There are so many angles to this topic. The "rules" to ethicality alone (aside from necromancy) are blurred among different viewpoints. While we'd like to think that it's simple and plainly obvious what's right and wrong, the real world shows that such is not the case with people.
No matter what one does with necromancy, someone out there will consider it bad - and given the widespread, harsh stigma upon necromancy in-lore perpetuated by atrocities committed through necromancy, many are not prepared (and sometimes not willing) to listen to arguments that suggest ethical methods.
So, I ask again: Is this ethicality from the necromancer's view or the public's view? The public's view will be overwhelmingly sour regardless if the reasons for being ethical have merit.
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 largely boils down to whether or not undead are forced to be evil.
I wouldn't agree with this. Ends don't justify means. If the spirit doesn't consent, it's a violation of rights... at least from an IRL reading of the rights of the deceased.
A question I ask on one other thread about necromancy and animating the dead and never got a response to and I think this question is important if you fall into the group that feel consent is required for it to be ethical:
Adopting a wider view of magic: If you view animating the dead as bad/evil, do you view the various spells that summon or conjure creatures (fey, fiends, elementals, celestials etc) as bad/evil? In essence you are using magic to pull creatures from their home plane and making them fight/do something dangerous or menial for you. There is nothing in those spells that permits any sort of free action or self control on their part whilst you are concentrating on the spell.
*From here on the word Necromancer refers to any spell caster using Necromancy magic*
For my part this question of whether Necromancy is ehical is highly DM dependant and each to their own, but there is almost no refernece to using the original soul of the deceased in any necromancy spell aside from Raise Dead, Resurrection, Soul Cage and True Ressurection. Animate Dead just says you cause corpses to animate with the foul mimicry of life, Create Undead just says you cause a body to rise as a ghoul. You could just as well say that for a Necromancer their Spell Slots represent them splintering off portions of their soul to animate the dead, send out bolts of necrotic energy etc. You could also assume that Necromacers may pull spirits from other planes much like anyone casting Find Famiiar does, its just the spirits they summon are put into bigger forms to "puppet".
I did speed read a lot of this thread so apologies if this got answered but hsitorically there are good aligned liches in 3.5e D&D, Archliches & Baelnorn were in the book "Mosters of Faerun" (pg90 if you want to have read), There is also the Curst undead in the same book (pg87) that are Chaotic Neutral. The "Ghost Walk" campaign setting also had ways of playing a ghost character where youcould be any alignment, there was the Half Vampire template that could be added to characters from the "LIbris Mortis" book (pg107) which did not change alignment & Necropolitan (pg114/115) which could be any alignment. There other options in various other books but although these options do not exists in the current format of the game you can use these as precedent to create campaigns, worlds & schools of thought where necromancy is not only legal, ethical and accepted but openly used.
It largely boils down to whether or not undead are forced to be evil.
I wouldn't agree with this. Ends don't justify means. If the spirit doesn't consent, it's a violation of rights... at least from an IRL reading of the rights of the deceased.
If undead are automatically evil, then turning someone into an undead creature of some type is never going to be ethical, regardless of consent.
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.
If there are benevolent spirits which are undead, then undead are not automatically evil just because they're undead.
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 largely boils down to whether or not undead are forced to be evil.
I wouldn't agree with this. Ends don't justify means. If the spirit doesn't consent, it's a violation of rights... at least from an IRL reading of the rights of the deceased.
If undead are automatically evil, then turning someone into an undead creature of some type is never going to be ethical, regardless of consent.
Is it evil all the time if the creatures you make are evil? I mean, skeletons and zombies are evil, but if you animate a zombie to save the life of a child mid-combat, is that evil?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The child was probably a war criminal or something.
In seriousness, what happens in Create Undead that calls forth something evil? If there are good spirits in lore, why does the spell create evil undead?
Is the process somehow warping the spiritual energies in the process? Does saving a child validate that process?
Sometimes, I think they purposely left stuff like this to be a little vague because it creates all kinds of moral conflicts between like-minded people simply because it's so easy to interpret things differently.
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 largely boils down to whether or not undead are forced to be evil.
I wouldn't agree with this. Ends don't justify means. If the spirit doesn't consent, it's a violation of rights... at least from an IRL reading of the rights of the deceased.
If undead are automatically evil, then turning someone into an undead creature of some type is never going to be ethical, regardless of consent.
Is it evil all the time if the creatures you make are evil? I mean, skeletons and zombies are evil, but if you animate a zombie to save the life of a child mid-combat, is that evil?
Are skeletons and zombies (mindless undead) evil or neutral?
Zombies, Wights, and Undead Spirits (UA) are neutral evil. Skeletons and Mummies are lawful evil. Ghouls and Ghasts are Chaotic Evil. The Create Undead spell creates and controls Ghouls, Ghasts, Wights, and Mummies depending on the spell level.
Yet, players can encounter spirits that are not evil. So, why do the spells create evil things? If something evil is used to do something good, does it offset the creation of something evil?
Of course, that's all metagaming. In-character mindsets might not be aware of such mechanics. Detecting evil would only occur in the cases where someone questioned the practice.
So to append the question, what is the scope of "ethicality"? Is it the necromancer's view, the metagame mechanics, or the in-game general public opinion?
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.
As far as I know necromancy uses power from the negative plane of energy which is dangerous but not evil on it’s own. This could lead to a negative feed back loop where a portal to the shadowfell opens adding more zombies or worse to the area.
Not sure if this has been added or not, but a Detective that uses necromancy to discover what happened to Cold Cases would probably be pretty ethical even if they did start raising bodies just to speak with them for an hour or two.
People seemed ok with a similar concept in iZombie, and they were literally eating brains.
In that case you wouldn't even really need a god, you would just need to be a Necromancer-Wizard. An alchemy set, proficient in investigation and you're good to go!
Disturbing the peaceful rest of the departed in order to ask them questions may be an evil act in and of itself, but if one doesn't think speak with dead spells are evil, then necromancy doesn't have to be. There are a good number of necromancy spells in various editions of the game that are useful for investigators and hunters of the undead/ghost-breakers.
I think the two big eeeevil things with necromancy magic in D&D are:
creating undead
some of the more horrid necromantic curses and attack spells
(Although when running Ravenloft, I do enforce powers checks for it because there any spells messing with the borders of life and death in such a fashion are inherently dangerous to use in that world).
My personal opinion is, that using necromantic spells is OK. Creating undead is /never/ OK.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
There are so many angles to this topic. The "rules" to ethicality alone (aside from necromancy) are blurred among different viewpoints. While we'd like to think that it's simple and plainly obvious what's right and wrong, the real world shows that such is not the case with people.
No matter what one does with necromancy, someone out there will consider it bad - and given the widespread, harsh stigma upon necromancy in-lore perpetuated by atrocities committed through necromancy, many are not prepared (and sometimes not willing) to listen to arguments that suggest ethical methods.
So, I ask again: Is this ethicality from the necromancer's view or the public's view? The public's view will be overwhelmingly sour regardless if the reasons for being ethical have merit.
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.
I would say necromancy in combat is ethical but to keep the zombies, skeleton and what ever else you made after the fight is mostly wrong
Mostly nocturnal
help build a world here
I wouldn't agree with this. Ends don't justify means. If the spirit doesn't consent, it's a violation of rights... at least from an IRL reading of the rights of the deceased.
A question I ask on one other thread about necromancy and animating the dead and never got a response to and I think this question is important if you fall into the group that feel consent is required for it to be ethical:
Adopting a wider view of magic: If you view animating the dead as bad/evil, do you view the various spells that summon or conjure creatures (fey, fiends, elementals, celestials etc) as bad/evil? In essence you are using magic to pull creatures from their home plane and making them fight/do something dangerous or menial for you. There is nothing in those spells that permits any sort of free action or self control on their part whilst you are concentrating on the spell.
*From here on the word Necromancer refers to any spell caster using Necromancy magic*
For my part this question of whether Necromancy is ehical is highly DM dependant and each to their own, but there is almost no refernece to using the original soul of the deceased in any necromancy spell aside from Raise Dead, Resurrection, Soul Cage and True Ressurection. Animate Dead just says you cause corpses to animate with the foul mimicry of life, Create Undead just says you cause a body to rise as a ghoul. You could just as well say that for a Necromancer their Spell Slots represent them splintering off portions of their soul to animate the dead, send out bolts of necrotic energy etc. You could also assume that Necromacers may pull spirits from other planes much like anyone casting Find Famiiar does, its just the spirits they summon are put into bigger forms to "puppet".
I did speed read a lot of this thread so apologies if this got answered but hsitorically there are good aligned liches in 3.5e D&D, Archliches & Baelnorn were in the book "Mosters of Faerun" (pg90 if you want to have read), There is also the Curst undead in the same book (pg87) that are Chaotic Neutral. The "Ghost Walk" campaign setting also had ways of playing a ghost character where youcould be any alignment, there was the Half Vampire template that could be added to characters from the "LIbris Mortis" book (pg107) which did not change alignment & Necropolitan (pg114/115) which could be any alignment. There other options in various other books but although these options do not exists in the current format of the game you can use these as precedent to create campaigns, worlds & schools of thought where necromancy is not only legal, ethical and accepted but openly used.
If undead are automatically evil, then turning someone into an undead creature of some type is never going to be ethical, regardless of consent.
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.
If there are benevolent spirits which are undead, then undead are not automatically evil just because they're undead.
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.
Is it evil all the time if the creatures you make are evil? I mean, skeletons and zombies are evil, but if you animate a zombie to save the life of a child mid-combat, is that evil?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The child was probably a war criminal or something.
In seriousness, what happens in Create Undead that calls forth something evil? If there are good spirits in lore, why does the spell create evil undead?
Is the process somehow warping the spiritual energies in the process? Does saving a child validate that process?
Sometimes, I think they purposely left stuff like this to be a little vague because it creates all kinds of moral conflicts between like-minded people simply because it's so easy to interpret things differently.
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.
Are skeletons and zombies (mindless undead) evil or neutral?
Zombies, Wights, and Undead Spirits (UA) are neutral evil. Skeletons and Mummies are lawful evil. Ghouls and Ghasts are Chaotic Evil. The Create Undead spell creates and controls Ghouls, Ghasts, Wights, and Mummies depending on the spell level.
Yet, players can encounter spirits that are not evil. So, why do the spells create evil things? If something evil is used to do something good, does it offset the creation of something evil?
Of course, that's all metagaming. In-character mindsets might not be aware of such mechanics. Detecting evil would only occur in the cases where someone questioned the practice.
So to append the question, what is the scope of "ethicality"? Is it the necromancer's view, the metagame mechanics, or the in-game general public opinion?
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 far as I know necromancy uses power from the negative plane of energy which is dangerous but not evil on it’s own. This could lead to a negative feed back loop where a portal to the shadowfell opens adding more zombies or worse to the area.
Mostly nocturnal
help build a world here
Not sure if this has been added or not, but a Detective that uses necromancy to discover what happened to Cold Cases would probably be pretty ethical even if they did start raising bodies just to speak with them for an hour or two.
People seemed ok with a similar concept in iZombie, and they were literally eating brains.
In that case you wouldn't even really need a god, you would just need to be a Necromancer-Wizard. An alchemy set, proficient in investigation and you're good to go!
Disturbing the peaceful rest of the departed in order to ask them questions may be an evil act in and of itself, but if one doesn't think speak with dead spells are evil, then necromancy doesn't have to be. There are a good number of necromancy spells in various editions of the game that are useful for investigators and hunters of the undead/ghost-breakers.
I think the two big eeeevil things with necromancy magic in D&D are:
creating undead
some of the more horrid necromantic curses and attack spells
Speak With Dead is defo not evil.
I certainly agree.
(Although when running Ravenloft, I do enforce powers checks for it because there any spells messing with the borders of life and death in such a fashion are inherently dangerous to use in that world).
My personal opinion is, that using necromantic spells is OK. Creating undead is /never/ OK.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
The Charonti would disagree with you.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
In Eberron, the Undying undead are good, vulnerable to necrotic damage, and resistant to radiant damage, IIRC.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
i think if the the character find a body that will have no use otherwise it will be fine or if a life or death.
Black Lives Matter
Count as high as you can before Nikoli_Goodfellow Posts!
Extended Signature, The Best Paradox, We all knew it.
I participate in the Level 20 Gladiator Arena with several champions they are all in my extended signature Win Streak: 0 Total Wins: 19 Total Loses: 6
Yup. There are multiple in-canon examples of “ethical/moral necromancy.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting