Pretty much any aligment depending campaing setting (is necromancy allowed or illegal?) and character motivation (save life for ome purpose/torture or because it is "good thing to do")
How does necromancy work in the setting their in? Particularly "resurrection but with their soul"?
By default in the Great Wheel, animating undead is dodgy (because undead are dangerous if not controlled, and it's implied to be a miserable state of existence) but acceptable in extreme circumstances. Other forms of necromancy are usually okay.
I'm thinking he keeps his knowledge a secret after all most see necromancy as evil. He wants to find away to bring the dead back to their normal lives would probably be the best way to say it.
I'm thinking he keeps his knowledge a secret after all most see necromancy as evil. He wants to find away to bring the dead back to their normal lives would probably be the best way to say it.
So "Raise dead" spell is "illegal" and seen as "evil" even when subjects became "normal" person again (with their souls and all)? And character does that becasue he/she honestly thinks it is "right to do"?
I would say neutral good or true neutral depenging how character sees other things. Neutral good if generally is helping everyone right away. True neutral would decide case by case.
You can use chaotic also if character dont follow ohter rules aswell and most of the time just does things "what he/she things should be done regardless of what others think -> character is very impulssive"
First of all, you might want to check with your DM to see if "curing death" is even possible in your world. In mine, undead are either (1) restless spirits with unfinished duty, (2) mindless slaves of necromancers, or (3) creatures of total evil. So if your character existed in that world, or most worlds for that matter, they'd be doomed to fail before they began. You'd have to think about whether you're okay with that.
That said, a character who does good but uses necromancy for practical reasons would probably be Chaotic Good.
oh its not but he still tries, about the only way is if he battles a god for the knowledge. yes i know and i play him as that and the dm has been having some fun just need a bit of help with an alignment
That said, a character who does good but uses necromancy for practical reasons would probably be Chaotic Good.
It's not that simple :) "Raise dead" (necromancy) is in many lawfull good clerics arsenall. And it can be chaotic evil clerics arsenall as well if they want to raise someone just to kill them again by torture.
That said, a character who does good but uses necromancy for practical reasons would probably be Chaotic Good.
It's not that simple :) "Raise dead" (necromancy) is in many lawfull good clerics arsenall. And it can be chaotic evil clerics arsenall as well if they want to raise someone just to kill them again by torture.
But you are right, it is very setting specific.
It can be, but I’d argue it shouldn’t be. You can get earth elemental spells, for example, as a storm sorcerer, a class built around elemental air. Doesn’t mean you should! Similarly, an LG cleric definitely shouldn’t practice necromancy.
As I said, setting specific thing. Forgotten Reams ("default D&D world") you can go to lawfull good gods temple to buy "raise dead". Necromancy itself is not evil or chaotic there (it is just "tool", certain magic type ). Certain things what you do with it are (ie raising undeads). You can be very evil or good wiht Evocation magic too :)
"Resurrection but with their soul" is just resurrection. It's not resurrection if you create a soulless undead being - in fact, that's the key difference. I'm not sure the Resurrection spell should even be labeled necromancy (though D&D necromancy encompasses a lot more than what the term means outside D&D anyway).
Regardless, just look at the ethics. Is anybody harmed by this? If not, it can't really be evil.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As others have mentioned, Necromancy is not tied to any particular alignment. Older editions were more strict about alignment but 5e gives you more freedom to play the character how you want. I think you should consider your character's motivations and behaviour more generally, rather than basing their alignment on a single characteristic. Here's how I would decide, if it helps at all.
For Lawful/Chaotic I look at how strictly a characters follows rules (either laws or a personal code of honour) compared to how impulsive he is. Does he ignore all rules in favour of his own desires (chaotic), or is necromancy an exception for him (maybe neutral)?
For Good/Evil I often use a Selfless/Selfish scale. The two ends of which might be: Good: He wants everyone to live long and fruitful lives. Evil: He wants to save one particular life for personal reasons.
Pretty much any aligment depending campaing setting (is necromancy allowed or illegal?) and character motivation (save life for ome purpose/torture or because it is "good thing to do")
The legality of something has nothing to do with character alignment. Lawful 'x' doesn't have to mean that you keep the law of the land. It could also be that you follow a set of dedicated rules or a code of honour - for example a dedicated Buddhist monk following the doctrine of his monastic order could be lawful, even if he breaks the law of a town he is travelling through.
It does. Lawfull good person will try to obey laws or rules of certain land as best as he/she can aslong it wont contradict his personal code of condcut or moral code (Lawfull Evil on other hand can have personal code that he only follows and dont care rest of sosiety rules). Chaotic good person dont give a shit about any rules and do what is in his opinion "best" at the moment while still thinking whatever he is going to do is not harmfull to others. Neutral good is something between and mostly follows rules/laws/codes but might also break those if sitatuation needs it.
That Good, neutral, Evil part mostly tells is character thinking about others or just itself.
This sort of necromancy seems 'good' to me if I'm understanding it correctly, focusing on spells that return people fully to life. (Revifiy, raise dead, ressurection, true ressurection) and NOT creating undeath? If you're not raising people into undeath but only back to full life, that's going to be super expensive but not really morally questionable since people can always choose not to come back with those spells if they don't want to.
I would only see this character dipping into neutral or evil if their motives are selfish or they're doing it to manipulate people and mass personal power etc. If they genuine want to help people and aren't doing evil things to carry out their goal, I wouldn't label them neutral or evil. If I'm understanding it correctly and nobody's being put into a state of undeath.
For lawful/chaotic it really depends on their personal way of conduct. Do they stick to strict moral principles or are they more flexible?
Remember though that alignment should describe a character, it doesn't need to define them. It's okay if your character is hard to fit into a 3 by 3 box, especially since 5E doesn't really use alignment mechanically.
Remember though that alignment should describe a character, it doesn't need to define them. It's okay if your character is hard to fit into a 3 by 3 box, especially since 5E doesn't really use alignment mechanically.
This. Very this. Much yes.
Willing to do whatever it takes to do good, even treading into morally dangerous territory to try to do good, is a very grey area that is ill-defined by the 3x3 system.
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 definitely feels to me that violating the cycle of life and death would be a chaotic thing. That life is followed by death comes off to me as one of the oldest and most established laws there is, even followed by naturalistic neutral creatures who revere the cycles of life and death.
Where you fall on the spectrum of good and evil depends on your means and ends, but I will say that someone who just wants everyone to live happily ever after feels a bit boring. Adding some flaws/moral complications would be a lot more interesting IMO.
what alignment would a character that wants to save life but choose necromancy too do it (resurrection but with their soul)
Pretty much any aligment depending campaing setting (is necromancy allowed or illegal?) and character motivation (save life for ome purpose/torture or because it is "good thing to do")
How does necromancy work in the setting their in? Particularly "resurrection but with their soul"?
By default in the Great Wheel, animating undead is dodgy (because undead are dangerous if not controlled, and it's implied to be a miserable state of existence) but acceptable in extreme circumstances. Other forms of necromancy are usually okay.
I'm thinking he keeps his knowledge a secret after all most see necromancy as evil. He wants to find away to bring the dead back to their normal lives would probably be the best way to say it.
So "Raise dead" spell is "illegal" and seen as "evil" even when subjects became "normal" person again (with their souls and all)? And character does that becasue he/she honestly thinks it is "right to do"?
yes. wants to cure death i guess?
I would say neutral good or true neutral depenging how character sees other things. Neutral good if generally is helping everyone right away. True neutral would decide case by case.
You can use chaotic also if character dont follow ohter rules aswell and most of the time just does things "what he/she things should be done regardless of what others think -> character is very impulssive"
okay thanks lol so if goes to robbing graves to do the better good, chaotic or evil lol just joking hes not that bad
First of all, you might want to check with your DM to see if "curing death" is even possible in your world. In mine, undead are either (1) restless spirits with unfinished duty, (2) mindless slaves of necromancers, or (3) creatures of total evil. So if your character existed in that world, or most worlds for that matter, they'd be doomed to fail before they began. You'd have to think about whether you're okay with that.
That said, a character who does good but uses necromancy for practical reasons would probably be Chaotic Good.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
oh its not but he still tries, about the only way is if he battles a god for the knowledge. yes i know and i play him as that and the dm has been having some fun just need a bit of help with an alignment
It's not that simple :) "Raise dead" (necromancy) is in many lawfull good clerics arsenall. And it can be chaotic evil clerics arsenall as well if they want to raise someone just to kill them again by torture.
But you are right, it is very setting specific.
It can be, but I’d argue it shouldn’t be. You can get earth elemental spells, for example, as a storm sorcerer, a class built around elemental air. Doesn’t mean you should! Similarly, an LG cleric definitely shouldn’t practice necromancy.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
As I said, setting specific thing. Forgotten Reams ("default D&D world") you can go to lawfull good gods temple to buy "raise dead". Necromancy itself is not evil or chaotic there (it is just "tool", certain magic type ). Certain things what you do with it are (ie raising undeads). You can be very evil or good wiht Evocation magic too :)
"Resurrection but with their soul" is just resurrection. It's not resurrection if you create a soulless undead being - in fact, that's the key difference. I'm not sure the Resurrection spell should even be labeled necromancy (though D&D necromancy encompasses a lot more than what the term means outside D&D anyway).
Regardless, just look at the ethics. Is anybody harmed by this? If not, it can't really be evil.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As others have mentioned, Necromancy is not tied to any particular alignment. Older editions were more strict about alignment but 5e gives you more freedom to play the character how you want. I think you should consider your character's motivations and behaviour more generally, rather than basing their alignment on a single characteristic. Here's how I would decide, if it helps at all.
For Lawful/Chaotic I look at how strictly a characters follows rules (either laws or a personal code of honour) compared to how impulsive he is. Does he ignore all rules in favour of his own desires (chaotic), or is necromancy an exception for him (maybe neutral)?
For Good/Evil I often use a Selfless/Selfish scale. The two ends of which might be: Good: He wants everyone to live long and fruitful lives. Evil: He wants to save one particular life for personal reasons.
The legality of something has nothing to do with character alignment. Lawful 'x' doesn't have to mean that you keep the law of the land. It could also be that you follow a set of dedicated rules or a code of honour - for example a dedicated Buddhist monk following the doctrine of his monastic order could be lawful, even if he breaks the law of a town he is travelling through.
It does. Lawfull good person will try to obey laws or rules of certain land as best as he/she can aslong it wont contradict his personal code of condcut or moral code (Lawfull Evil on other hand can have personal code that he only follows and dont care rest of sosiety rules). Chaotic good person dont give a shit about any rules and do what is in his opinion "best" at the moment while still thinking whatever he is going to do is not harmfull to others. Neutral good is something between and mostly follows rules/laws/codes but might also break those if sitatuation needs it.
That Good, neutral, Evil part mostly tells is character thinking about others or just itself.
This sort of necromancy seems 'good' to me if I'm understanding it correctly, focusing on spells that return people fully to life. (Revifiy, raise dead, ressurection, true ressurection) and NOT creating undeath? If you're not raising people into undeath but only back to full life, that's going to be super expensive but not really morally questionable since people can always choose not to come back with those spells if they don't want to.
I would only see this character dipping into neutral or evil if their motives are selfish or they're doing it to manipulate people and mass personal power etc. If they genuine want to help people and aren't doing evil things to carry out their goal, I wouldn't label them neutral or evil. If I'm understanding it correctly and nobody's being put into a state of undeath.
For lawful/chaotic it really depends on their personal way of conduct. Do they stick to strict moral principles or are they more flexible?
Remember though that alignment should describe a character, it doesn't need to define them. It's okay if your character is hard to fit into a 3 by 3 box, especially since 5E doesn't really use alignment mechanically.
This. Very this. Much yes.
Willing to do whatever it takes to do good, even treading into morally dangerous territory to try to do good, is a very grey area that is ill-defined by the 3x3 system.
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 definitely feels to me that violating the cycle of life and death would be a chaotic thing. That life is followed by death comes off to me as one of the oldest and most established laws there is, even followed by naturalistic neutral creatures who revere the cycles of life and death.
Where you fall on the spectrum of good and evil depends on your means and ends, but I will say that someone who just wants everyone to live happily ever after feels a bit boring. Adding some flaws/moral complications would be a lot more interesting IMO.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm