D&D 5E Animate Dead and Alignment Restrictions

[Falling Icicle]

That's a very modern outlook.

Is it? Zeus killed Aesclepius because he was brining people back from the dead, and thus threatening the natural order. That story was written by the Greeks more than 2 millennia ago.

Moreover, there is death as a natural end of life and aging, and there is death by having your life energy siphoned out of you by magic and then having the same guy animate your corpse and making it dance a jig.

Just so we know that the "death itself isn't evil" really doesn't address that latter scenario well at all. If anything, this makes a bit more obvious the basic argument - Necromancy isn't evil because death itself is evil, but because death magic is evil.

Why is magic that causes death or deals with death evil, but using a sword to cause death not evil? People might say "well it depends on the circumstances, if the guy with the sword kills someone in self defense, for example, it's justified." But that's the same argument I'm making about necromancy. IMO it can be evil, but it isn't always so.

 

[Falling Icicle]

*Citation Needed.*

WotC conducted polls on this topic, and when they put lawful-only monks in a playtest packet, the fan backlash was so overwhelming they quickly retracted that decision.

 

[Falling Icicle]

For that matter, most PCs disrespect corpses like nobody's business! They loot them. They plunder their tombs. They dismember and eat them--animal corpses, sure, but animate dead works on animals. And Pelor help the corpse that's lying around when a desperate group of PCs starts coming up with creative solutions.

This is a good point. One of the big themes of DnD is killing things and taking their stuff. Looting the bodies of the dead has been considered to be a vile and criminal act in many cultures throughout history, and still is to this day. But DnD doesn't consider there to be anything wrong with disrespecting the dead in that manner.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

WotC conducted polls on this topic, and when they put lawful-only monks in a playtest packet, the fan backlash was so overwhelming they quickly retracted that decision.

The monk is not a good example.

 

[pemerton]

all healing spells and Raise Dead / Resurrection were originally classified as 'necromancy' spells back in I think 2E

The idea of putting healing magic under necromancy was introduced in 2E

I'm pretty sure healing spells were Necromancy in 1st ed AD&D also.

When 2nd ed carved cleric spells up into spheres, the necromantic "cure" spells got put into the healing sphere, while the necromantic "raise dead" spells got put into the necromancy sphere.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Look, the paladin killing someone = the wizard animating the dead because they're both "neutral" actions doesn't hold water, because the theory behind the paladin killing someone is that it was either in self-defense, or the target was evil monstrosity. It's NEVER been okay in the game for the paladin (or anyone for that matter) to just go around killing random people around town for absolutely no reason because "killing things is neutral". There are still laws in all these fantasy worlds. The paladin in theory is smiting evil, and that *is* the default stance of D&D. So in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons, the paladin "killing someone" is all right (because it is supposed to be against the proper target.)

Now if in your own games you don't play that way... if your paladins can kill willy-nilly and no one cares, that's fine. More power to you. But you can't claim to that to being the default. In the default of the game... killing evil monsters is fine. It's black and white. That's the way the game has always treated it. Now in Eberron it would obviously be more gray (and indeed that's a particular feature of the setting)... but let's not attribute that "Anyone/thing can be good, anyone/thing can be evil, and thus nothing can be killed outright" outlook to the base idea of the D&D game. That sort of "shades of grey" *is* a modern outlook to Dungeons & Dragons in general (which is I'm sure the reason it became a focus of the newest campaign setting off Eberron), but I do not see that concept having been added to the game in general with this 5th edition.

Murder for murder's sake is considered evil in the "World of D&D"... but the smiting of evil is not. And until the game decides to change that otherwise... that's the way it is.

Then in terms of Animate Dead... if all necromancers did was use corpses that were voluntarily donated to him for his work, or he only used the bodies of evil creatures... perhaps animating the dead would not be seen as an evil act. But that *never* happens. Necromancers (traditionally) have used ANY bodies they could get their hands on. They just went down to the local cemetery and raised up the corpses buried there. People who could have been friends, family, or acquaintances. Or at the very least, fellow humans. Completely disturbing these gravesites for their own ends, not caring one whit of the feelings of the friends or family of the people buried there. THAT'S why it's traditionally been seen as "evil". And until the game puts in the default game settings that you're ONLY allowed to raise the bodies of your enemies... it will never been seen as a good act (unless in your particular game world you decide to change it, which is entirely the point.)

 

[Umbran]

Is it? Zeus killed Aesclepius because he was brining people back from the dead, and thus threatening the natural order. That story was written by the Greeks more than 2 millennia ago.

Well, Zeus is not a representation of the "natural order" in the sense we mean it today. Zeus was instead a figure of patriarchal power, and he killed Aesclepius either for taking money for the service, or for causing familial/political upset among the gods (Hades, fearing that he'd get no more spirits of the dead if the practice caught on, asks Zeus to stop Aesclepius), depending on which version you read.

Neither of which is an issue of "natural order" in the modern, pseudo-druidic, sense. They had Zeus' prescribed order, which isn't the same thing, as Zeus is a pretty petulant figure with all-too-human motivations.

Plus, Aesclepius wasn't practicing what we'd call necromancy today. He was practicing outright resurrection, which is outside of necromancy's ability to create a semblance of life.

Why is magic that causes death or deals with death evil, but using a sword to cause death not evil?

To clarify - it isn't magic that "causes death" that is evil. Fireball causes death, and it isn't evil. And similarly, swords aren't evil. They are physical manifestations that just happen to cause damage to your body. You could cut yourself with a knife, or fall (probably drunkenly) into a bonfire, and get much the same effect. A fireball is just *bigger*. The high-level swordsman is just a bit better than you. But the battle is still in the physical realm. They can kill your body, but your soul or spirit lives on.

Magic that deals with death is qualitatively different. It isn't in the physical realm, and it mucks about with that soul or spirit. That, simply put, isn't fair play. Using necromancy, you don't just damage a physical shell, you touch on that more mysterious and valuable non-physical essence of the person in question. Their eternal rest is in question, and that's a big problem. You, as a mortal, don't get to muck in with that.

IMO it can be evil, but it isn't always so.

And in your game, you're welcome to run it however you like. I'm merely defending the more traditional view as valid.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I can imagine a default D&D standpoint of raising dead being evil for the following reasons:

When you die in D&D (possibly except 4e and non-Greyhawk settings, but the default assumption in 1e/2e/3e), your eternal soul winds up on some outer planar representation that fits how you lived in life.

When a necromancer raises your corpse, what she actually does is take your eternal soul, and use it as fuel to animate a slave version of yourself via Negative Energy. She negates your eternal existence to make a temporary assistant for herself.

That's different from making, say, a Flesh Golem out of your body, where an elemental spirit animates your bodily remains (and others). Still creepy, but not Necromancy, not raising the Undead.

Which isn't to say that it Must Be This Way In All Games, just that it's pretty consistent with D&D's history to have it be this way in the basic model.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That's different from making, say, a Flesh Golem out of your body, where an elemental spirit animates your bodily remains (and others). Still creepy, but not Necromancy, not raising the Undead.

And to even add onto this point... while the spells required of a wizard to create this flesh golem would not have the [evil] tag proscribed to them... there's a pretty good chance that the wizard himself might still be seen by the general populace *as* evil for making it. Especially depending on where he acquired the bodies to stitch together.

Using the bodies of your fellow citizens for magical experimentation and use is going to be seen as evil. And when you couple that with the influx of negative energy need to animate a corpse... it's really no wonder why the Animate Dead spell is considered de facto [evil].

 

[Dausuul]

Look, the paladin killing someone = the wizard animating the dead because they're both "neutral" actions doesn't hold water, because the theory behind the paladin killing someone is that it was either in self-defense, or the target was evil monstrosity.

Why doesn't the same theory apply to the PC necromancer animating someone?

If all necromancers did was use corpses that were voluntarily donated to him for his work, or he only used the bodies of evil creatures... perhaps animating the dead would not be seen as an evil act. But that *never* happens.

Why not? D&D characters are loaded down with abilities which it is evil to use indiscriminately, but acceptable to use on a deserving target. As things stand, animate dead is no different from the paladin's sword in this regard. So why is it that animate dead is called out as something which makes you evil if you use it frequently--regardless of who and what you use it on?

What necromancers have "traditionally" done is not the issue. Let's consider a PC necromancer, of good alignment, who wants to make a habit of animating the corpses of evil foes and using them to help battle evil. Right now, according to the rules, this is not allowed. Frequent use of animate dead means you are Evil, full stop, no matter what. Why?

I do think there should be a reason in-game why frequent use of animate dead pulls you toward the dark side, more than equally frequent use of swords and fireballs. I outlined one approach a few pages back: Undead are spiritually linked to the powers of the Abyss, so every undead you create gives those powers more influence in the living world (and over you!). KM's suggestion of damage to the subject's soul is another possibility. At this moment, however, the rules offer no such reason.