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

[Chaosmancer]

Casting spells with the Necromancy attribute is not evil - I think we all agree on that. You and Flamestrike are arguing from different perspectives. On the one hand you have the lived experiences of those who are victims of the repellent kind of Necromancy, specifically animating the dead - and surely we can agree when the OP created a necromancer they didn't create one to Raise Dead and Heal. On the other hand there are the rules which may or may not define Necromancy explicitly as evil for whatever reason. I'd argue that the victim interpretation is the most important for deep roleplay but is also irrelevant if your table doesn't need or want to go there.

You are assuming cultural norms that may not exist for these "victims".

The culture of death is different across the world. Some places you can't say the name of the deceased for many years. Other places you visit and speak to the deceased every year, and forgetting their names is sacrilegious.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Folks,

There are many ways to mourn. Not all of them include reverence of the grave or the body, or any other particular practice you care to name. So, it is probably not correct, or respectful, to take a different attitude than your own as implying much about personal history, or anything else.

As always, everyone, please try to be respectful of each other. Take special note of when you are generalizing, and be aware of where those generalizations may fail.

 

[Lanefan]

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

For this I'd look at the write-ups in the MM for guidance. If it says there that a type of undead is Evil (and without looking it up I believe that many are so noted) that's a blanket default (a.k.a. universal fact) for the game unless a DM specifically changes it. Absent such changes, the creation and furtherance of such creatures is very hard to justify as anything other than Evil in itself.

Yes, I see Necromancers as generally Evil. And yes, they're allowed as PCs in my game. And yes, I've DMed much the same arguments. The Paladins are close to 0-fer-lifetime in winning any.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except that I agree with @Flamestrike in saying that it's not setting-specific. Just like everything else in the PH, the very fact that it's in there makes it the baseline default; open to variance by each DM as s/he sees fit of course, but absent such variance it's the ruling in the PH.

The assumed default baseline setting in the PHB is a specific setting (or better to call it a specific group of settings).

(probably worth noting here that when I read the PH of any edition I assume what's in it to be universal to the game, and not in any way tied to a single setting unless an example is specifically called out as such in the text; as far as I can tell this ruling is not called out in the PH as a setting-specific example though I'd be happy to be proven wrong)

I don't. Most content in the PH is setting specific. You've got to learn to differentiate what's setting specific content and what isn't.

 

[FrogReaver]

For this I'd look at the write-ups in the MM for guidance. If it says there that a type of undead is Evil (and without looking it up I believe that many are so noted) that's a blanket default (a.k.a. universal fact) for the game unless a DM specifically changes it. Absent such changes, the creation and furtherance of such creatures is very hard to justify as anything other than Evil in itself.

The biggest issue is that the DM doesn't determine if my character is good or evil. He does determine how others in the world react to and view him though.

Yes, I see Necromancers as generally Evil. And yes, they're allowed as PCs in my game. And yes, I've DMed much the same arguments. The Paladins are close to 0-fer-lifetime in winning any.

In my games - if a player wants to play a good Necromancer then he plays a good Necromancer. That doesn't mean the world won't be biased toward viewing him as evil - sorta like the famous Drizt I guess.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Stilvan "The victim interpretation" is probably more about transposing real world ethics and opinions onto a fantasy RPG for no real useful purpose. I'm not saying it can't be done, but mostly that it isn't - I would argue that there might already be too much 'real world' loaded into that idea. You're already judging necromancy by a particular ethical yardstick that may or may nor be appropriate to a given setting. All to often people bring their own ethics and moralizing into games without any critical forethought or indeed any attempt to play the fiction at all. And then they have the effrontery to get hella upset when not everyone wants to hop on their ethical bandwagon. That's where this road leads more often than not. NB, I'm using the royal you here, not pointing a finger and accusing you personally of anything.

I would completely agree that issues of deep trauma aren't what most folks are looking for at the table too, although that could be the seed for an awesome campaign for an interested group.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The only thing that seems to be evil is creating murder machines, but ignoring the part of Animate Dead that states "foul mimcry of life" Animate Dead does not say that the zombie or skeleton you create automatically attacks any living thing around when you lose control of it.

"The Creature is under your control for 24 hours, after which it stops obeying any command you have given it." is the exact wording. And the spell also tells us what the undead you create do when you give them no orders, specifically "If you issue no commands, the creature only defends itself against hostile creatures."

So, why then must we assume the naturally occurring zombies presented in the Monster Manual are the type of zombie you create? If you as a player have no access to the Monster Manual, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that if you lose control of your zombie minion then it simply stands in place, defending itself against any agressors. Nothing in the spell itself tells you that the zombie becomes agressive, unlike Summon Elemental, which does specifically state that the elemental you summon goes berserk and attacks anyone nearby if you lose concentration.

But, the moral implications of Elemental summoning and putting people at risk are never raised.


Edit: So, why is a Necromancer required to have read the Monster Manual and a single line of text in the back of the PHB to know that they are evil, when nothing else tells them such?

Both Skeletons and Zombies are called out as being animated by dark magic cast by spellcasters, as well as being "naturally occurring". The animate dead spell says that the DM has the skeleton or zombie statistics, so I do think that it is likely that the undead created by animate dead are the ones in the monster manual.

Both are specifically called out as killing the living whenever they can when not kept under control. I think that there is a distinction between being under control and not currently given active orders, and no longer being controlled. Once animated, you need to assert control every day. If you fail, they will revert back to killing.

Conjured elementals may attack you if you lose concentration, but they will return to their plane when the spell ends. I believe that they become hostile to the caster specifically however rather than everyone.
Animated dead exist until actually destroyed and will kill any living being that they come across. - Hence my landmine analogy.

If the issue is that you feel the actual information provided to the potential player, particularly a newcomer to the hobby, is not clear, that is fair enough. I had to do some cross-checking before I posted in this thread, because I had some assumptions from previous editions.

 

[Weiley31]

The first actual rule in the fifth edition DMG:

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn't to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more! If you're lucky, the events of your campaign will echo in the memories of your players long after the final game session is concluded."

This, in one form or another, has always been the first and primary rule in all editions of the game.

There is a sourcebook from the second edition that you might want to check out - The Complete Book of Necromancers. In that book, they show how you can be a good necromancer - essentially a necromancer is first and foremost a specialist in the School of Necromancy. Most healing spells are from that school, and versions of clerical spells could easily be researched.

Now, as for the animate dead issue, remember that the Negative Material Plane is not itself evil, just like the Positive Material Plane is not good (it is the source for healing magic). Now, in my campaigns, I allow animation of neutrally aligned undead to do tasks such as building, digging, and other very simple labor tasks without it being evil, as long as the necromancer puts the undead back in their graves at the end. There are many precedents for this in fantasy fiction (see the Xanth series). I see mindless undead as soulless, and therefore you are not necessarily doing an evil act.

There is an interesting part of the 2nd Edition Van Richten's Guide to Vampires. They discuss whether or not a vampire can be good-aligned. It concludes that they can at the beginning, but, as time goes on, they get bitter and their alignment slowly shifts towards evil and chaos. It can take a couple of generations, but it happens.

Look at the reasons that a particular form of the undead that is created. If it is for selfish reasons (such as the lich), or due to evil choices (such as the death knight), then their creation is evil. They retain their souls but raising one who a soulless is a neutral act. BTW the mummy has been postulated to be connected to the Positive Material Plane (Von Richtens's Guide to Mummies).

Mike Hinshaw

I use the Complete Book of Necromancers for Necromancers and Complete Book of Druids for Druids in my 5E games. Great stuff!

 

[Mike Hinshaw]

Both Skeletons and Zombies are called out as being animated by dark magic cast by spellcasters, as well as being "naturally occurring". The animate dead spell says that the DM has the skeleton or zombie statistics, so I do think that it is likely that the undead created by animate dead are the ones in the monster manual.

Both are specifically called out as killing the living whenever they can when not kept under control. I think that there is a distinction between being under control and not currently given active orders, and no longer being controlled. Once animated, you need to assert control every day. If you fail, they will revert back to killing.

Conjured elementals may attack you if you lose concentration, but they will return to their plane when the spell ends. I believe that they become hostile to the caster specifically however rather than everyone.
Animated dead exist until actually destroyed and will kill any living being that they come across. - Hence my landmine analogy.

If the issue is that you feel the actual information provided to the potential player, particularly a newcomer to the hobby, is not clear, that is fair enough. I had to do some cross-checking before I posted in this thread, because I had some assumptions from previous editions.

It has been made very clear in the past by TSR staff that the zombies and skeletons do not react to their environment if they are not attacked or commanded to - they simply stand there. The difference is that Elementals are living creatures who resent being ripped from their home plane to do some petty mortal's (from their point of view) bidding. Animated dead are animated by magic - a force, not a spirit. And like I have said in a reply to a different message, it is only in editions later than third (not familiar enough with fourth edition to include it) that it is stated that "unholy magic" or "dark magic" or "sinister necromantic magic" are what is used to raise skeletons and zombies - reflecting the moral issues that the current writers have.

Mike Hinshaw

 

[Greenfield]

In a 3,5 game I had the group encounter a Cleric of Wee Jas, who is the Lawful Neutral goddess of death and magic. He's one of the few 3.5 deities who allows/favors necromancy. And because, under 3.5 rules a Cleric can be one alignment point away from their deity, I could habve made him a Lawful Good necromancer.

I didn't, it would have been just mean, but it was a fun thought.

The question that plagued the Paladin was that this guy was the recognized, Lawful ruler of his territory, and used th Undead to protect the borders from the hostile critters beyond.

Like any land under siege, they were under near-martial law, but that was needed for survival. Destroy the undead and the population gets slaughtered. Kill the Necromancer and the undead get to run loose, and the population gets slaughtered.

And the worst thing was that the guy really wasn't Evil, just Lawful and rather hardened and dedicated to his duty of protecting the land.

Talk about a Paladin in hell.