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

[Mike Hinshaw]

I get the sense - and hopefully I'm right - that many of you have never experienced up close and personal loss and don't understand the significance of a grave. It's bad enough dealing with the fact that the once cherished, warm and familiar body of your loved one has been subjected to the violation and indignity of an autopsy. So no, treating her like an attack marionette but putting her back after is not ok.

I get it - from 500 feet up it is trivial to animate the corpses of the dead and use them in battle - they are nameless and have no lives or family to care for them - they may even have been your faceless enemies a minute ago. 500 feet up the grave markers and crypts aren't made out of stone out the desire of the bereaved to have a permanent connection to the lost. 500 feet up there are no women and children amongst the orcs and the goblins. 500' up the paladin doesn't have to reconcile his divine conviction with the blatant violation of it happening on round 4. But most of the time I don't want to roleplay at 500' up because then I just get to feeling like I'm playing an overly complex game of Talisman. But that's me - your DM, your table is free to do as it wishes but I'm telling you you're missing out on some of the best the game has to offer. It's ok to be a little uncomfortable sometimes next to your d20.

So if your table is playing beer and pretzels DnD I say bring on the Paladin and have a laugh. If not, don't mix them up with some oddball team-up story because it will lead to irreconcilable conflicts at worst and consume all of the RP oxygen and leave everyone else as a sidekick at best.

Look at existing real-world cultures, and you find that there are many who see the grave the way that you seem to talk about is a sacrilege, depending on the beliefs about death. You are talking about some of this society's beliefs - and even those are not universal in this country. Many Native American tribes would still prefer "sky burials" for instance (the funeral industry has managed to force that out because they do not make money on it). Some societies revere death, to the point of keeping the corpse with the family, having them come to meals and events, etc. As a DM, the job is to think of these things. Also in many cultures, it was not looked on as evil to raise the dead under many circumstances, for instance, until the coming of Christianity, it was OK to raise the dead long enough to get information from them (in the poem Voluspa, the god Odin raises the Volva to answer his questions, and the poem is their conversation). So, why should Christian morality be applied to all D&D cultures?

And as for the paladin - in 5th edition, there are no alignment restrictions on paladins - any religion can have some sort of holy warrior if you take the time to write one up, which there are guidelines in the rules for. So, what alignment, religion, and culture is the paladin from (some cultures are more tolerant than others). The original rules based the paladin on Sir Lancelot, the cleric from the Church Knights, the ranger from Aragorn (LoTR), thieves from the Grey Mouser (Fritz Lieber), so on. Times and attitudes have changed as people with different backgrounds have written parts of the game. That is a good thing - it allows better role-playing.

Mike Hinshaw

 

[Flamestrike]

Could you point to the section in the school of necromancy that calls it "dark unholy magic"?

Open your Monster Manual. Check the entries on Zombies and Skeletons (I presume you're animating the corpse as one of those creatures).

Zombies are described as being animated with magic described as being 'dark magic' and 'sinister necromantic magic'. It also states that the magic that animates the Zombie also 'imbues it with evil, causing it to attack any living creature it encounters.'

Skeletons also are described as being animated by 'dark' magic. The magic is also described as 'sinister necromantic magic'. The spirit that inhabits the skeleton is described as 'hateful and evil'. I goes on to state the Necromantic energy that powers the skeleton compels it to kill, without mercy or compassion.

For references to the magic being 'unholy' look at the Mummy entry. Or the Lich.

So in 5E (unless the DM rules otherwise or the setting stipulates differently) when you animate the dead with necromancy magic:

• It is not a good act (and only evil people do so regularly).
• The magic you are using is expressly 'dark, sinister' magic,
• You are deliberately using this black magic to animate (and thus defile) the the corpse of a once living being by possessing the corpse with a wholly (and metaphysically fundamentally) evil, hateful spirit,
• In order to create a wholly evil monster that is compelled to kill every living thing it encounters without mercy, pity or remorse.

Are we at checkmate yet? Its pretty darn clear to me.

I mean, your DM can rule differently if he wants to. But in RAW 5E, its as clear as it can be that animating the dead is an evil act, using sinister black magic, to defile a corpse, and create a fundamentally evil monster.

 

[Flamestrike]

Also in many cultures, it was not looked on as evil to raise the dead under many circumstances,

In many cultures all sorts of practices are not looked on as evil, from paedophilia to genital mutilation, to slavery to full blown genocide. Conversely, some cultures see things like same sex love as being evil and depraved and subject 'offenders' to the death penalty.

Subjective moral relativism is one thing. However in DnD there are Gods, there is an afterlife and there is objective good and evil, that is NOT relative to cultural norms or subjective. If you live in a culture that is OK with necromancy, diabolism, slavery etc, and youre also OK with that stuff yourself, you're living in an Evil culture and are almost certainly evil yourself.

Take for example the Drow. Or Orcs. Do you want to apply moral relativism to their culture?

 

[Chaosmancer]

In many cultures all sorts of practices are not looked on as evil, from paedophilia to genital mutilation, to slavery to full blown genocide. Conversely, some cultures see things like same sex love as being evil and depraved and subject 'offenders' to the death penalty.

Subjective moral relativism is one thing. However in DnD there are Gods, there is an afterlife and there is objective good and evil, that is NOT relative to cultural norms or subjective. If you live in a culture that is OK with necromancy, diabolism, slavery etc, and youre also OK with that stuff yourself, you're living in an Evil culture and are almost certainly evil yourself.

Take for example the Drow. Or Orcs. Do you want to apply moral relativism to their culture?

You are right, there are Gods, there are afterlives. So, what do you do when the Lawful Church of Anubis or Osiris advocates raising the dead to protect the fields (God of Death or God of Nature and the Underworld respectively)

The Gods are okay with it, they are not Evil gods, so therefore it is not an Evil act, correct?

That is the problem with your moral absolutes, they aren't absolute. If there is a legitimate argument for an LG diety, based upon his worship and symbolism, to be okay with the undead, then how can we say that the Undead are universally evil.

In fact, Osiris (who is in the PHB, which is why I am using him) is actually an Undead god. And, Lawful Good and holds sway over the realm of Nature.

Also, great strawman to go from "some cultures respect the dead by bringing them into their homes" to "some cultures are fine with pedophilia, are you okay with that too?"

Open your Monster Manual. Check the entries on Zombies and Skeletons (I presume you're animating the corpse as one of those creatures).

Zombies are described as being animated with magic described as being 'dark magic' and 'sinister necromantic magic'. It also states that the magic that animates the Zombie also 'imbues it with evil, causing it to attack any living creature it encounters.'

Skeletons also are described as being animated by 'dark' magic. The magic is also described as 'sinister necromantic magic'. The spirit that inhabits the skeleton is described as 'hateful and evil'. I goes on to state the Necromantic energy that powers the skeleton compels it to kill, without mercy or compassion.

For references to the magic being 'unholy' look at the Mummy entry. Or the Lich.

So in 5E (unless the DM rules otherwise or the setting stipulates differently) when you animate the dead with necromancy magic:

• It is not a good act (and only evil people do so regularly).
• The magic you are using is expressly 'dark, sinister' magic,
• You are deliberately using this black magic to animate (and thus defile) the the corpse of a once living being by possessing the corpse with a wholly (and metaphysically fundamentally) evil, hateful spirit,
• In order to create a wholly evil monster that is compelled to kill every living thing it encounters without mercy, pity or remorse.

Are we at checkmate yet? Its pretty darn clear to me.

I mean, your DM can rule differently if he wants to. But in RAW 5E, its as clear as it can be that animating the dead is an evil act, using sinister black magic, to defile a corpse, and create a fundamentally evil monster.

Yet again, The School of Necromancy definition from the class:


"The School of Necromancy explores the cosmic forces of life, death, and undeath. As you focus your studies in this tradition, you learn to manipulate the energy that animates all living things. As you progress, you learn to sap the life force from a creature as your magic destroys its body, transforming that vital energy into magical power you can manipulate.

Most people see necromancers as menacing, or even villainous, due to the close association with death. Not all necromancers are evil, but the forces they manipulate are considered taboo by many societies."


The other section from the back of the book:

"Necromancy spells manipulate the energies of life and death. Such spells can grant an extra reserve of life force, drain the life energy from another creature, create the undead, or even bring the dead back to life."

None of this calls Necromancy "dark magic", "Foul Magic", "Unholy Magic" or even "Sinister Magic"

In fact, Animate Dead is a spell available to all clerics of all alignments of all deities. And only Animate Dead or Create Undead are hinted at for being somehow evil.

But, the spell itself doesn't give us anything to go off of for them being evil. I'll point out that while the Monster Manual has a statblock for the Zombie and the Skeleton, so does the PHB. Yes, those entries list an alignment for those creatures as being evil, but they do not list them attacking the living if uncontrolled.

You can quote the MM, but we can also prove the MM is not fully accurate. Take the Wight. It lists how Wights are formed when mortals are driven by Dark Desires and Vanity and call out to the Demon Prince upon death.

You can also create them with the spell, and that is never mentioned.

Same with Ghouls. Their connections to demonic magic made clear, but you can also create them with a spell.


And, of course the versions in the Monster Manual are the most monstrous versions of the creatures. They are classic villains and monsters for a reason. Read the Drow entry, they are a player race, but they are presented as unambiguously evil. Gnolls, monstrous, but there are places in the Realms and Eberron where there are good gnolls. Minotaurs are created by rituals of cannabalism and slaughter. They are also a noble sea-faring race in a different setting, and in fact, "good" minotaurs show up a lot in fiction.

So, why must all undead be foul, evil, and ect? Exceptions exist for everything. So, why do we take a single line in the PHB which contradicts all of the nuance of Necromancers and hold it up to say "all of this is unilaterally evil with no exceptions"?

 

[Flamestrike]

You are right, there are Gods, there are afterlives. So, what do you do when the Lawful Church of Anubis or Osiris advocates raising the dead to protect the fields (God of Death or God of Nature and the Underworld respectively)

The Gods are okay with it, they are not Evil gods, so therefore it is not an Evil act, correct?

Source in 5E where either God advocated such things please?

I dont want to know about a source from anywhere else. We're talking 5E here.

None of this calls Necromancy "dark magic", "Foul Magic", "Unholy Magic" or even "Sinister Magic"

Necromancy by itself isnt dark magic, foul magic, unholy or sinister.

When used to animate the dead it is 'dark, foul, sinister, black magic, unholy and evil'. It expressly says so in the Monster Manual, and infers as much in the magic section of the PHB.

Only Animate Dead or Create Undead are hinted at for being somehow evil.

Hinted at as being evil? Hinted at?

At least we're getting somewhere. RAW: Animating the dead is not a good act, and only evil casters do so frequently. It is expressly called out as being 'dark, sinister, black magic' (citation already provided) that expressly forces a fundamentally evil spirit into the corpse of a dead creature, defiling that corpse and creating an evil murderous monster.

A bit more than 'hinting' that its evil, wouldn't you agree?

But, the spell itself doesn't give us anything to go off of for them being evil. I'll point out that while the Monster Manual has a statblock for the Zombie and the Skeleton, so does the PHB. Yes, those entries list an alignment for those creatures as being evil, but they do not list them attacking the living if uncontrolled.

Are we ignoring the Monster Manual now? Are we ignoring the text on Zombies and Skeletons that expressly states that they're evil murderous killing machines, with a fundamentally evil alignment, powered by 'dark, sinister' magic?

That's rather convenient for your argument isnt it?

I suppose if we also ignore the PHB section on Necromancy where it states that creating undead with necromancy is evil, you might actually be correct.

You can quote the MM, but we can also prove the MM is not fully accurate. Take the Wight. It lists how Wights are formed when mortals are driven by Dark Desires and Vanity and call out to the Demon Prince upon death.

Perfectly Lawful Good. No inference of 'evil' there at all either.

Same with Ghouls. Their connections to demonic magic made clear, but you can also create them with a spell.

So... Mummies are brought into being with pledges to Dark Gods and unholy magic, Wights are mortals driven by dark desires who call out to a demon prince on death, Ghouls are connected to demonic magic, Zombies and Skeletons are created with 'dark, sinister' magic, Liches are expressly evil spellcasters in order to become one, Death Knights are evil making pacts with Demons and so forth. All are expressly evilly aligned, and expressly powered by evil entities, via unholy magic or similar.

Not exactly screaming out 'good' is it?

So, why must all undead be foul, evil, and ect?

For the billionth time, they dont have to be. You can do whatever you want in your own game. I'm only citing the rules as they exist in the CRB's.

If you want Good aligned necromancers, genocidal murderers, diabolists, torturers or slavers, (because those things are seen as accepted in their societies) more luck to you.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If you want Good aligned necromancers, genocidal murderers, diabolists, torturers or slavers, (because those things are seen as accepted in their societies) more luck to you.

Why is it always "if you want nuance you must want torture, slavery and genocide too"?

Since you want Western Christian values in your societies you must want witch burnings too right? No, of course not, that isn't what you are saying at all, so why is my position that there can be nuance in creating undead met with calls of Genocide being okay?

Are we ignoring the Monster Manual now? Are we ignoring the text on Zombies and Skeletons that expressly states that they're evil murderous killing machines, with a fundamentally evil alignment, powered by 'dark, sinister' magic?

That's rather convenient for your argument isnt it?

I suppose if we also ignore the PHB section on Necromancy where it states that creating undead with necromancy is evil, you might actually be correct.

Perfectly Lawful Good. No inference of 'evil' there at all either.

So... Mummies are brought into being with pledges to Dark Gods and unholy magic, Wights are mortals driven by dark desires who call out to a demon prince on death, Ghouls are connected to demonic magic, Zombies and Skeletons are created with 'dark, sinister' magic, Liches are expressly evil spellcasters in order to become one, Death Knights are evil making pacts with Demons and so forth. All are expressly evilly aligned, and expressly powered by evil entities, via unholy magic or similar.

Not exactly screaming out 'good' is it?

Missing the point.

You said that Zombies created by Animate Dead must be the same as the Zombies in the MM, because the Monster Manual specifically calls out "being raised by foul necrotic magic" as a source for zombies.

It doesn't say that for the greater undead though, which means the Monster Manual isn't a perfect depiction of all the ways these creatures can be created.

So, if the spell doesn't call them out as killing everyone if control is lost, and the monster manual is not a completely definitive version of the monsters within it, then there is ambiguity, Sure, they could be like the Monster Manual says, but they do not have to be by default.

You could summon "evil spirits" to posses the corpse and make a zombie. But, why can't you summon a "good spirit" to do the same? Good Spirits exist, we have many instances of them, so why can't they be utilized to animate a body?

Source

in 5E where either God advocated such things please?

I dont want to know about a source from anywhere else. We're talking 5E here.

Okay, page 298 says that "Thus, although most clerics of the Death domain (found in the Dungeon Master’s Guide) are villainous characters, clerics who serve Anubis or Nephthys need not be." And, reading the Death Domain shows us that as a Domain spell, they get Animate Dead.

So, non-evil cleric, granted Animate Dead by the Gods.

Now, you might call forth and say that Osiris isn't mentioned there, but, while we don't actually get a breakdown of their beliefs and myths in 5e, in Egyptian mythology Osiris is the First Mummy, raised imperfectly from the dead by his wife Isis. So, just as we can assume that Thor is Odin's Son and Hera is married to Zeus, we can logically deduce that Osiris is a Mummy.

What did the Monster Manual say again? "Mummies are brought into being with pledges to Dark Gods and unholy magic" How do you figure that works when a Lawful Good God is, himself, a mummy and in fact is the origin of pretty much all mummy lore?

Despite what the MM tells us, it is well known that Egyptian culture (and therefore their dieities which are canonical in DnD) saw mummies as protectors of the Tomb and the happy afterlife of those they protected, made with the blessings of the Gods (the canopic jars where the mummies organs were stored were made in the image of the Sons of Horus. While Horus isn't named directly in the PHB, being the Sun God he would probably be Re-Horakhty, who is LG, and since his children were associated with protection, they would likely also be at least Good)

So, pretty solid evidence overall.

For the billionth time, they dont have to be. You can do whatever you want in your own game. I'm only citing the rules as they exist in the CRB's.

Which are contradicted by those same core rule books. We have a lot of "necromancy isn't necessarily evil" with explicit Good God approved animation of the dead. At the absolute farthest end of your absolute morality, you can declare Necromancy neutral.

Killing a person and putting a genocidal soul into the body? Evil.
Using the soul of a great hero to defend the walls of the castle against demons? Sound pretty good to me.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Interesting - I always thought that in 1e-era they just continued on cruise control, performing whatever act or task they were last commanded to do until destroyed or either re-instructed by their original controller or taken control of by someone else. Example: the zombies found in the lower level of module N-1, that endlessly operate the pump that bails the place out.

Your example would only apply had they been animated and then never commanded to do anything at all (or commanded to just stand there); a rare situation.

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.

Perhaps relevant to note, then, that the original discussion revolves around events in a 5e game.

 

[Lanefan]

You are right, there are Gods, there are afterlives. So, what do you do when the Lawful Church of Anubis or Osiris advocates raising the dead to protect the fields (God of Death or God of Nature and the Underworld respectively)

The Gods are okay with it, they are not Evil gods, so therefore it is not an Evil act, correct?

In my game both deities would be LE.

Yet again, The School of Necromancy definition from the class:


"The School of Necromancy explores the cosmic forces of life, death, and undeath. As you focus your studies in this tradition, you learn to manipulate the energy that animates all living things. As you progress, you learn to sap the life force from a creature as your magic destroys its body, transforming that vital energy into magical power you can manipulate.

Most people see necromancers as menacing, or even villainous, due to the close association with death. Not all necromancers are evil, but the forces they manipulate are considered taboo by many societies."


The other section from the back of the book:

"Necromancy spells manipulate the energies of life and death. Such spells can grant an extra reserve of life force, drain the life energy from another creature, create the undead, or even bring the dead back to life."

The problem with these two passages, as has been brought up by others here, is that for some reason they only tell part of the story. One has to dig elsewhere for the rest.

In fact, Animate Dead is a spell available to all clerics of all alignments of all deities. And only Animate Dead or Create Undead are hinted at for being somehow evil.

While Animate Dead is (and always has been, I think) available to Clerics of all alignments and of most deities, that doesn't by any means suggest that a Good Cleric ought to be casting it - ever - except in the direst of circumstances.

But, the spell itself doesn't give us anything to go off of for them being evil. I'll point out that while the Monster Manual has a statblock for the Zombie and the Skeleton, so does the PHB. Yes, those entries list an alignment for those creatures as being evil, but they do not list them attacking the living if uncontrolled.

You can quote the MM, but we can also prove the MM is not fully accurate. Take the Wight. It lists how Wights are formed when mortals are driven by Dark Desires and Vanity and call out to the Demon Prince upon death.

You can also create them with the spell, and that is never mentioned.

Same with Ghouls. Their connections to demonic magic made clear, but you can also create them with a spell.

Well, that's messy if it's true.

That seems to imply there's two different versions of these creatures. Whaddya wanna bet they intentionally toned down the PC-created versions to avoid the spectre of Evil PCs rearing its ugly head?

And, of course the versions in the Monster Manual are the most monstrous versions of the creatures. They are classic villains and monsters for a reason. Read the Drow entry, they are a player race, but they are presented as unambiguously evil.

Same problem as above: two versions of the same thing.

Really dumb, if this is in fact what they did.

So, why must all undead be foul, evil, and ect? Exceptions exist for everything. So, why do we take a single line in the PHB which contradicts all of the nuance of Necromancers and hold it up to say "all of this is unilaterally evil with no exceptions"?

In part I see it as an attempt to find a mirror evil class for the goody-two-shoes Paladin. It used to be Assassin, but they seem to have fallen out of vogue these days with everyone wanting to cast spells, and Necro's have taken their place.

 

[Flamestrike]

Why is it always "if you want nuance you must want torture, slavery and genocide too"?

How does saying Necromancy (or anything else for that matter, like genocide or torture or whatever) is evil, remove nuance?

Like; the character can think he's doing good. Genuinely believe it in fact. Heck; most people who engage in truly abhorrent and evil things honestly believe they're good people or doing it for a good reason (which makes them good).

They're not good. They're evil.

There is nothing wrong with a Necromancer PC who studies the dark arts and animates the dead frequently from genuinely thinking he is morally Good. He isnt of course (and will go to the Nine Hells or wherever on death), but he doesnt know that.

Nuance is preserved.

Since you want Western Christian values in your societies

Huh?

You said that Zombies created by Animate Dead must be the same as the Zombies in the MM, because the Monster Manual specifically calls out "being raised by foul necrotic magic" as a source for zombies.

Well yeah. The Zombies created by the Animate Dead spell in 5E DnD are the Monster Manual Zombies. They sure as hell arent the ones found in Rolemaster, Runequest or Savage Worlds.

So, if the spell doesn't call them out as killing everyone if control is lost, and the monster manual is not a completely definitive version of the monsters within it, then there is ambiguity, Sure, they could be like the Monster Manual says, but they do not have to be by default.

In the MM it expressly states they go around killing everything that moves if control is lost. Because they're animated by murderous fundamentally (metaphysically) evil spirits that the Necromancer has willingly forced into the body using his extensive knowledge of 'sinister' and 'dark' magic, in an act (animating the dead with necromancy magic) that is not Good, and that only Evil people do with any frequency.

Im not going to let you move the goal posts here, or (as you're trying to do) ignore express text in the Core rulebooks. You might not like that text, but I dont really care if you do. It's there.

In your own games you run you can ignore it as much as you want. In this discussion you cant.

You could summon "evil spirits" to posses the corpse and make a zombie. But, why can't you summon a "good spirit" to do the same?

Because it says you summon evil spirits. Thats how Necromancy works.

In your games you can rule that a Neromancer can summon benevolent spirits if you want. I dont really care what you do in your games. In 5E DnD, by the rules, you cant.

Okay, page 298 says that "Thus, although most clerics of the Death domain (found in the Dungeon Master’s Guide) are villainous characters, clerics who serve Anubis or Nephthys need not be." And, reading the Death Domain shows us that as a Domain spell, they get Animate Dead.

So, non-evil cleric, granted Animate Dead by the Gods.

Yeah. Like I said, Good PCs can (rarely) use the animate dead spell. They're not barred from casting it, it's just that doing so is not a Good act and only Evil creatures do so frequently.

Despite what the MM tells us, it is well known that Egyptian culture (and therefore their dieities which are canonical in DnD) saw mummies as protectors of the Tomb and the happy afterlife of those they protected, made with the blessings of the Gods (the canopic jars where the mummies organs were stored were made in the image of the Sons of Horus. While Horus isn't named directly in the PHB, being the Sun God he would probably be Re-Horakhty, who is LG, and since his children were associated with protection, they would likely also be at least Good)

If you're running a game in Ancient Egypt feel free to rule one can create Good undead.

If you're running a game 'by the book', you cant, and only Evil creatures do so regularly.

Killing a person and putting a genocidal soul into the body? Evil.
Using the soul of a great hero to defend the walls of the castle against demons? Sound pretty good to me.

Nah. The second thing is as evil as the first. Motive and intent doesnt matter. In the latter case, youre just commiting an act of evil to achieve a good end.

Like (say) if you were to brutally torture a person (even an evil person) to get the information needed to save the lives of a bunch of innocents. You're evil. Your motive doesnt matter. Ditto if you committed genocide on an entire race of evil people (say... Drow) in order to end their menace and save countless innocents. You're still evil.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

In many cultures all sorts of practices are not looked on as evil, from paedophilia to genital mutilation, to slavery to full blown genocide. Conversely, some cultures see things like same sex love as being evil and depraved and subject 'offenders' to the death penalty.

Can we tone down the real-life comparisons please? We're talking about imaginary worlds, with their own consistency, and actual hard-and-fast ethical system, unlike real life.
The existence of real-life cultures that normalise things we consider "evil" isn't generally relevant unless you're intending to appropriate them as-is into your fantasy world without change, and in most D&D worlds, there are actual objective Good and Evil (although the DM is the final arbiter of that.)

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.

Note that IIRC, he could have been Lawful Good, but if he was, he could not have cast Animate Dead.

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.

In Eberron, there are parallels with Karrnath, a nation that turned to using undead due to food shortages during a long war.
(Although the ruler and the forces involved there were actually evil.)

You are right, there are Gods, there are afterlives. So, what do you do when the Lawful Church of Anubis or Osiris advocates raising the dead to protect the fields (God of Death or God of Nature and the Underworld respectively)

The Gods are okay with it, they are not Evil gods, so therefore it is not an Evil act, correct?

I would assume setting-specific rules like changes to the animate dead spell, the alignment or behaviour of undead, or the existence of rituals that allow control to be maintained over them for longer than a day.

That is the problem with your moral absolutes, they aren't absolute. If there is a legitimate argument for an LG diety, based upon his worship and symbolism, to be okay with the undead, then how can we say that the Undead are universally evil.

In fact, Osiris (who is in the PHB, which is why I am using him) is actually an Undead god. And, Lawful Good and holds sway over the realm of Nature.

In your setting, Osiris may well appropriate the real-life mythology of the Egyptian god. But he wasn't created by any spell that a PC necromancer could cast, so I'm assuming the DM invoked special rules.
Outside of that, note that whatever the alignment of the person beforehand, the standard mummy created by the standard spell is Lawful Evil. It exists only to punish the transgressors of what it was set in place to do, and will happily perform evil acts to do so.
Again, its the landmine analogy. Using dark funerary rituals to create an eternal guardian for your king's tomb is Right and Just, since only criminals would profane it, and everyone knows the punishment.
Fast forward a couple of centuries after the fall of your Eternal empire, someone wonders whats with the weird ruins, and next thing you know, a hideous death machine has murdered the entire village.

Animating the bodies of some already-dead people to create tomb guardians that will be sealed away from the general populace is still messing with dark magic and bringing evil into the world,. But it is probably regarded as a responsible and state- or religion-sanctioned use of evil and a good example of a potential use by a non-evil person.

Yet again, The School of Necromancy definition from the class:


"The School of Necromancy explores the cosmic forces of life, death, and undeath. As you focus your studies in this tradition, you learn to manipulate the energy that animates all living things. As you progress, you learn to sap the life force from a creature as your magic destroys its body, transforming that vital energy into magical power you can manipulate.

Most people see necromancers as menacing, or even villainous, due to the close association with death. Not all necromancers are evil, but the forces they manipulate are considered taboo by many societies."


The other section from the back of the book:

"Necromancy spells manipulate the energies of life and death. Such spells can grant an extra reserve of life force, drain the life energy from another creature, create the undead, or even bring the dead back to life."

None of this calls Necromancy "dark magic", "Foul Magic", "Unholy Magic" or even "Sinister Magic"

Once again, there is a distinction between the entire School of Necromancy, and the Animate Dead spell.

In fact, Animate Dead is a spell available to all clerics of all alignments of all deities. And only Animate Dead or Create Undead are hinted at for being somehow evil.

But, the spell itself doesn't give us anything to go off of for them being evil. I'll point out that while the Monster Manual has a statblock for the Zombie and the Skeleton, so does the PHB. Yes, those entries list an alignment for those creatures as being evil, but they do not list them attacking the living if uncontrolled.

The statblocks in the back of the PHB do not contain any information about the behaviour of any of the creatures there. - Just the mechanical stats.

You can quote the MM, but we can also prove the MM is not fully accurate. Take the Wight. It lists how Wights are formed when mortals are driven by Dark Desires and Vanity and call out to the Demon Prince upon death.

You can also create them with the spell, and that is never mentioned.

Same with Ghouls. Their connections to demonic magic made clear, but you can also create them with a spell.

The existence of one method of creating an undead does not preclude other methods.

So, why must all undead be foul, evil, and ect? Exceptions exist for everything. So, why do we take a single line in the PHB which contradicts all of the nuance of Necromancers and hold it up to say "all of this is unilaterally evil with no exceptions"?

Because not all necromancers create undead, and the occasional evil act doesn't always change your alignment.
I've never made the claim that "all undead be foul, evil, and ect". Just that the standard Skeletons and Zombies, as created by the Animate Dead spell have the stats and behaviour listed. Exceptions can always exist at the whim of the DM.

You could summon "evil spirits" to posses the corpse and make a zombie. But, why can't you summon a "good spirit" to do the same? Good Spirits exist, we have many instances of them, so why can't they be utilized to animate a body?

Ask your DM if they could tweak things to allow this.

I've actually had an wizard character of mine animate a bunch of dead bodies in a pinch without trucking with evil spirits and the like. Alternatives exist.

Okay, page 298 says that "Thus, although most clerics of the Death domain (found in the Dungeon Master’s Guide) are villainous characters, clerics who serve Anubis or Nephthys need not be." And, reading the Death Domain shows us that as a Domain spell, they get Animate Dead.

So, non-evil cleric, granted Animate Dead by the Gods.

Now, you might call forth and say that Osiris isn't mentioned there, but, while we don't actually get a breakdown of their beliefs and myths in 5e, in Egyptian mythology Osiris is the First Mummy, raised imperfectly from the dead by his wife Isis. So, just as we can assume that Thor is Odin's Son and Hera is married to Zeus, we can logically deduce that Osiris is a Mummy.

What did the Monster Manual say again? "Mummies are brought into being with pledges to Dark Gods and unholy magic" How do you figure that works when a Lawful Good God is, himself, a mummy and in fact is the origin of pretty much all mummy lore?

Despite what the MM tells us, it is well known that Egyptian culture (and therefore their dieities which are canonical in DnD) saw mummies as protectors of the Tomb and the happy afterlife of those they protected, made with the blessings of the Gods (the canopic jars where the mummies organs were stored were made in the image of the Sons of Horus. While Horus isn't named directly in the PHB, being the Sun God he would probably be Re-Horakhty, who is LG, and since his children were associated with protection, they would likely also be at least Good)

So, pretty solid evidence overall.

Which are contradicted by those same core rule books. We have a lot of "necromancy isn't necessarily evil" with explicit Good God approved animation of the dead. At the absolute farthest end of your absolute morality, you can declare Necromancy neutral.

1) Setting-specific fluff can override general default fluff.
2) I'm pretty sure D&D Osiris doesn't use any of the statistics for the mummy in the MM. Or even the mummy lord.
3) The aforementioned "responsible" use of evil powers.