D&D 5E Animate Dead and Alignment Restrictions

[Falling Icicle]

Do you have a link to a WOTC poll showing that people did not like the lawful-only monk? Because if you're basing it just on "then they changed it in the playteat" I don't think that's conclusive evidence of your position.

I remember them conducting a poll on their website about the alignment restriction issue, though I'm having difficulty finding it now. I believe they also said their own surveys in the playtest also showed a rejection of alignment restrictions by a large majority of the play testers, which is a much larger and more inclusive group than merely those who responded to their website poll.

Regardless, I shouldn't have even mentioned it. A view isn't correct or incorrect just because a majority of people holds that view. I wouldn't feel any differently about this were I in the minority, and I often get after people for appealing to the majority myself. I just thought that when I was starting the thread that mentioning how they've gotten rid of alignment restrictions on other things would be a good lead-in for this discussion.

 

[Mistwell]

I remember them conducting a poll on their website about the alignment restriction issue, though I'm having difficulty finding it now. I believe they also said their own surveys in the playtest also showed a rejection of alignment restrictions by a large majority of the play testers, which is a much larger and more inclusive group than merely those who responded to their website poll.

Regardless, I shouldn't have even mentioned it. A view isn't correct or incorrect just because a majority of people holds that view. I wouldn't feel any differently about this were I in the minority, and I often get after people for appealing to the majority myself. I just thought that when I was starting the thread that mentioning how they've gotten rid of alignment restrictions on other things would be a good lead-in for this discussion.

Ok, fair enough.

I've heard your arguments before on this topic, and thought about them.

I think you make a good case for your position, but I still think the other sides case is equally strong. So, I am on the fence.

I think I prefer a default implied setting where animate dead is evil, with a sidebar on removing that default if your setting varies from the spell's current assumptions.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Which of the following propositions are we debating?

• 1: There should be a valid in-game reason why extensive use of necromancy would make you evil.
• 2: There is currently a valid in-game reason why extensive use of necromancy would make you evil.

I'm just supporting the idea that it is okay for 5e to retain the traditional genre connotations for "necromancy" as the game's default.

This still is not addressing the question of the class of spells labeled Necromancy.

Whatever this class of spells is called (and I accept a more neutral term is desirable for some), I believe:

a. it should be possible to specialize in these spells (i.e. be a Necromancer/Vitamancer/whatever);
b. that there is no reason to put alignment restrictions on these spells; and
c. that having one spell in the whole game designated as evil when used in excess (not simply when used) is inelegant.

I'll add (from previous discussion)

d. the concept of a life-magic user (let's call it a Necromancer, whether or not an alignment restriction exists) should be a speciality available both to mages and to clerics.

Absolutely Animate Dead sticks out like a sore thumb; whatever is done with it should not affect the class of spells dealing with life magic.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Hold on. Which of the following propositions are we debating?

• 1: There should be a valid in-game reason why extensive use of necromancy would make you evil.
• 2: There is currently a valid in-game reason why extensive use of necromancy would make you evil.

I am solidly in favor of proposition #1, and have laid out some ideas for how I think it could be implemented. But I strongly disagree with proposition #2. As far as I can see, no one has yet put forward anything to support #2 except the argument that necromancy is disrespectful to the dead; but that makes animate dead no more inherently evil than a sword blade, which is highly disrespectful--not to say fatal--to the living. If you can justify killing people and looting their corpses, you can justify zombifying them afterward.

As for the traditional concept of a necromancer, it's quite relevant to proposition #1, and indeed is the main basis for it. It's completely irrelevant to proposition #2.

The game doesn't label necromancy, the entire school, as evil. No edition of the game I'm aware of has ever done that. Only specific spells were designated as being evil. In 5e, the only spell I've seen with any mention of alignments at all is animate dead, and let me tell you, there are some spells in the game that can do some pretty horrible things to people.

It's debatable whether or not animate dead affects souls in any way (I don't think it does), but there are spells that unquestionably do. There are spells that trap people's soul so they can neither be brought back to life nor do they get to pass on to whatever afterlife awaits them. Even those kinds of spells have no mention of alignment, even though they have far more sinister implications than animate dead does. Players and DMs are left to determine the morality and consequences of using those spells for their own games, and to roleplay them out. Maybe a good player decides that it's worth doing something as distasteful as imprisoning a soul when it's to ensure that some terrible evil being never threatens the world again. Likewise, a spell that seems entirely benign, like cure wounds, can be used for evil purposes, such as keeping prisoners alive to prolong their torture.

I'm not saying that animating the dead isn't creepy, doesn't often go against tradition, won't often spark outrage from certain NPCs, etc. Regardless of whether or not the game rules say anything about alignment in the spell, a player who uses such magic is doing something that many people are opposed to and must tread carefully. Any necromancer foolish enough to blatantly go dig up the local graveyard, animating the corpses of a town's loved ones is likely to get run out of town by pitchfork-wielding mobs. Any necromancer that creates flesh-eating zombies and then carelessly lets them loose to eat people is going to have the consequences for his callous disregard catch up with him eventually.

My argument basically is this, spells don't need to say anything about morality or alignment because that's something people should roleplay out and decide for themselves. IMO, that's part of the fun. That's part of roleplaying. We don't need the rules to come out and tell us that using fireball to kill innocent villagers is evil. We don't need the rules to come out and tell us that abusing spells like charm and dominate to take advantage of people is not a very nice thing to do. And the game rules don't come out and say those things. They don't need to. Yet of all the spells in the game that can do incredibly vile and destructive things, I'm surprised that the game designers chose animate dead alone out of all of them to insert an alignment clause in the spell's description. If spells like dominate and soul bind don't need such a clause, I don't think animate dead does either.

 

[tuxgeo]

< snip >
d. the concept of a life-magic user (let's call it a Necromancer, whether or not an alignment restriction exists) should be a speciality available both to mages and to clerics.

This I'll disagree with, because the "Necro. . . " part of the word "Necromancer" means "death."
That's not appropriate for "Life-magic." Let's hope the geniuses at WotC can choose another word for that.

Secondly: the writers of D&D left the healing arts largely to the Clerics so the Wizards wouldn't be able to replicate absolutely everything that other classes could do. If you let Wizards have Life-magic spells, then there is no need for Clerics at all. That's bad for the game, in my humble opinion.* (It's treading on toes.)

* I thought I would use the common abbreviation "IMHO," but decided I needed to spell it out for clarity.

 

[Kobold Stew]

This I'll disagree with, because the "Necro. . . " part of the word "Necromancer" means "death."
That's not appropriate for "Life-magic." Let's hope the geniuses at WotC can choose another word for that.

The name doesn't matter: there's a class of spells, and whatever the specialist is called, there's no need for her to be restricted to non-good because of one aberrant spell.

Secondly: the writers of D&D left the healing arts largely to the Clerics so the Wizards wouldn't be able to replicate absolutely everything that other classes could do. If you let Wizards have Life-magic spells, then there is no need for Clerics at all.

Except that there is a class of spells labelled Necromancy, most of which are available to wizards. I would be happy if all of them (including Animate Dead, Resurrection, etc.) were entirely given over to clerics. That would be great, but I don't see it happening.

 

[Dausuul]

Considering how many fantasy books I can dig out of my library that have "necromancy = bad" and how few have "necromancy = okay", I find it hard to think of it as "genre convention by decree". It seems more "genre convention by accepting established genre convention".

Sure. It's a very well-established genre convention that making zombies is bad. But why does it need to be written into the rules? DMs and players will mostly follow it of their own accord. When they don't, they don't.

Now, if there is an explanation of why making zombies is bad, that adds value. It fleshes out the default setting and provides some handy story hooks. But the mere statement, "Animating the dead frequently is an evil act," adds nothing, and is conspicuous in a game where (as Falling Icicle points out) there are far more troubling spells like trap the soul and dominate person that get no such warning.

 

[Umbran]

The name doesn't matter: there's a class of spells, and whatever the specialist is called, there's no need for her to be restricted to non-good because of one aberrant spell.

One aberrant spell? Any create undead is Evil.

But, okay, few of them have the outright Evil descriptor, but look at some of these for a minute: Blindness/Deafness, ghoul touch, vampiric touch, bestow curse, contagion, enervation, fear, blight, symbol of pain, circle of death. And these are just the mid-levels.

You want folks to *specialize* in the use of these (so, use them frequently) but think it inappropriate to limit to non-good. Cause those goody-two-shoes are all about inflicting pain, fear, curses and disease? If you described a person who uses such things a lot to a paladin, what do you figure he'd want to do - smite, or got to tea with the spellcaster?

 

[Incenjucar]

One aberrant spell? Any create undead is Evil.

But, okay, few of them have the outright Evil descriptor, but look at some of these for a minute: Blindness/Deafness, ghoul touch, vampiric touch, bestow curse, contagion, enervation, fear, blight, symbol of pain, circle of death. And these are just the mid-levels.

You want folks to *specialize* in the use of these (so, use them frequently) but think it inappropriate to limit to non-good. Cause those goody-two-shoes are all about inflicting pain, fear, curses and disease? If you described a person who uses such things a lot to a paladin, what do you figure he'd want to do - smite, or got to tea with the spellcaster?

Those are all potentially far less horrific than a fireball.

A magical stun gun, a magical form of intimidation, a lingering negative effect which could include such things as "If you draw your weapon to attack an innocent, your limbs go numb," or something which could give your enemies the runs so they couldn't fight you when you went to go rescue their kidnap victims...

Much nicer than chopping people up or setting them on fire.


It's like "Oh well we don't want to scare people so we'll just nuke drop bombs on them instead." Traditional heroics are potentially much more evil than a lot of creepy methods of fighting.

 

[Dausuul]

One aberrant spell? Any create undead is Evil.

But, okay, few of them have the outright Evil descriptor, but look at some of these for a minute: Blindness/Deafness, ghoul touch, vampiric touch, bestow curse, contagion, enervation, fear, blight, symbol of pain, circle of death. And these are just the mid-levels.

Right back at you: Charm person, dominate person, suggestion, feeblemind. Enchantment is an entire school devoted to stripping people of their free will and making them, to one degree or another, your slaves. Yet I see players sling these spells around like nothing. Perfectly innocent gate guard, guarding the castle of a good queen, but you need to get past him so you can break into the evil vizier's rooms and find evidence of a dastardly plot? No problem! Charm person and the gate guard is your best friend... but imagine what it's like for the gate guard when the spell wears off.

As for Evocation, that's a school whose raison d'etre is blowing people up.

A specialist in Necromancy is certainly dealing with dark forces, and has the potential to get very evil very fast. But I don't see any reason to impose an absolute limitation. If a player wants to play a good-aligned necromancer, and is willing to take on the challenge of finding morally acceptable uses for some very grim spells, I see no reason not to allow that.