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

[Lanefan]

Do more good deeds than bad ones and you should be fine. If your DM turns you evil just for animating dead then there is probably something else going on.

It ain't always that simple.

One major act of evil can wipe out a lifetime of goodness, but one major act of goodness can't really wipe out a lifetime of evil. Real life is full of examples of both.

Doing "more good deeds than bad ones" will get you to neutral at best, depending on what the bad ones are.

 

[Lanefan]

RAW also allows that "dark and sinister magic" to be cast by someone channeling "holy and divine power". I've provided RAW examples of LG Gods that would allow this, backed up by reasoning as to why they might not see it that way.

"Holy and divine" doesn't always equate to good.

A God of Sunshine and Healing can grant you Animate Dead by RAW.

Yes, for some asinine reason good deities in the game give that spell to their Clerics.

But by no means does it suggest those Clerics should ever willingly cast it.

It'd be like someone giving me a gun and some bullets - OK, now I've got a gun but by no means does that suggest I should ever actually use it to shoot someone.

Also, just for giggles, nowhere in RAW does it state that mind controlling and violating the very sanctity of their mind is evil. Nothing in enchantment magic is called out like Animate Dead is, despite the fact that it is arguably more evil.

Yeah, there's an argument in there that could in itself go on for weeks, except that instead of Good vs Evil it'd be more Law (control) vs Chaos (freedom)......

 

[Iry]

One major act of evil can wipe out a lifetime of goodness, but one major act of goodness can't really wipe out a lifetime of evil. Real life is full of examples of both.

I don't disagree, but if the DM is counting Animate Dead as a major act of evil it's probably time to sit down and talk things out to see if you can compromise in a way that makes the game fun for both of you. Provided you're trying to be a good necromancer for whatever reason.

 

[Lanefan]

Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont even think there is a distinction between 'divine' and 'arcane' magic anymore.

Sad if true.

No. There isnt any molds in the MM. Oozes yes. Molds no.

Brown mold (the stuff that sucks the heat out of everything around it) isn't a thing anymore? Interesting...

 

[Lanefan]

I don't disagree, but if the DM is counting Animate Dead as a major act of evil it's probably time to sit down and talk things out to see if you can compromise in a way that makes the game fun for both of you. Provided you're trying to be a good necromancer for whatever reason.

True enough.

I wasn't trying to imply that casting AD is a major act of evil, more trying to point out that any act of evil usually carries more weight than an equivalent act of good.

I think what the RAW is trying to get at is that casting it once in a while for good reasons is more or less fine, but repeatedly and-or constantly casting it will turn you evil if you're not already there.

 

[Iry]

I think what the RAW is trying to get at is that casting it once in a while for good reasons is more or less fine, but repeatedly and-or constantly casting it will turn you evil if you're not already there.

I'm just imagining a retired warlock frequently using animate dead to work his farm.

 

[Chaosmancer]

OK - so we agree that RAW, animating the dead is not a good act, and only evil casters do so frequently. The magic used is 'sinister and dark' and it imbues the corpse with an evil murderous spirit, that if uncontrolled kills indiscriminately without pity or remorse.

We also agree that in YOUR games (or anyone elses games for that matter) you are free to ignore that RAW.

We're finally getting somewhere.

We also agree that RAW there is a creature that is a zombie, that uses the zombie statblock, that doesn't say any of that.

So, we are getting somewhere, right back to the beginning.

There is nothing inconsistent with a Good aligned God granting a Cleric the spell animate dead. It would be rare IMO (and it seems to be the case perusing the domains each God offers, with the majority of Gods who offer animate dead being... you know... evil).

In 5E DnD you can be an evilly aligned cleric of a Good god. So those evil Clerics of Osiris can use animate dead willy nilly if they want to. Osiris' neutral aligned Clerics dont care that the spell 'is not good' because neither are they, but even they wont use the spell frequetly (ore else they'd be evil). Osiris' majority Good aligned clerics would rarely use the spell (if at all) and if they did, they certainly wouldn't do so frequently.

Alignment doesnt really seem to matter to 5E Gods. Only that you stick to their interpretation of the Gods Dogma.

So, are we abandoning your stance that DnD represents a world with moral absolutes? Because back in post #153 (for me) you said

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.

So, if the gods don't care about alignment and only about their dogma, then I wonder how we can have absolute morality.

I also wonder how we can declare something definitely evil other than, "well the rulebook says it is evil so it must be evil." which is an incredibly weak position for morality.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not entirely.

One - creating undead - is evil because it results in the creation of an inherently evil thing which, left to its own devices and not controlled or commanded, will commit evil acts. The very act of its creation is thus evil.

The other - creating a golem or construct - is not evil because it results in the creation of an inherently neutral thing which, left to its own devices and not controlled or commanded, will do nothing at all. The act of its creation is thus neutral.

Common to both is that the use to which each is ultimately put can be good or evil or neutral depending on the whim of the instructor; and part of this is the 'land mine' aspect.

Which means a Necromancer could very easily commit an evil act toward good ends by, say, creating undead and ordering them to shore up the river against the oncoming floods. Here it simply becomes a question of whether the ends justify the means.

Except, even the Monster Manual which says that all undead are evil, does not in fact have undead committing evil acts if left to their own devices.

The most evil they can do is kill people who disturb them. So, we are still back at the question, why are undead inherently evil? And, so far, the answer is "because they are don't think about it too much, they are just evil"

An undead at the base of a mineshaft with no living thing around it, commits no evil. It just continues doing what it was last told to do. Just like a golem.

"Holy and divine" doesn't always equate to good.

Should definitely not be "dark and Sinisiter" though, not if it is coming from a good diety.

Yes, for some asinine reason good deities in the game give that spell to their Clerics.

But by no means does it suggest those Clerics should ever willingly cast it.

It'd be like someone giving me a gun and some bullets - OK, now I've got a gun but by no means does that suggest I should ever actually use it to shoot someone.

Well, it is RAW, and if I have to accept that RAW all undead are evil, because the book says so, because they must be made with murder spirits, because the book says so, and a good person would almost never create them, because the book says so, then you also need to accept that every LG diety in existence gives access to this spell through their divine will and are perfectly ok with their clerics casting it. Because if they weren't okay with it, they would not offer it, or there would be some sidebar saying that clerics could only cast it X times per year or something.

But, by the book, Good Dieties approve the creation of undead using their power.

Which I think supports the idea, that there should be more than one way to use the spell to create undead, since we have evidence of good aligned undead in various settings.

Yeah, there's an argument in there that could in itself go on for weeks, except that instead of Good vs Evil it'd be more Law (control) vs Chaos (freedom)......

No, that one is pure good and evil there, the only type of law that would be okay with removing a persons free will entirely to puppet them into killing for you is the tyranical kind. You know, evil.

Brown mold (the stuff that sucks the heat out of everything around it) isn't a thing anymore? Interesting...

Brown Mold is a hazard in the DMG. No stats, it is essentially a trap.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

So, creating a golem, telling it to defend a temple and leaving it there for a thousand years is neutral.

Creating an undead, telling it to defend a temple, and leaving it there for a thousand years is evil.

One creates a landmine which may harm innocent people long after the person who made it is gone. The other creates a sword which could be used for evil, but might not be.

The act of creation: Golem: Neutral. Skeletons: Evil.
Leaving it to defend a temple: not inherently evil, although much will depend on the level of care and conscientiousness involved.
Sealing up undead inside, with warning signs and other measures to keep people away for example. - Reasonably responsible.
Giving a golem outside with instructions to "Slay all who approach" and leaving no warnings for example. - Beyond the realm of merely irresponsible and into evil territory there.
Responsible use of undead just requires more precautions since you have no control over them outside of actually restraining them, They will kill any living being that encounters them, whereas a golem can be instructed to only attack in specific circumstances.

It is especially amusing to me, because in discussing things with my new brother-in-law, I was reminded of dominate person. You know, the spell that rips away a persons free-will and makes them your puppet? Not called out as evil. In fact, the reading of the Enchantment school, which is all about bending people's minds and making them lose control of their bodies? They present it as fully neutral, just a way to do magic.

But necromancy gets called out as "this is not good and only evil people do so frequently."

As stated before, the designers wrote it into the way to world works that animating a skeleton with the spell specifically involves trucking with evil powers and bringing evil into the world.

Alignment repercussions of Dominate Person will depend on the uses you put the spell to. The simple act of casting animate dead to create a skeleton is evil in and of itself.
If you have a wizard who wants to create a similar spell that doesn't involve evil acts, talk to your DM. Such a spell would make your wizard famous as a breakthrough in magical theory.

That is RAW as it written in the description for the School of Necromancy at the back of the PHB.

I believe there is actually. For example it says "Divine Magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world" they also specify "the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of the diety's wishes".

This tells me that the magic flows from the gods, and that its use in spells is from the wishes of the god. And, since we have "unholy magic" then I would imagine that the deities can also grant "holy magic". This seems most connected to their alignment, in RAW.

Sinister gods of Evil and darkness still grant their clerics radiant spells, daylight, healing and the ability to conjure celestials.

That is just a factor of having a "one size fits all" cleric spell list with only limited customisation.

I look at it that clerics technically have the option of casting spells that might conflict with their deity. Just as they have the option for being an alignment that might not fit so well. If there is any repercussions for a cleric acting against their deity, that is for the DM to adjudicate.

A Cleric of the Silver flame technically has access to the Animate Dead spell. However I can't imagine a true one ever using it. Its up to the player to pick spells to prepare that fit the character and concept of the cleric.

Ah, apologies, under Fungus I thought there was a mold. They have the Gas Spore and two types of mushroom though. Must have been the Violet Fungus that I was thinking of.

I think that they're considered environmental hazards or traps, and are in the DMG.
Vegepygmies from Volos might be what you're after?

I'm just imagining a retired warlock frequently using animate dead to work his farm.

That would work. As long as he is really careful about locking them up at night and putting up warning signs. I wouldn't regard casting Animate dead to reassert control over undead you had already created as an inherently evil act.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The act of creation: Golem: Neutral. Skeletons: Evil.

And this is the problem then, it has nothing to do with "land mine analogies"

The real issue is the creation of the undead alone. That is considered evil, but again, we don't have a solid reason why.

As stated before, the designers wrote it into the way to world works that animating a skeleton with the spell specifically involves trucking with evil powers and bringing evil into the world.

And left some ambiguity behind, if we are to assume that using the statblock does not mean that the alignment is determined, as we have discussed with the spore zombie, then we look to the spell itself. And nothing about evil powers or bringing evil into the world is in the spell, it is all in the Monster Manual lore, which does not cover all types of zombies.

Alignment repercussions of Dominate Person will depend on the uses you put the spell to. The simple act of casting animate dead to create a skeleton is evil in and of itself.

If you have a wizard who wants to create a similar spell that doesn't involve evil acts, talk to your DM. Such a spell would make your wizard famous as a breakthrough in magical theory.

Ripping away a persons free will, making them a slave to your will. Not inherently evil, depends on how you use it.

Putting a spirit in a corpse, evil. No matter the circumstance or usage, it is an evil act.

In which case, it seems to be completely arbitrary.

That is just a factor of having a "one size fits all" cleric spell list with only limited customisation.

I look at it that clerics technically have the option of casting spells that might conflict with their deity. Just as they have the option for being an alignment that might not fit so well. If there is any repercussions for a cleric acting against their deity, that is for the DM to adjudicate.

A Cleric of the Silver flame technically has access to the Animate Dead spell. However I can't imagine a true one ever using it. Its up to the player to pick spells to prepare that fit the character and concept of the cleric.

Which seems to imply that we have two options

1) RAW is supreme, and the will of the good dieties allow the usage of evil magic and the will of dieites of darkness allows the creation of light. In short, nothing is consistent.

2) RAW is only part of the story, and shouldn't be seen as the end of the discussion. In which case, we can't just go with "this is RAW so this is Evil", we need something else. Because, the Animate Dead spell does not say anything about Evil spirits, or the undead going berserk and killing people. That is all from the statblock, which is not the full story of the world.

I think that they're considered environmental hazards or traps, and are in the DMG.
Vegepygmies from Volos might be what you're after?

No, the Fungus section of the MM has three entries. Gas Spore, Shrieker and Violet Fungus.

I just forgot that there were no molds in that list.