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

[Dausuul]

As much as it may cause frothing at the mouth, with the Class Variant UA Warlocks now have access to Animate Dead.

I was assuming UA was off the table here. If that is not the case, then absolutely paladin/warlock is the way to go. You don't get Undead Thralls, which is a pity, but you get a ton of synergy out of hexblade, and your fast-refreshing warlock spell slots let your undead make up in quantity what they lose in quality.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Because people were posting how it is unredeemably evil, how necromancers even acting for good would be damned to the Nine Hells, and how there is no way by RAW to be use Animate Dead for good (I believe it is you who loves the landmine analogy even though I find it very lacking)

Landmines seemed a good analogy because although it is possible to use them for good, there is often legal, social or moral pressure against it, and without very conscientious care, there is a high risk of collaterol damage.

Heck, we've still got the evil plant life line unresolved.

I've pointed out what the rules say, and mentioned that its easy to tweak or just ignore them if you don't like it. - I'm not sure what more is possible.

Considering I've been able to show multiple RAW reasons that Necromancy might not be inherently evil, and many of the arguments seem to come from a place of "but this is how it is", I responded. Don't have to use Alignment to discuss things like this.

Who has been claiming that Necromancy is inherently evil?
Animating dead via the spell, yes, because it is literally written to be that way in RAW, but I don't think anyone has suggested necromancy in general (including healing, ressing spells) is evil.

Animate dead using evil spirits, the behaviour of skeletons and zombies etc is just "how it is" by default, but there is nothing saying that you can't change that if you don't like it. Or just ignore it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Landmines seemed a good analogy because although it is possible to use them for good, there is often legal, social or moral pressure against it, and without very conscientious care, there is a high risk of collaterol damage.

I've pointed out what the rules say, and mentioned that its easy to tweak or just ignore them if you don't like it. - I'm not sure what more is possible.

Who has been claiming that Necromancy is inherently evil?
Animating dead via the spell, yes, because it is literally written to be that way in RAW, but I don't think anyone has suggested necromancy in general (including healing, ressing spells) is evil.

Animate dead using evil spirits, the behaviour of skeletons and zombies etc is just "how it is" by default, but there is nothing saying that you can't change that if you don't like it. Or just ignore it.

Animate Dead is evil because the MM statblock says Zombies and Skeletons are evil.

Mold Zombies are evil because they use the same statblock.

Your explanation for this was because the Mold is willing to make more corpses to spread itself and grow.

This would mean that killing for the purpose of food and growth is evil.

Therefore every living thing is evil.


Yes, you can change the rules, or ignore it, because you have to or this ends up being an untenable position. But, if you can change mold zombie statblocks to being neutral or good or unaligned because that makes them not destroy the very concept of morality, then using Animate Dead to make neutral or Good undead is the exact same process. It is simply changing the alignment on the statblock to fit better with the reality of what the caster is doing.

And considering the sheer variety of casters that can potentially get Animate Dead (I think one way or another with the Class UA the only full caster that can't is the Druid) I am honestly stumped how we must accept that the intent is that every single one of them is forcing an evil, omnicidal spirit to occupy a corpse.

And, if they are not evil and omnicidal, then the landmine analogy is pointless. I would also argue that Golems follow the landmine analogy, if they are created with the instruction to "protect this temple from all intruders" then they would act in the same manner. Golems are neutral and the act of making them is neutral. Same with all animated objects, such as animated armor. Spectators, Guard Drakes, I'm sure I could find more.

One set is evil, the other is neutral. Yet both sets fall under the "landmine analogy"

And it can't even be that one requires the death of a living person. Flesh Golems would put that right out, as would rituals that require death like the Lawful Neutral Wood Woad.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Animate Dead is evil because the MM statblock says Zombies and Skeletons are evil.

Mold Zombies are evil because they use the same statblock.

Your explanation for this was because the Mold is willing to make more corpses to spread itself and grow.

This would mean that killing for the purpose of food and growth is evil.

Therefore every living thing is evil.

I was speculating as to an in-game explanation of why a spore zombie would have an evil alignment, despite not being animated by an evil spirit.
Feel free to come up with an explanation that makers sense to you, to change a spore zombie's statblock (Neutral? Unaligned?), or just to ignore its listed alignment.

Yes, you can change the rules, or ignore it, because you have to or this ends up being an untenable position. But, if you can change mold zombie statblocks to being neutral or good or unaligned because that makes them not destroy the very concept of morality, then using Animate Dead to make neutral or Good undead is the exact same process. It is simply changing the alignment on the statblock to fit better with the reality of what the caster is doing.

And as DM, that is entirely within your capabilities.

And considering the sheer variety of casters that can potentially get Animate Dead (I think one way or another with the Class UA the only full caster that can't is the Druid) I am honestly stumped how we must accept that the intent is that every single one of them is forcing an evil, omnicidal spirit to occupy a corpse.

And, if they are not evil and omnicidal, then the landmine analogy is pointless. I would also argue that Golems follow the landmine analogy, if they are created with the instruction to "protect this temple from all intruders" then they would act in the same manner. Golems are neutral and the act of making them is neutral. Same with all animated objects, such as animated armor. Spectators, Guard Drakes, I'm sure I could find more.

One set is evil, the other is neutral. Yet both sets fall under the "landmine analogy"

Golems are not the same: They are animated with relatively neutral elemental spirits and a golem ordered to guard a temple will do only that, and nothing else, forever.
A Skeleton with careful orders to do that and nothing else will be just as safe, - while it is controlled. If the necromancer dies, or is otherwise unable to reassert control before 24 hours are up, the Skeleton will actively go and try to kill people.

And it can't even be that one requires the death of a living person. Flesh Golems would put that right out, as would rituals that require death like the Lawful Neutral Wood Woad.

Animate dead does not require the caster to have a hand in the deaths of the beings used to create them any more than the creation of a flesh golem does.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I was speculating as to an in-game explanation of why a spore zombie would have an evil alignment, despite not being animated by an evil spirit.

I have just been pointing out that your speculation leads to a mass breakdown of morality as a concept within the game.

Golems are not the same: They are animated with relatively neutral elemental spirits and a golem ordered to guard a temple will do only that, and nothing else, forever.

A Skeleton with careful orders to do that and nothing else will be just as safe, - while it is controlled. If the necromancer dies, or is otherwise unable to reassert control before 24 hours are up, the Skeleton will actively go and try to kill people.

This has nothing to do with your landmine analogy. In fact, let us seal the temple, trapping the skeletons within.

According to your own post, it doesn't matter, still a landmine:

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.

The people open the ruins, go inside, and whether it was a golem or skeletons or mummy, they get killed.

Using your own position, this makes the manufacture of golems for defense just as evil as the use of undead for defense, because they are driven to follow orders even long after their controllers are gone, and will kill innocent people who stumble upon them.

And, even if we use the MM fluff, skeletons do not immediately heel turn and head out into the world seeking life to destroy, they in fact are likely to continue doing what they have always done, following a habit, until encountering a living creature. In that regard, skeleton guardians are no different than golem guardians.

Yet, one is evil and the other is not. This is why I find the land mine analogy to why undead are evil fails. Because it applies just as validly to neutral or unaligned beings, and if it can be neutral or evil, then it cannot be offered as a proof for why one type of action is evil.


To clarify what I am saying, your land mine analogy would be like using the example of a hunting human beings as an example of why the act of hunting is evil. However, there are good versions of hunting that do not include humans, and you can even hunt humans in a way that is not considered evil (police hunting down a criminal for example). Since multiple explanations exist, some evil and some good, then the example cannot be used to prove that the act is evil by its nature.

Animate dead does not require the caster to have a hand in the deaths of the beings used to create them any more than the creation of a flesh golem does.

Exactly, meaning that the death of the individual being used for the spell cannot be the reason why the spell is evil.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I have just been pointing out that your speculation leads to a mass breakdown of morality as a concept within the game.

If you believe so, then you will probably want to come up with your own explanation, or just change the associated rules.

This has nothing to do with your landmine analogy. In fact, let us seal the temple, trapping the skeletons within.

According to your own post, it doesn't matter, still a landmine:

Note that I put forward this scenario as a potentially responsible use of Animate dead.
You're putting the landmines in a place that only condemned criminals would venture, out of the reach of innocents.

The people open the ruins, go inside, and whether it was a golem or skeletons or mummy, they get killed.

Using your own position, this makes the manufacture of golems for defense just as evil as the use of undead for defense, because they are driven to follow orders even long after their controllers are gone, and will kill innocent people who stumble upon them.

I imagine very few people serving a holy empire consider that it will ever fall, and what will happen when it does.
Note that while the creation of the undead is not a good act, (because the game designers designed it that way), their use as tomb guardians is not necessarily evil.

And, even if we use the MM fluff, skeletons do not immediately heel turn and head out into the world seeking life to destroy, they in fact are likely to continue doing what they have always done, following a habit, until encountering a living creature. In that regard, skeleton guardians are no different than golem guardians.

Yep.

Yet, one is evil and the other is not. This is why I find the land mine analogy to why undead are evil fails. Because it applies just as validly to neutral or unaligned beings, and if it can be neutral or evil, then it cannot be offered as a proof for why one type of action is evil.

The land mine analogy is to why the creation of skeletons and zombies is often dangerous, illegal and not generally a Good act.
There is no analogy required to why skeletons and zombies are evil: its in their statblock.

To clarify what I am saying, your land mine analogy would be like using the example of a hunting human beings as an example of why the act of hunting is evil. However, there are good versions of hunting that do not include humans, and you can even hunt humans in a way that is not considered evil (police hunting down a criminal for example). Since multiple explanations exist, some evil and some good, then the example cannot be used to prove that the act is evil by its nature.

Do you regard the use of landmines as inherently evil, or just the way that they are most known to be used?

Exactly, meaning that the death of the individual being used for the spell cannot be the reason why the spell is evil.

Has anyone suggested that it was?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Has anyone suggested that it was?

Not to my knowledge, but seems like a good point to cover just in case.

The land mine analogy is to why the creation of skeletons and zombies is often dangerous, illegal and not generally a Good act.
There is no analogy required to why skeletons and zombies are evil: its in their statblock.

Do you regard the use of landmines as inherently evil, or just the way that they are most known to be used?

So, to follow this: Is the creation of golems considered, Dangerous, Illegal and generally not a Good Act?

Animated Objects?

Homunculi?


And, if they are not, then why are undead seen one way and the others seen the other?

 

[Flamestrike]

So, to follow this: Is the creation of golems considered, Dangerous, Illegal and generally not a Good Act?

Animated Objects?

Homunculi?

By RAW, No, and No

And, if they are not, then why are undead seen one way and the others seen the other?

Because the RAW says so.

Likely on account of the fact that you dont animate objects or homonculi using 'dark, sinister magic' that summons and forces an 'evil murderous spirit' into the corpse of a dead person, defiling that persons corpse, and creating an evil monster.

 

[Lanefan]

So, to follow this: Is the creation of golems considered, Dangerous, Illegal and generally not a Good Act?

In and of itself, no, as what's being created is not itself an Evil thing: golems and constructs are universally regarded as either Neutral or Non-aligned. Here whatever Evil (or Good) that might ensue would arise from the purpose the golems are put to. Also, golems are generally easier to control and keep controlled than are undead; with a golem you command it once and it'll follow that command forever, where with an undead the control and command has to be re-established regularly.

But as the undead being created are specifically called out as Evil then creating such (and thus adding to the Evil in the world) would be an Evil act.

Animated Objects?

Ditto, but IMO with a more Chaotic bent.

Homunculi?

I can't remember offhand whether Homunculi (which for whatever reason I've always seen as being minor demons, not sure why) are themselves Evil; but if they are then - as with the undead - creating them would itself be an Evil act. If not, see golem notes above.

 

[Flamestrike]

I can't remember offhand whether Homunculi (which for whatever reason I've always seen as being minor demons, not sure why) are themselves Evil; but if they are then - as with the undead - creating them would itself be an Evil act. If not, see golem notes above.

Homonculi are N constructs.

They dont go around murdering and eating babies if you lose control of one.

And you dont need to use 'dark and sinister' magic to animate one either.