Is necromancy evil or only as harmless as talking to your dead grandmother?

[tuxgeo]

. . . speaking of false dichotomies . . .

Bad selection of options.
I declined to vote.
Some necromantic spells have the 'Evil' descriptor, some do not. See the SRD.
Of course, the spells that have the 'Evil' descriptor are intrinsically Evil; the others are not.

Edit: ninja'd by Jeff

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Depends on the campaign. I voted "evil" because that's how I usually run it: many acts of necromancy are evil by descriptor, and in many default starting cultures cavorting with the dead is usually considered an evil act, regardless of the descriptor on the spell or monster involved.

 

[the Jester]

The original meaning of necromancy is just summoning ghosts to communicate with them. There's surely nothing inherently evil in that. Actually, it has a lot of potential for 'goodness' since the information you get from the ghosts can often be used to lay them to rest.

There's an old issue of Arion, Lord of Atlantis (a comic about pre-cataclysm Atlantis; Arion was, at the time of the issue in question, one of the most powerful wizards alive) that addresses this a little. After some soldiers, assassins, something (I can't recall) are slain, Arion questions them with necromancy.

It's very unpleasant for the subjects. They're held magically helpless, the implication is that they're in terrible pain and just want to rest/go back to being dead... that's why they answer: so Arion will let them go.

So, I'm not entirely sure about your point. It seems like a reasonable assumption... but that's a world apart from it being a given.

 

[Rechan]

You know. 4e has Warlocks who are tapping into Infernal power, or the power of Far-Realmsish entities. And there's no indication that these are evil acts. What makes Necromancy different?

The original meaning of necromancy is just summoning ghosts to communicate with them. There's surely nothing inherently evil in that. Actually, it has a lot of potential for 'goodness' since the information you get from the ghosts can often be used to lay them to rest.

And that makes me wonder.

Let's say that a necromancer actually summons/forces a ghost to fight someone.

How is that different than summoning any other monster to fight someone? A summoner basically plucks any other extra-planar being out of the multi-verse, points at his enemies and says "Get'm!" Your typical summoning spells for combat usage pretty much has the spellcaster compelling the summoned entity to fight for him - it's not a negotiation. And at least the 3e spells, you weren't plucking a specific entity out of the aether - it was just a random entity.

And in some cases, just tossing this out there, the necromancer likely isn't just grabbing a soul out of the underworld, putting a shock collar on it and sending it out to do badness - or making his own wraiths, etc. A Necromancer could be doing the equivalent of going out into the wilderness, trapping a wild boar or tiger, and training it to fight beside him - the Necromancer is tossing a leash on a wraith and binding it to his will. Is it evil to control an evil entity?

Granted, I'm a bit biased here. I'm willing to go so far as to say that some forms of undeath aren't even evil.

 

[coyote6]

My answer: depends on the campaign.

If I'm running straight-up D&D 3.5e, then it depends on the spell. Most of the undead-creating spells are labeled Evil, so, yeah, they are evil, and the people who habitually use them are evil, or become such.

If I'm running GURPS Abydos, where the PCs are from a city-state founded on necromancy and undead-creating magic explicitly isn't intrinsically evil or good -- it's just another tool -- then, no, it's not evil.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I would have voted "No" except it included the hedging "Depends on how it's used." If I'm going to use a hedge it's not going to be that. Instead I say "No, unless the reasons it's evil are applied equally and without arbitrariness."

(Just addressing "Animate" spells right now.)
Because it animates something that isn't supposed to be animated? Then making a golem is evil. Also possibly druid spells that cause plants to grow and/or move.
It traps or otherwise subverts the free will of another being? Golems again. Plus all spells that mess with the mind. Plus summoning spells are at least a gray area.
It "perverts the cycle of life"? I don't know what that means, but if it means rot then any spell that preserves anything from rot or any healing spell is also evil. And resurrections!
It creates a being that will go off and destroy things? See what I say below about harming people.

(Including other "evil" necormancy spells.)
Hurts people either directly or by weakening them with a disease or something, or creating a creature that will go out and randomly kill things? Then any magic that results in hurting or destruction is evil.
Negative energy is used? Then all negative energy use is bad. But the negative energy example is still more arbitrary than I'm comfortable with: it's a force of destruction, so all forms of destruction should be "evil".

So what's "abitrariness"? It's whoever's making up the rules does not apply them equally. If the rules are not going to be applied equally I say "Screw you!" to whoever is in charge of them.

Short Version: Give the reasons. Apply them equally. Then I don't care whether it is or isn't.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Granted, I'm a bit biased here. I'm willing to go so far as to say that some forms of undeath aren't even evil.

Vampires aren't even evil. Football players are.

 

[Rechan]

Football players are.

 

[TheYeti1775]

It's campaign dependent.

Think about the Death Gate Cycle series by Weis & Hickman, in the 3rd book 'Fire Sea' the Sartan (supposedly the good beings) use animate dead quite regularly as part of the persons Death Rites and they are used and venerated as they are used to contribute to society.

In some worlds even the act of studying a corpse scientifically could be considered dark evil magic.

 

[Umbran]

You know. 4e has Warlocks who are tapping into Infernal power, or the power of Far-Realmsish entities. And there's no indication that these are evil acts. What makes Necromancy different?

What alignment 4e does have is a guideline for playing monsters and critters - there's no mechanical impact to speak of, so the edition does not have "evil acts" in the way previous editions did.

Apples and oranges.