D&D General A paladin just joined the group. I'm a necromancer.

[Flamestrike]

@Lanefan

Notice the tone of the comment. Taking a setting specific rule and applying it to a character in another game without taking note if there was a difference in setting.

That's where the issue started.

Happily @Flamestrike is backing away from that position somewhat. He's now open to necromancers not being evil in other settings. I think that's a big step for him.

I have repeatedly said that in the the absence of a setting specific rule or ruling by the DM, that anyone who frequently animates the dead with necromancy magic is evil.

Of course in a different setting it could be different. In a different setting gravity might not exist, chromatic dragons could be good aligned, Gods might not grant spells, rendering divine magic non-existent, halflings could be 10' tall or whatever the heck the setting writer feels like.

However (in the absence of such a setting or the DM choosing to ignore the fact that undead are evil monsters, created with evil magic, and doing so often means you are also evil) animating the dead frequently makes you evil.

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh my freaking God. No; of course - if the DM or the setting stipulates that animating the dead is not evil, then it inst evil!

So then you agree that you were wrong for telling someone that their necromancer must be evil because it's in the PHB?

 

[Flamestrike]

So then you agree that you were wrong for telling someone that their necromancer must be evil because it's in the PHB?

Someone earlier in the thread stated there was no such rule in 5e that states animating the dead is evil. They then asked for the rule.

I simply pointed it out.

In 5e DnD (in the absence of DM fiat, or a setting specific exemption to the general rule) animating the dead with magic is an evil act, and only evil casters to so often.

Thats the rule. Feel free to ignore it in your own games, or should the setting stipulate you can. Otherwise there it is.

 

[FrogReaver]

Someone earlier in the thread stated there was no such rule in 5e that states animating the dead is evil. They then asked for the rule.

I simply pointed it out.

In 5e DnD (in the absence of DM fiat, or a setting specific exemption to the general rule) animating the dead with magic is an evil act, and only evil casters to so often.

Thats the rule. Feel free to ignore it in your own games, or should the setting stipulate you can. Otherwise there it is.

You did quite a bit more than simply point it out. You argued that he had to be evil. Now you are backtracking and saying that isn't the case.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Like; in Ebberon (a core setting) there are explicitly Good aligned undead that are not powered by unholy energy or dark magic, and where the creation of them is not Evil.

Note that Deathless are created and sustained very differently to the undead created by Animate Dead and similar spells.
Note also that the culture that creates the Deathless do believe that creating normal undead is horrifically evil due to the way that they drain life from the world.

Notice the tone of the comment. Taking a setting specific rule and applying it to a character in another game without taking note if there was a difference in setting.

That's where the issue started.

Happily @Flamestrike is backing away from that position somewhat. He's now open to necromancers not being evil in other settings. I think that's a big step for him.

You . . . might want to read back a few pages before making claims like that.

Flamestrike made the point that the DM could change that sort of thing before you even started posting in the thread.
If you want to argue the semantics of what "default" covers or some such, then I'm sure you can find someone here willing to discuss it with you.
But please leave the passive-aggressive insinuations about fellow forum-users out of it.

On a broader topic: the discussion so far has revolved around the OP's situation where a Paladin is trying to join an established party containing a Necromancer.

Would - or should - anyone's view be different if the situation was reversed; that a Necro was trying to join an established party containing a Pally? And if so, how do you justify the difference?

I'd view them as the same situation. Unless we know to the contrary, we pretty much have to assume that it was a functional party with the necromancer in. Whether it is an "evil" game, animating dead isn't evil in the setting, or the other party members imply didn't have an issue with it, the necromancer was animating dead before the paladin is joining. I think that most of us view the onus is on the newcomer to make a character that will fit and work with the rest of the group.
However, other than the OP's assumptions about paladins, we have no way of knowing whether the paladin character would actually have any issue with the necromancer's activities, or whether they are intending to fit in fine.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have repeatedly said that in the the absence of a setting specific rule or ruling by the DM, that anyone who frequently animates the dead with necromancy magic is evil.

Which is still not the precise way of saying it. There cannot be an absence of a setting specific rule because even the default rule is a setting specific rule.

Of course in a different setting it could be different. In a different setting gravity might not exist, chromatic dragons could be good aligned, Gods might not grant spells, rendering divine magic non-existent, halflings could be 10' tall or whatever the heck the setting writer feels like.

Yes - Those are all setting specific rules. I'm not sure your point?

However (in the absence of such a setting or the DM choosing to ignore the fact that undead are evil monsters, created with evil magic, and doing so often means you are also evil) animating the dead frequently makes you evil.

There is no universal fact that undead are evil monsters, created with evil magic. That's a setting specific thing.

 

[FrogReaver]

Flamestrike made the point that the DM could change that sort of thing before you even started posting in the thread.
If you want to argue the semantics of what "default" covers or some such, then I'm sure you can find someone here willing to discuss it with you.
But please leave the passive-aggressive insinuations about fellow forum-users out of it.

Then he might should have said so when he started arguing with me about it?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Then he might should have said so when he started arguing with me about it?

Bear in mind that once you started the argument with Flamestrike about animating undead being evil, it took you four. separate. posts. before you actually got around to explaining what your issue was.

Saying the equivalent of "The rule is wrong" four times before getting around to actually attempting to rationalise your opinion as to why it is wrong wasn't helpful.
Making a false claim, whether through ignorance or malice, as to what someone else is saying wasn't either.

Unfortunately, the OP hasn't given us any more detail, so we don't know the actual situation around the original issue. They may indeed have a setting where a heroic party doesn't look askance at the necromancer animating the dead. - Given that the necromancer seems to have been doing that already, presumably without protest, it seems quite likely.

 

[FrogReaver]

Bear in mind that once you started the argument with Flamestrike about animating undead being evil, it took you four. separate. posts. before you actually got around to explaining what your issue was.

I think you have that backwards - he started that argument with me.

Saying the equivalent of "The rule is wrong" four times before getting around to actually attempting to rationalise your opinion as to why it is wrong wasn't helpful.

When all I got back was the same repetition then I was justified in also repeating myself.

Making a false claim, whether through ignorance or malice, as to what someone else is saying wasn't either.

I've not made any false claims.

Unfortunately, the OP hasn't given us any more detail, so we don't know the actual situation around the original issue. They may indeed have a setting where a heroic party doesn't look askance at the necromancer animating the dead. - Given that the necromancer seems to have been doing that already, presumably without protest, it seems quite likely.

Which seems like the obvious conclusion. So why was your newest bestest friend telling everyone that the necromancer couldn't possibly have been good?

 

[Mike Hinshaw]

You can do as you want in your campaign of course.

Have you ever considered how the families of those undead might react seeing little Timmy or Auntie Mary animated as undead monsters?

Like.. even just digging up someones deceased loved one and dumping the body on their front doorstep is pretty damn evil. You have zero empathy for how that will make those people feel, or even worse, you actually get a kick out of it.

Now imagine instead of digging up other peoples loved ones and dumping the bodies, you dig them up and animate them with magic.

I dont know about you, but if my dead brother walked in the door, flesh withered on his still recognisable face, a slave to someone elses magic (presuming such magic existed), I would be devastated, horrified and enraged.

What kind of a 'Good' person would contemplate that? What kind of a morally 'neutral' person would contemplate that?

It would be the actions of someone who puts their own interests over others pain and suffering, and either doesnt care if they hurt others, or doesnt realise they are. Likely a complete sociopath.

And most likely thus, evil.

I agree with the situation that you use here, it could be construed as evil but in most cases that only applies to zombies - skeletons all look pretty much the same. And I never said that I approved of "dumping them on the doorstep", I said that the necromancer reburied them in their original graves. In a world where magic is an everyday thing, people would not see things the same way and might find the experience cathartic, and it would help them with their grief - a good act. You are trying to apply the morals of this society to another society that would see things differently. In modern Haiti, the zombi is an accepted thing, though the practitioners are mostly considered evil, but there is an easy way to lay a zombi to rest - feed it salt.

But I also mentioned official sources that have good necromancers - they heal and do not have anything to do with the raising of the undead. They have access to raise dead and resurrection spells in their Wizard forms.

You are somehow convinced that "Necromancers are evil", and are using a facetious argument to justify that attitude.

BTW - a smart necromancer who is smart does not gather his or her undead from the local cemeteries, so as not to offend any relatives.

Mike Hinshaw