancer, tread that line carefully, otherwise you will have a character whose personality and features don't fit their alignment.
Current Campaign(s): Dungeons, Darkness, Drow, and Demons, an Out of the Abyss Adventure, Dungeon Delvers, a Dungeon of the Mad Mage Adventure, Jungle of Evil, a Tomb of Annihilation Adventure
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.
^ id say that is looking fairly right on POV to me.
but let me be sure i understand your situaiotn. You are a PC in a game, that is not your lore to GM set, but someone else's?
And my POV is based on the idea that, yes you are a PC in someone else's game whose lore is theirs to be the GM of, not your own.
my RP POV is: If you go into someone else's world, then be in it. Live with the rules of it the way it is, do not try to inject your own incongruous version of a PC into it. If you are necro, and nerco is founded upon in that world, then live with that situation. Either RP to it, rather than trying to author it out. Or choose a different class build that won't have this story problem you don't like.
Of course if your GM don't care then just make the whole world lore not have cares about types/schools of magic, and this is not a question or story beat you need to address any more. Take an in world magic lay audience POV for a second. And your typical tavern lower class NPC, has any clue at all what one form of magic is form any other?
i'd say life on the street of any magic world is always only one of two ways: 1: no one cares, magic is magic and they don't fear it, any of it, it's all the same from their lay audience POV, they woudl not know to fear some but not others, form look alone. 2: everyone cares, magic is magic, and they fear it, all of it. Because it takes a knowledgeable POV to even know there is a difference and to know it by look alone. thus to lay audience POV all magic is just magic and so all scary form look alone.
I'd say it is better to have a simpleton world lore that is doing what we want. Then a complected world lore, where we lay down layer after layer of contrivances, to allow us to get what we want, that did not fit to the lore we had. What's the purpose of world lore if we're going to play against it instead of to it?
Yeti has a point, especially about those last two points. But you can goallinto the necromancy and become a Red Wizard of Thay or something, at which point people would fear. Alternatively, you can hide your skills, and only use necromancy for fights. And remember, Reincarnate raises the dead. So does Resurrection. One is transmutation, but looks like necromancy, and the other is necromancy.
Current Campaign(s): Dungeons, Darkness, Drow, and Demons, an Out of the Abyss Adventure, Dungeon Delvers, a Dungeon of the Mad Mage Adventure, Jungle of Evil, a Tomb of Annihilation Adventure
First, your English is great. No need to worry there. It's impressive enough you can speak more than one language. Secondly, at the very least I don't see any ethical issues with say, spare the dying which is necromancy. I'd have to look through the spells again, but there have to be others that aren't too controversial when used the right ways.
Establishing “ethical” rules for necromancy also depends on the DM’s creativity. For example, rules can be created where a character only calls upon willing spirits when using necromancy or uses it only against evil. Additionally, for a character serving the gods of the dead, necromancy can be accepted as a form of worship within a story. Like the Undying Court of Aerenal in the world of Eberron or the Charonti of Jakandor in AD&D2e can serve as inspiration for ethical necromancy practices. Also, in a game, a well-aligned necromancer could have potential “employees” sign a waiver allowing them to be turned into skeletons or zombies after death. In conclusion, ethical necromancy is possible within the teachings of a god or philosophy in DnD 5e. I also have two recommendations for your search for a god: the first is Kelemvor, and the second is Velsharoon. Don’t worry about your English; we understood you.
For my world-building, ethical necromancy involves a) someone dead for a few hundred years or b) someone who has volunteered their dead body. So maybe you worship a god/goddess of life who believes good necromancy is a way to peacefully continue after death. Since you don't give the object a soul, but instead temporary energy, it doesn't violate a god of death's rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
5e doesn’t have a codified source for undead the way some prior editions have, but I believe it’s implied that the animating energy is drawn from the Negative Plane, a realm entirely inimical to living beings. Thus the undead’s desire to destroy life
There's a 2e-4e dragon deity named Null who has two aspects regarding death, the sibling of both Tiamat and Bahamut. One aspect (the Guardian) guides the dead and the other (the Reaver) controls them, both protecting the inevitability of death as sacrosanct. (Not [yet] 5e.)
People (including some dragon deities) revered Null for ushering the dying to their new existence or for armies of undead to be bidden. The Guardian aspect of Null would be for those who respect the dead, but the association with the Reaver would still cause problems with common perspectives in society.
So, there's one suggestion for god/perspective, but it is a precarious one. I doubt any necromancy perceptions wouldn't be precarious unless an entire society was reverent for the property of dying, but that society would likely be shunned by others who typically fear dying.
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.
Considering 5e’s post-Fizban’s attitude towards dragon divinities other than Tiamat and Bahamut (i.e. that they aren’t really gods but actually über powerful greatwyrms with heightened dragonsight), including Chronepsis, Null’s Guardian aspect, I think the chance of Null being ported into 5e and resembling previous editions is zero.
This could be a super awesome concept you have, my idea isn't as good but here it goes.
What if the necromancer is a town mortician, everyone in the town at the age of 18 must choose if they wish to "donate" their body to the necromancer for to keep labor costs of the town down and to keep taxes low (Since the town isn't paying them) but the town treats it like most countries treat being an organ donor? Each person must be 18 because child labor is bad and they have to have it signed before the necromancer can do any with the body. if the dead isn't a body donor, they are treated as normal. If the dead body is a donor, the next of kin could be given a small payment for the corpse as a thank you?
This is a pretty half cooked idea on my end, sorry.
Best of luck.
If I'm correct, when you animate a corpse it's original soul is no longer there.
so that would mean that you could make zombies without upsetting the body's original inhabitant, who has know moved on to the afterlife. This is just my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt.
(He/Him), Pansexual dude. 🏳️🌈
I love cats, coffee and Dnd. Check out my tavern: THE PLATINUM KINGFISHER
Don't be a monday. Nobody likes mondays.
Of all the Dnd settings, Dragonlance is my absolute favourite.
Tired: Necromancy
Wired: Thread necromancy
I'm not sure if I mentioned this already, but IRL, we grant rights to the deceased. You can take a life in self defense, but you can't go about using the corpse like a puppet. You can't even harvest organs from a decedent to save a living human without prior consent, which is to say that we assign bodily autonomy to an individual even after their death.
Here's another rewrite that tackles both ownership and emotional impact:
This phrasing:
I think it's worth noting that pretty much every single healing spell is in the School of Necromancy.
Kasrik Argentum Stellaris Fiddlesticks the Wizard, Lord of Stars, Master Trickster, and Creator of both the Mosh of Stardust Hornets and Mimiczilla.
"You're never fully dressed without a smile!" >:3
"Honk."
Read the "Two necromancers and a" series to get some good examples
What's life without a little war to spice things up? Anyone who worries about the little things should notice the bigger picture.
I am (As drummerboy stated) The master of many faces, The unseen puppeteer, The illumination, & The unnoticed influence.
Favorite games series: Dark Souls. Shirtless Solaire. Best best game series of all time: Paper Mario. Fight me about it.
Etiam im librum scribo
This is untrue in the current edition; most healing spells are in the school of evocation, and in this years update may become abjuration. Only spells that truly bring the dead back to life (Revivify, Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection) are Necromancy spells.
So for the argument of ethical necromancy, a writ of permission of some kind would make it okay. Yes? (This doesn't mean the local population would think it's okay regardless. Necromancy still carries a stigma, writ or no.)
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.
Something worth considering: Not all undead are created via a mortal practioner casting a spell on a corpse or performing some grand horrific ritual to turn themselves into some form of undead.
An Eidolon (see Mordenkainens Tome of Foes) was a devout/fanatical follower of a god who swore an oath and has their spirit/soul bound to a place. They can be any alignment, which would imply that Necromancy isn't evil in itself, nor does it always draw on the Shadowfell or Negative Planes, it might merely means that drawing power from one of those planes is the most expedient way of doing so for mortal magic.
You could use this as a base for a system of religious state sponsored Necromancy. The "clergy", those with the Acolyte backgroud or levels in Cleric or Paladin, beocme Eidolons when they die to continue to serve the religion and the "ley" followers, commonfolk or other adventuring types, might agree to be raised as zombies and skeletons so they too can serve in death. Particularly powerful members of the clergy may even be raised as Mummies or even Liches so they can continue to guide and shape the faith. Doing so for a goodly religion would be a good way to introduce the Baelnorn/Archliches which were good aligned liches in previous editions.
The overall alignments of those undead are then reflective of the religion they follow rather than a base "evil".
I think in terms of arcane spellcaster, ethical necromancy is easy, but will always appear to be evil in the eyes of commoners. But a wizard following the school of necromancy can always prove that they are good. A holy spellcaster is different. Almost all the gods of death are evil, and commoners see worshipping death as evil. It is possible to build a character that is an ethical necromancer, but it creates a challenge for your DM: How do everyday people react to this character? Do they make warding signs at them? Do they drive them out of the village with pitchforks and torches? Do they reject them a room for the night? Necromancy is extremely powerful, and pairs well with evocation, but in a holy spellcaster it is a blurry line, as blurry as the line between death and undeath. When building an ethical necromancer, tread that line carefully, otherwise you will have a character whose personality and features don't fit their alignment.
Character(s): Chak-tha, Thri-kreen Battlemaster Fighter, Théodmon Rokas, Eladrin Druid, Grayhawk the Aerial Ace, Aarakocra Bladesinger Wizard
Current Campaign(s): Dungeons, Darkness, Drow, and Demons, an Out of the Abyss Adventure, Dungeon Delvers, a Dungeon of the Mad Mage Adventure, Jungle of Evil, a Tomb of Annihilation Adventure
Check out the Chatty Tavern | Jester and Breadman's Character Bakery
My title from drummer is Wielder of Whispers
just ask people before reviving them as minions!
Sig but long ^w^
Gulpmissle Day, Saturday, Feburay 15th, 2025
💛🤍💜🖤 🩷💛💙
Henlo, I am a pan, NB, chaotic ADHD mess of a furry.
I am also a eepy eeper, who likes WoF, WC, and fire.
^ id say that is looking fairly right on POV to me.
but let me be sure i understand your situaiotn.
You are a PC in a game, that is not your lore to GM set, but someone else's?
And my POV is based on the idea that, yes you are a PC in someone else's game whose lore is theirs to be the GM of, not your own.
my RP POV is:
If you go into someone else's world, then be in it. Live with the rules of it the way it is, do not try to inject your own incongruous version of a PC into it.
If you are necro, and nerco is founded upon in that world, then live with that situation. Either RP to it, rather than trying to author it out.
Or choose a different class build that won't have this story problem you don't like.
Of course if your GM don't care then just make the whole world lore not have cares about types/schools of magic, and this is not a question or story beat you need to address any more.
Take an in world magic lay audience POV for a second. And your typical tavern lower class NPC, has any clue at all what one form of magic is form any other?
i'd say life on the street of any magic world is always only one of two ways:
1: no one cares, magic is magic and they don't fear it, any of it, it's all the same from their lay audience POV, they woudl not know to fear some but not others, form look alone.
2: everyone cares, magic is magic, and they fear it, all of it. Because it takes a knowledgeable POV to even know there is a difference and to know it by look alone. thus to lay audience POV all magic is just magic and so all scary form look alone.
I'd say it is better to have a simpleton world lore that is doing what we want. Then a complected world lore, where we lay down layer after layer of contrivances, to allow us to get what we want, that did not fit to the lore we had. What's the purpose of world lore if we're going to play against it instead of to it?
Yeti has a point, especially about those last two points. But you can goallinto the necromancy and become a Red Wizard of Thay or something, at which point people would fear. Alternatively, you can hide your skills, and only use necromancy for fights. And remember, Reincarnate raises the dead. So does Resurrection. One is transmutation, but looks like necromancy, and the other is necromancy.
Character(s): Chak-tha, Thri-kreen Battlemaster Fighter, Théodmon Rokas, Eladrin Druid, Grayhawk the Aerial Ace, Aarakocra Bladesinger Wizard
Current Campaign(s): Dungeons, Darkness, Drow, and Demons, an Out of the Abyss Adventure, Dungeon Delvers, a Dungeon of the Mad Mage Adventure, Jungle of Evil, a Tomb of Annihilation Adventure
Check out the Chatty Tavern | Jester and Breadman's Character Bakery
My title from drummer is Wielder of Whispers
Ah yes, the three Rs. Reduce, Reuse, Reanimate!
First, your English is great. No need to worry there. It's impressive enough you can speak more than one language. Secondly, at the very least I don't see any ethical issues with say, spare the dying which is necromancy. I'd have to look through the spells again, but there have to be others that aren't too controversial when used the right ways.
Establishing “ethical” rules for necromancy also depends on the DM’s creativity. For example, rules can be created where a character only calls upon willing spirits when using necromancy or uses it only against evil. Additionally, for a character serving the gods of the dead, necromancy can be accepted as a form of worship within a story. Like the Undying Court of Aerenal in the world of Eberron or the Charonti of Jakandor in AD&D2e can serve as inspiration for ethical necromancy practices. Also, in a game, a well-aligned necromancer could have potential “employees” sign a waiver allowing them to be turned into skeletons or zombies after death. In conclusion, ethical necromancy is possible within the teachings of a god or philosophy in DnD 5e. I also have two recommendations for your search for a god: the first is Kelemvor, and the second is Velsharoon. Don’t worry about your English; we understood you.
For my world-building, ethical necromancy involves a) someone dead for a few hundred years or b) someone who has volunteered their dead body. So maybe you worship a god/goddess of life who believes good necromancy is a way to peacefully continue after death. Since you don't give the object a soul, but instead temporary energy, it doesn't violate a god of death's rules.