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

[Chaosmancer]

Easy. It's a test of morals.

The deity grants the spell daily to determine if the Cleric's morals are strong enough to resist the temptation to actually cast it. If the Cleric passes the test by not casting it, s/he gets her spells again tomorrow. If s/he fails? Well...

That's a stupid test of morals to be blunt.

 

[Lanefan]

To add to this, another source from the DMG, The Horn of Valhalla.

The Horn of Valhalla summons spirits from Ysgard. Valhalla being the resting place for the souls of the warrior dead, Ysgard being where the Norse gods dwell, these are clearly the spirits of the dead being summoned to fight for you.

They are not evil, the horn is not evil, this is not called out as an evil act.

So, again, it is completely possible to summon good spirits of the dead to fight and it be a good act.

Here we'll immediately get into setting-specific issues; as all I can speak to are my own rationalizations around this.

First off, the huge difference between the Horn of Valhalla and most other summoning things - never mind raising of undead - is that in this case the spirits that respond are willing and eager to do so. They want to fight! Hell, they spend all their time in Valhalla fighting and drinking and boasting anyway, why not do it somewhere else for a few minutes? And if they die gloriously while summoned they'll go straight back to Valhalla and have something new to boast about!

The various Summon Warrior type spells also invariably get a ready-and-willing respondent from the casting Cleric's land of the dead.

Summon Monster and their ilk, however, are very much more a gray area: you're taking what might otherwise be an innocent 'monster' from the surrounding area and (most of the time) ordering it to die for you. Sure, more often than not what's summoned deserves to die anyway, and-or is more than willing to fight whatever's in front of it; but not always. I've had players with MUs who have this spell but refuse to cast it except in the direst of situations, for just this reason.

But making undead is a different ball o' wax entirely. Other than those few who voluntarily choose to become undead (e.g. your typical Lich), the default is that the target's spirit is ALWAYS unwilling even though it usually gets no say in the matter i.e. no save to resist; if for no other reason than being raised as undead a) removes any chance of ever being revived to conventional life and b) often interferes with the spirit reaching its land of the dead, where and whatever that may be.

And neither a) nor b) can ever really be considered Good.

 

[Lanefan]

That's a stupid test of morals to be blunt.

Why? It's just a different take on the whole 'temptation' thing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why? It's just a different take on the whole 'temptation' thing.

Because you are giving them a tool, a tool you have approved of them using, but only "occasionally" and then you wish to punish them for using the tool. It would be like a mage's college teaching their students Fireball, and then telling them "Now don't use it, if you use it we'll know you aren't responsible enough to have magical powers"

Well, first off, the responsible ones aren't going to use it poorly, so you've accomplished nothing except giving it to the irresponsible ones. People who you have already taught magic to for a long time by this point. If you don't want people to use something, don't give it to them. If there are times when using it is appropriate, don't punish them for using it.

But making undead is a different ball o' wax entirely. Other than those few who voluntarily choose to become undead (e.g. your typical Lich), the default is that the target's spirit is ALWAYS unwilling even though it usually gets no say in the matter i.e. no save to resist; if for no other reason than being raised as undead a) removes any chance of ever being revived to conventional life and b) often interferes with the spirit reaching its land of the dead, where and whatever that may be.

And neither a) nor b) can ever really be considered Good.

Skipping to this part.

Why must we assume that the spirit is unwilling? First of all, if Flamestrike is correct and it is an evil omnicidal spirit, then it is actually perfectly willing to come and fight and kill things. Secondly, why add the element of putting an unwilling spirit in when we can instead put willing spiritis in.

A) Most people don't have that chance anyways, so it is a moot point. Kind of like saying it removes your chance to go swordfishing from your yacht, most people don't have that chance at all anyways, so removing it is a pointless triviality.

B) Who says this is bad to delay? We clearly can bring back the rich and powerful with Raise Dead, and that isn't Evil. In fact, it can be Good. And it isn't like the Spirit will never go to the Land of the Dead, what are a few more decades in the face of eternity? Finally, if you have it in regards to defending a temple or a kingdom, then how is it different from being in the Army and devoting your life to a cause? A Questing Paladin might never see their home and family ever again, constantly called away to conflict. That isn't "good" but the sacrifice is noble and the devotion to the cause is seen as being virtuous, why can that same devotion not be extended to service beyond death? Wouldn't giving up your final rest to serve even after your service killed you the first time be even more heroic?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I'm simply extrapolating his existence from the listing in the PHB and his real life mythology. Considering it is not out of line to put forth that Artemis (famous for her virinity and hatred of men) is not married to a male god and that Tyr lost his hand to Fenrir (those cementing his role as a God of Courage) then I consider it equally fair to consider Osiris, whose entire mythological existence is to be the First Mummy, to be a Mummy.

I'm simply pointing out that PC-castable spells can't even create a Mummy Lord, let alone a Mummy God. So however he was created, it was under DM intervention, not something a PC could do.

I'm also a little spotty on the rl myth, but I thought the mummification of Osiris was just a stage in the process of preserving and protecting his body so he could sire Horus and then be resurrected/pass into the afterlife. I'm really not sure that Osiris was worshipped as being a mummy.

See, this only sort of works, because of what you put here.

How so?

One way to create undead does not preclude other methods. The mechanical statblock of a zombie or skeleton does not require the the text in the Monster Manual which claims they are omnicidal and will kill any living thing if they are uncontrolled by the spell.

So, looking at the spell, which does not say that losing control leads to the undead attacking all living things without mercy... is it not logical that it is therefore possible that they do not? That there is a different method from creating undead than what is listed in the Monster Manual?

The text of the MM entries really does go into detail about Skeletons raised by spell, and their capabilities. The text of the spell says nothing of the behaviour of an uncontrolled Skeleton, but the MM does, as well as its capabilities when controlled by a master.
I believe that it is likely that a DM is intended to use the MM entry for Skeletons when adjudicating use of them while controlled and uncontrolled, even when summoned by a PC. The MM says Skeletons cannot speak for example, while the Animate Dead spell does not mention that. I do not believe that a player should try to use that fact to argue that the skeletons they raised can talk.

Some of the posters I am debating with disagree with you, they claim that the rules of the core books preclude all alternatives. Despite the core books granting those very same alternatives.

Really? I'm pretty sure that most people in the thread wouldn't have an issue with that particular case. (He used Animate Object spell.)
(I mean other posters probably wouldn't have an issue with the rules there. They might have had a moral issue due to it still being macabre and unrespectful, but it wasn't necromancy, and there was no messing with evil spirits.)

Again, I must believe that unless they wrote differently, Osiris is left in a recognizable form. His entire purpose in the mythology is to be killed and brought back as an undead, removing that would be like making Zeus chaste or Thor a trickster.

And, since the act of mummification was blessed by good dieties, and the first mummy is himself an LG deity, that stretches things to call the creation of undead "use of evil powers" since every power involved is in fact Good.

And while setting fluff can override general, Flamestrike wanted me to use only the corebooks, using setting material is far easier since good undead exist in at least 3 of the 5 settings I'm aware of being published for 5e. The majority of settings, as it turns out.

Note that there are several references to "dark" rituals and gods, but not "evil" in the creation of a mummy in the MM.
I think that it is entirely possible that a Lawful deity would sanction the creation of an evil being to fulfil a lawful purpose (punishment of transgressors of divine law.)
Remember that most mummies aren't driven to kill the living like skeletons and zombies are. They are still evil and still willing to kill innocents to fulfil their purpose, but their only drive is to fulfil their purpose and punish the transgression that awoke them. If correct restitution is made, or after it has fulfilled its purpose, a mummy returns to its rest rather than acting like an uncontrolled skeleton.

More independent mummies, such as those of rulers created to defy death, are under DM jurisdiction, and cannot be created by PCs.

Problem there is that players get one take in the PH while DMs get another take in the MM, leading to confusion all round. DM says "They're all evil!", player says "Wait a minute, no they're not!" and - amazingly - both can pull out legitimate RAW to defend their positions.

Which strikes me as rather dumb design and little more than a breeding ground for arguments.

Note that Skeletons and Zombies are evil in both the PHB and the MM. Its not a case of two sources contradicting each other. Furthermore the spell states that the DM has the statistics for them, not that the player should use the ones in the back of the PHB.
The issue is that the PHB only has the statblocks, while the MM has information about the description, appearance and origin of the creatures in it. In the case of Skeletons for example, this includes details of those raised by spells, and their behaviour while under control, and while not controlled.

I feel that it is a logical progression that the DM would use the MM details for a Skeleton raised by a PC, including its behaviour "temporarily or permanently free of a master's control" (as the MM states it - it really is quite distinct.)

Are the non-evil undead the same in each setting? For example, if Skeletons are non-evil in all three then a case is putting itself together to maybe make them non-evil by default; but if it's Skeletons in one setting and Zombies in another and Vampires in a third those all fall under setting-specific exceptions.

I believe that Skeletons and Zombies; the types of undead created by the Animate dead spell, are one of the few creature types that still have fixed alignment in Eberron: they are still Evil.
Intelligent and independent undead (such as vampires) can have non-evil alignments, although they tend towards evil. Deathless can be on any alignment.

As far as I'm aware, Ravnica and FR are similar: Standard Skeletons and Zombies use the usual MM stats, but there are independent undead (often vampires or other examples where the original spirit resides in the body) that are not evil.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm simply pointing out that PC-castable spells can't even create a Mummy Lord, let alone a Mummy God. So however he was created, it was under DM intervention, not something a PC could do.

I'm also a little spotty on the rl myth, but I thought the mummification of Osiris was just a stage in the process of preserving and protecting his body so he could sire Horus and then be resurrected/pass into the afterlife. I'm really not sure that Osiris was worshipped as being a mummy.

Sure, a PC can't turn a God into a mummy.

But, if the God is an Undead, and LG, then how can that god declare undead to be evil? Why would he provide a form of the spell to create undead that is evil? Why would mummies made (I believe Create Undead does make mummies, but I could be wrong) in this God's purview, be evil monsters bound by dark magics of evil gods?

The point isn't "PCs can copy what was done" but that if that is possible, then why are lesser forms of good undead not possible?

The text of the MM entries really does go into detail about Skeletons raised by spell, and their capabilities. The text of the spell says nothing of the behaviour of an uncontrolled Skeleton, but the MM does, as well as its capabilities when controlled by a master.

I believe that it is likely that a DM is intended to use the MM entry for Skeletons when adjudicating use of them while controlled and uncontrolled, even when summoned by a PC. The MM says Skeletons cannot speak for example, while the Animate Dead spell does not mention that. I do not believe that a player should try to use that fact to argue that the skeletons they raised can talk.

Skeletons have very rarely been able to talk across any media. I'd say you have a better debate with zombies.

But that is part of the problem here isn't it? There is only a single sentence that players have access to calling Animate Dead evil. And nothing about the spell itself gives a solid reason for it to be evil. You need to have read the Monster Manual, and accept that the Monster Manual is giving an accurate picture of all instances of skeletons and zombies. Which it isn't. After all, players can't make Ogre Zombies or Beholder Zombies, even though they are covered by the same lore and very similar mechanics. Same with Warhorse Skeletons or Minotaur Skeletons.

So, I feel it is fair to question, if the MM is not 100% accurate as to what is going on, and the player has no information from the MM anyways, why must we assume that the character is committing an evil act by binding a hateful spirit to the dead body? The player has no way to know that unless the DM tells them, and I can't think of a very good reason the DM would force them to do so, if they could instead bind a good spirit of a protector to the body.

Note that there are several references to "dark" rituals and gods, but not "evil" in the creation of a mummy in the MM.

They are being used synonymously

I think that it is entirely possible that a Lawful deity would sanction the creation of an evil being to fulfil a lawful purpose (punishment of transgressors of divine law.)
Remember that most mummies aren't driven to kill the living like skeletons and zombies are. They are still evil and still willing to kill innocents to fulfil their purpose, but their only drive is to fulfil their purpose and punish the transgression that awoke them. If correct restitution is made, or after it has fulfilled its purpose, a mummy returns to its rest rather than acting like an uncontrolled skeleton.

More independent mummies, such as those of rulers created to defy death, are under DM jurisdiction, and cannot be created by PCs.

But why must they be evil? Osiris is Lawful Good, the canopic jars referenced by the Mummy Lord have always depicted Good deities from the pantheon, the sons of Horus.

I'm not saying you can't make an evil mummy, I'm asking why you can't make a good one?

Note that Skeletons and Zombies are evil in both the PHB and the MM. Its not a case of two sources contradicting each other. Furthermore the spell states that the DM has the statistics for them, not that the player should use the ones in the back of the PHB.
The issue is that the PHB only has the statblocks, while the MM has information about the description, appearance and origin of the creatures in it. In the case of Skeletons for example, this includes details of those raised by spells, and their behaviour while under control, and while not controlled.

I feel that it is a logical progression that the DM would use the MM details for a Skeleton raised by a PC, including its behaviour "temporarily or permanently free of a master's control" (as the MM states it - it really is quite distinct.)

But why are they evil if there is no reason they must be evil? What prevents you from using necromancy to bind a willing, good soul to a body and make a good zombie?

I believe that Skeletons and Zombies; the types of undead created by the Animate dead spell, are one of the few creature types that still have fixed alignment in Eberron: they are still Evil.
Intelligent and independent undead (such as vampires) can have non-evil alignments, although they tend towards evil. Deathless can be on any alignment.

As far as I'm aware, Ravnica and FR are similar: Standard Skeletons and Zombies use the usual MM stats, but there are independent undead (often vampires or other examples where the original spirit resides in the body) that are not evil.

Ravinica has the Golgari Spore Druids, who make Zombies (using the zombie statblock specifically) from spores and fungus control. No evil spirits anywhere involved in that. They also have the Erstwhile, which are a version of wights who are nobles, but not necessarily evil.

And with the Deathless in Eberron, whether or not Zombies are traditionally evil or not, we know that it is possible to make Good Undead.

 

[Flamestrike]

So the only thing standing between necromancers and "not being evil" is summoning a good or neutral spirit with Animate Dead instead of an Evil one.

Which you can't do in RAW 5E. The spirits you summon are evil, they create evil monsters, which if uncontrolled kill everything around them, without pity or remorse. The magic you use to do so is 'dark and sinister', it is 'not a good act' to use such magic, and 'only evil' people do so regularly.

I'm going to copy and past the above rules ad nauseum until you get it.

Now (again) in YOUR campaigns YOU run, you can choose to ignore those rules (like you can ignore any other rules). You can have Animate Dead with necromancy not be evil, you can rule that Good spirits can animate the dead or whatever the heck you want to rule.

Until such a time, lets stick to the PHB and the MM in the actual rules eh?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Which you can't do in RAW 5E. The spirits you summon are evil, they create evil monsters, which if uncontrolled kill everything around them, without pity or remorse. The magic you use to do so is 'dark and sinister', it is 'not a good act' to use such magic, and 'only evil' people do so regularly.

I'm going to copy and past the above rules ad nauseum until you get it.

Now (again) in YOUR campaigns YOU run, you can choose to ignore those rules (like you can ignore any other rules). You can have Animate Dead with necromancy not be evil, you can rule that Good spirits can animate the dead or whatever the heck you want to rule.

Until such a time, lets stick to the PHB and the MM in the actual rules eh?

The rules which allow a Lawful Good Diety who is canonically undead to give an evil spell that creates only evil undead to his Lawful Good Followers.

I get you want it to be black and white, but considering the trouble the writers went through to make some grey areas, I would think that would mean something.

 

[Flamestrike]

The rules which allow a Lawful Good Diety who is canonically undead to give an evil spell that creates only evil undead to his Lawful Good Followers.

In the RAW Lawful Good casters can cast Animate Dead!

They just dont do so frequently. Only evil casters do so frequently!

 

[FrogReaver]

In the RAW Lawful Good casters can cast Animate Dead!

They just dont do so frequently. Only evil casters do so frequently!

Define frequently.