There are 36 Necromancy Spells, out those only 3 create undead. There are actually more resurrection Necromancy spells then ones that create undead. Most Necromancy spells either deal necrotic damage or make people tired.
There are 36 Necromancy Spells, out those only 3 create undead. There are actually more resurrection Necromancy spells then ones that create undead. Most Necromancy spells either deal necrotic damage or make people tired.
That's because Necromancy is not inherently evil like most believe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I caught the joke right off … but about Necromancy ...
I must disagree that it isn't evil. I think it is a widely held value that folks should not tamper with the dead. Necromancy is way beyond tampering to the extent of total violation of one's body. This is supported by the idea that there is a difference between Resurrection and Raise the Dead. In Resurrection the original spirit inhabits the body. In Raise Dead a new spirit animates the body. This is an evil thing.
I caught the joke right off … but about Necromancy ...
I must disagree that it isn't evil. I think it is a widely held value that folks should not tamper with the dead. Necromancy is way beyond tampering to the extent of total violation of one's body. This is supported by the idea that there is a difference between Resurrection and Raise the Dead. In Resurrection the original spirit inhabits the body. In Raise Dead a new spirit animates the body. This is an evil thing.
But Resurrection is a necromancy spell.
Edit: I do think that necromancy could be divided into "good" and "bad" spells, Spells like Resurrection and related spells could be considered "good" since they infringe the least on the cycle of life and death by only returning a soul to it's original body and not being able to extend the life of a creature beyond it's normal limits. "Bad" necromancy spells do, as you mentioned, violate the body of the deceased that they are used on. Of course depending on ones views on how corpses should be treated spells like Raise Dead could be more acceptable since the deceased aren't going to be using the body anymore.
Either way running around using Raise Dead is going to probably attract some suspicion at least where Resurrection will not.
Yes, Necromancy is not evil in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it can be good, as if it returns the creature's soul to the resurrected body, it gives relatives a chance to see their loved ones again.
If it doesn't, then it gives use to otherwise useless corpses.
Also, I see morals much differently then you seem to, OldElf86. Violating a dead body is just fine, as if the body is dead, then the spirit has absolutely zero need for it.
I caught the joke right off … but about Necromancy ...
I must disagree that it isn't evil. I think it is a widely held value that folks should not tamper with the dead. Necromancy is way beyond tampering to the extent of total violation of one's body. This is supported by the idea that there is a difference between Resurrection and Raise the Dead. In Resurrection the original spirit inhabits the body. In Raise Dead a new spirit animates the body. This is an evil thing.
Considering anyone can return to from the dead as long as their soul is intact, I wouldn't want anyone messing around with my body. So arguably unless the soul is destroyed somehow, it always has a need for it.
Besides, using the Resurrection spell can bring in profit. some murdered will pay large amounts to live again, and the family of the deceased will pay even more to see their loved one alive and well.
On the Raise Dead spell, however, it allows you to use large amounts of otherwise useless corpses in order to do good things, like farm crops for a starving village, keep bandits away, protect livestock, and other good deeds, which raises the question of if someone who is doing evil for good reasons evil, or is someone who is doing good for evil reasons good?
I also love how this discussion on the morals of Necromancy began as a joke about it. I have no problem about it, but it strikes me as funnier than the original joke.
Let me see if a question can help you see this more along the way I see it ...
If I take you strictly according to what you mentioned ...
"Violating a dead body is just fine, as if the body is dead, then the spirit has absolutely zero need for it."
Would you think that robbing a grave to obtain a valuable item (IRL) would be OK since the body doesn't need it anymore, so long as you cleaned up the gravesite when you were done?
Or are you speaking strictly in the sense of the D&D Fantasy World where violating a body is OK? I would think nobody would agree with stealing from a dead body.
Would you think that robbing a grave to obtain a valuable item (IRL) would be OK since the body doesn't need it anymore, so long as you cleaned up the gravesite when you were done?
Or are you speaking strictly in the sense of the D&D Fantasy World where violating a body is OK? I would think nobody would agree with stealing from a dead body.
Isn't that 80% of all adventures? Raid a tomb/crypt/ancient tower/whatever has a dead; soon to be dead thing in it, and then take the loot from the dead.
Try the desecrating the body argument instead of the theft argument, it is stronger and more consistent argument.
Isn't quite desecration if you don't intend to destroy the body. Also, adventuring is about 50% looting. Look at The Legend Of Zelda games (smashing peoples possessions for a few rupees), Dark Souls (Smashing furniture and running amok around holy places while destroying legendary creatures for their loot), Bloodborne (killing more legendary beasts), and Skyrim (self explanatory).
Change my mind.
There are 36 Necromancy Spells, out those only 3 create undead. There are actually more resurrection Necromancy spells then ones that create undead. Most Necromancy spells either deal necrotic damage or make people tired.
Not about the amazing wonders of magic Necromancy can work, but about if Necromancy is a form of recycling.
Which it should be.
Oh, it definitely is. I have a necromancer in a modern-setting campaign, and she's a sustainability manager. She works in HR.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
That's because Necromancy is not inherently evil like most believe.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I caught the joke right off … but about Necromancy ...
I must disagree that it isn't evil. I think it is a widely held value that folks should not tamper with the dead. Necromancy is way beyond tampering to the extent of total violation of one's body. This is supported by the idea that there is a difference between Resurrection and Raise the Dead. In Resurrection the original spirit inhabits the body. In Raise Dead a new spirit animates the body. This is an evil thing.
But Resurrection is a necromancy spell.
Edit: I do think that necromancy could be divided into "good" and "bad" spells, Spells like Resurrection and related spells could be considered "good" since they infringe the least on the cycle of life and death by only returning a soul to it's original body and not being able to extend the life of a creature beyond it's normal limits. "Bad" necromancy spells do, as you mentioned, violate the body of the deceased that they are used on. Of course depending on ones views on how corpses should be treated spells like Raise Dead could be more acceptable since the deceased aren't going to be using the body anymore.
Either way running around using Raise Dead is going to probably attract some suspicion at least where Resurrection will not.
*pictures a Bard playing the Doot Doot song on some bonepipes, while maintaining a Danse Macabre and performing in the village square*
Yeah, you're probably right....
Yes, Necromancy is not evil in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it can be good, as if it returns the creature's soul to the resurrected body, it gives relatives a chance to see their loved ones again.
If it doesn't, then it gives use to otherwise useless corpses.
Also, I see morals much differently then you seem to, OldElf86. Violating a dead body is just fine, as if the body is dead, then the spirit has absolutely zero need for it.
Considering anyone can return to from the dead as long as their soul is intact, I wouldn't want anyone messing around with my body. So arguably unless the soul is destroyed somehow, it always has a need for it.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Besides, using the Resurrection spell can bring in profit. some murdered will pay large amounts to live again, and the family of the deceased will pay even more to see their loved one alive and well.
On the Raise Dead spell, however, it allows you to use large amounts of otherwise useless corpses in order to do good things, like farm crops for a starving village, keep bandits away, protect livestock, and other good deeds, which raises the question of if someone who is doing evil for good reasons evil, or is someone who is doing good for evil reasons good?
I also love how this discussion on the morals of Necromancy began as a joke about it. I have no problem about it, but it strikes me as funnier than the original joke.
I'm against necromancy, think of the children!
Money money moneeeeey
How does Necromancy effect children?
Necrobro,
Let me see if a question can help you see this more along the way I see it ...
If I take you strictly according to what you mentioned ...
"Violating a dead body is just fine, as if the body is dead, then the spirit has absolutely zero need for it."
Would you think that robbing a grave to obtain a valuable item (IRL) would be OK since the body doesn't need it anymore, so long as you cleaned up the gravesite when you were done?
Or are you speaking strictly in the sense of the D&D Fantasy World where violating a body is OK? I would think nobody would agree with stealing from a dead body.
Isn't that 80% of all adventures? Raid a tomb/crypt/ancient tower/whatever has a dead; soon to be dead thing in it, and then take the loot from the dead.
Try the desecrating the body argument instead of the theft argument, it is stronger and more consistent argument.
Isn't quite desecration if you don't intend to destroy the body. Also, adventuring is about 50% looting. Look at The Legend Of Zelda games (smashing peoples possessions for a few rupees), Dark Souls (Smashing furniture and running amok around holy places while destroying legendary creatures for their loot), Bloodborne (killing more legendary beasts), and Skyrim (self explanatory).
It appears we should just agree to this ...
"Also, I see morals much differently then you seem to, OldElf86."
Ah yes, just like those old PSAs: Reduce, Re-use, Reanimate.
I like to make everyone's day a little more surreal.
^^^^^^^^^
This guy gets it.