D&D 5E Animate Dead and Alignment Restrictions

[Falling Icicle]

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?

But dissolving people's flesh with Melf's acid arrows, burning them to a crisp with fireballs, depriving them of their free will with enchantments, making illusions so horrifying that they literally scare people to death, imprisoning people in gems, turning people permanently into farm animals, etc., those things are all fine for goody-two-shoes to do to people, right?

 

[Kobold Stew]

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?

This works both ways, as you know (look at some of these for a minute):
Astral Projection, False Life, Gentle Repose, Raise Dead, Resurrection, Spare the Dying, Speak with Dead, True Resurrection.

Im actually fine limiting all these to non-good, if that's the world you want, but you can't pretend that (a) the class of spells is all baneful, or (b) that the baneful spells are worse than enchantment/evocation, as others have pointed out.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I can think of more benign uses for necromancy than I can for schools like enchantment and evocation. Seriously. The entire enchantment school is about robbing people of their free will, arguably the most precious thing anyone has (I would say that without free will, life itself is meaningless). Evocation is almost entirely about causing destruction and death as violently and explosively as possible. It's better at causing death than necromancy is! There's like, what, three or four spells in the entire evocation school that aren't about killing or destruction? Sending, contingency, wall of force, and gust of wind (and even that can be destructive). That's about it. There are a few others here and there, but you get the point. Plus, I'd rather be a victim of a curse than have third degree burns over much of my body, something I hear is excruciatingly painful. The nicest way evocation has of killing people is electrocution, which isn't very nice.

Necromancy, on the other hand, can be used to extend life. It can provide temporary hit points. It can preserve the dead for proper burial (or later resurrection). It can restore people to life by making a clone. It is an excellent weapon against the very undead that people fear so much. It can be used to solve murders by speaking with the bodies of the dead, so that they can have justice. It can strike fear into a violent mob, dispersing them without harming anyone. Dragon Magazine #348 has an excellent article on curses: "Despite their unpleasant image, curses are not solely the domain of villains, nor are they inherently evil. In contrast, a well-used curse can be a powerful weapon on the side of good, offering an alternative to killing a criminal or monster outright when the possibility exists it might find redemption."

 

[DEFCON 1]

I can think of more benign uses for necromancy than I can for schools like enchantment and evocation.

Except we're not talking about the spells within the school of necromancy... we're talking about the specific spell Animate Dead (with its 'non-good' descriptor). I don't think anyone here is advocating putting that tag on every spell within that school. Just the one that involves the desecration of the dead body for personal purposes.

I do think we're all coming at it from the modern perspective in the idea that a dead body is "just meat"... and thus who really cares what you do with it. After all... in these modern times, we strip our dead for parts to help our fellow human beings all the time, many of us volunteering to do so in life if we are unfortunate enough to die before our time.

But I do think the game (and almost all other medieval and fantasy fiction) does look at it from a non-modern perspective, wherein there *is* something sacred about the body after a person dies. They have rituals to consecrate the body, they bury the body, graverobbing is a capital offense in most of those cultures. Mucking around with the bodies of the dead just isn't done.

Now as D&D 'Adventurers', have we traditionally laughed in the face of those social mores? Absolutely. As has been pointed out... looting the body of the creature we just killed, or invading the tomb to steal its riches. But quite honestly, that's more a fault of us as players and DMs over the last 40 years allowing those actions to become so commonplace that they now appear to be "neutral"... when in truth, they probably could/should/would be looked upon with the same horror that we attribute to people who raise the walking dead. The fact that we haven't done that (and indeed, "looting" has become the de facto method for acquiring wealth in most games of this type-- roleplaying, tabletop and videogames included) is more of us not really thinking the full implications through of how people of that time would think. Rifling the pockets of the person we just killed (or jumping up and down or spitting on the body) would probably be considered almost as disgusting.

To be honest... I really am in agreement with Dausuul in that I'd like to see in the fluff and description of Animate Dead a bit of explanation of what is happening that warrants the [evil] or [non-good] tag (beyond, as he wisely points out, just the "Animating the dead is not a good act" statement.) I don't think that is too much to ask. But I also think it does add to the game to have a spell of this sort maintain a genre consistency to pretty much all stories within this genre that says animating the dead just is socially reprehensible. Yes... I know and agree that the Dominate spells can be just as evil depending on how they are used, and that Fireballs can cause just as much (if not more) outward destruction... but the fantasy genre has never made hay on their uses for evil purposes. There's no entire strains of the genre within fiction wherein the stories are all about fireballing people or dominating people.

The same cannot be said of Necromancy. Necromancy is an entire line of the genre in of itself, and in almost all cases... Necromancers are evil. It's just the way it is. And while I agree that there is nothing (and should be nothing) to stop a player from houseruling the idea of necromancy being a "good" act for their personal game or campaign... I don't find stripping any or all flavor out of the game (just so players don't have to say they are "houseruling") to be very interesting or compelling either. Why this idea that having to "house rule" by ignoring one statement in a spell description is such an anathema to people is beyond me.

And let's not kid ourselves... why do so many players want to play the "Good Necromancers" in the first place? It's exactly because Necromancers have always been evil, and thus players want to be unique by being the one character in the story doing the opposite. "The One Good Necromancer in the land." Well, in order for that to have any meaning... you need necromancers to be evil, otherwise, being a Good Necromancer ain't no big deal. They'll become as overwrought and overdone as vampires currently are in popular genre culture. And do any of us really want that?

 

[SkidAce]

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.

Generally, those folks who use the other spells you mentioned indiscriminately (or even a sword) tend towards evil and they suffer the prepercussions* via the game world's reactions.

---

*typo, but make an interesting word, prepared repercussions?

 

[SkidAce]

I can think of more benign uses for necromancy than I can for schools like enchantment and evocation. Seriously. The entire enchantment school is about robbing people of their free will, arguably the most precious thing anyone has (I would say that without free will, life itself is meaningless). Evocation is almost entirely about causing destruction and death as violently and explosively as possible. It's better at causing death than necromancy is! There's like, what, three or four spells in the entire evocation school that aren't about killing or destruction? Sending, contingency, wall of force, and gust of wind (and even that can be destructive). That's about it. There are a few others here and there, but you get the point. Plus, I'd rather be a victim of a curse than have third degree burns over much of my body, something I hear is excruciatingly painful. The nicest way evocation has of killing people is electrocution, which isn't very nice.

Necromancy, on the other hand, can be used to extend life. It can provide temporary hit points. It can preserve the dead for proper burial (or later resurrection). It can restore people to life by making a clone. It is an excellent weapon against the very undead that people fear so much. It can be used to solve murders by speaking with the bodies of the dead, so that they can have justice. It can strike fear into a violent mob, dispersing them without harming anyone. Dragon Magazine #348 has an excellent article on curses: "Despite their unpleasant image, curses are not solely the domain of villains, nor are they inherently evil. In contrast, a well-used curse can be a powerful weapon on the side of good, offering an alternative to killing a criminal or monster outright when the possibility exists it might find redemption."

A sword is made for one thing, killing. But is it evil to take up arms to defend your children? This question goes way beyond any game terms and is to deep for me to leave to the vagaries and misinterpretations of the text medium.

BL (for me) in my games, most tools are neutral, swords, fireballs etc. Necromancy deals with manipulating death (not life) and as such is tainted. Massacre villagers with a sword your probably evil. (YOU, not the sword). Deal with necromancy a lot, and you fall to the dark side, even with good intentions.

BL again, You can fall to the dark side using any "tool" but necromancy seduces and pushes you that direction.

 

[SkidAce]

I have thought about this in the past, but this thread re-awakens my musings.

Animate Dead for MY world.

Consider if the only way the spell worked was to summon a spirit (not a soul) and force it into the vessel (body).

I am considering such a spirit to be a Shadow. So to create skeletons, you summon an shadow from the (insert your plane of evil).

That's why it understands commands and has intelligence (minor). The process of infusing the bones or body in case of a zombie causes the inhabiting shadow to lose its special shadow abilities. (But man is there potential for custom spells here.)

This would be a great explanation for the "mindless" undead. Doesn't touch the original soul (which goes back to the world life force or follows its god to the afterlife, depending) and summons more evil into the world (that could potentially get loose).

I guess smiting and turning is the blasting of the inhabiting shadow/spirit.


There's potential here. Thanks folks.

SkidAce

 

[Incenjucar]

Different cultures treated the dead very differently. In at least one rather prominent and old culture we all have heard about, carrying around the bones of one of your religious leaders as good luck charms was pretty standard for the fearful faithful. It's purely a matter of taste inspired by the history of mythology and fantasy literature and adventure literature that praises slaughtering intelligent beings.

I'd really rather have the game assume a neutral stance on abstract morality than to invite me to consider how incredibly vile the genre makes its "heroes."

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Except we're not talking about the spells within the school of necromancy... we're talking about the specific spell Animate Dead (with its 'non-good' descriptor). I don't think anyone here is advocating putting that tag on every spell within that school. Just the one that involves the desecration of the dead body for personal purposes.

I do think we're all coming at it from the modern perspective in the idea that a dead body is "just meat"... and thus who really cares what you do with it. After all... in these modern times, we strip our dead for parts to help our fellow human beings all the time, many of us volunteering to do so in life if we are unfortunate enough to die before our time.

But I do think the game (and almost all other medieval and fantasy fiction) does look at it from a non-modern perspective, wherein there *is* something sacred about the body after a person dies. They have rituals to consecrate the body, they bury the body, graverobbing is a capital offense in most of those cultures. Mucking around with the bodies of the dead just isn't done.

Now as D&D 'Adventurers', have we traditionally laughed in the face of those social mores? Absolutely. As has been pointed out... looting the body of the creature we just killed, or invading the tomb to steal its riches. But quite honestly, that's more a fault of us as players and DMs over the last 40 years allowing those actions to become so commonplace that they now appear to be "neutral"... when in truth, they probably could/should/would be looked upon with the same horror that we attribute to people who raise the walking dead. The fact that we haven't done that (and indeed, "looting" has become the de facto method for acquiring wealth in most games of this type-- roleplaying, tabletop and videogames included) is more of us not really thinking the full implications through of how people of that time would think. Rifling the pockets of the person we just killed (or jumping up and down or spitting on the body) would probably be considered almost as disgusting.

To be honest... I really am in agreement with Dausuul in that I'd like to see in the fluff and description of Animate Dead a bit of explanation of what is happening that warrants the [evil] or [non-good] tag (beyond, as he wisely points out, just the "Animating the dead is not a good act" statement.) I don't think that is too much to ask. But I also think it does add to the game to have a spell of this sort maintain a genre consistency to pretty much all stories within this genre that says animating the dead just is socially reprehensible. Yes... I know and agree that the Dominate spells can be just as evil depending on how they are used, and that Fireballs can cause just as much (if not more) outward destruction... but the fantasy genre has never made hay on their uses for evil purposes. There's no entire strains of the genre within fiction wherein the stories are all about fireballing people or dominating people.

The same cannot be said of Necromancy. Necromancy is an entire line of the genre in of itself, and in almost all cases... Necromancers are evil. It's just the way it is. And while I agree that there is nothing (and should be nothing) to stop a player from houseruling the idea of necromancy being a "good" act for their personal game or campaign... I don't find stripping any or all flavor out of the game (just so players don't have to say they are "houseruling") to be very interesting or compelling either. Why this idea that having to "house rule" by ignoring one statement in a spell description is such an anathema to people is beyond me.

And let's not kid ourselves... why do so many players want to play the "Good Necromancers" in the first place? It's exactly because Necromancers have always been evil, and thus players want to be unique by being the one character in the story doing the opposite. "The One Good Necromancer in the land." Well, in order for that to have any meaning... you need necromancers to be evil, otherwise, being a Good Necromancer ain't no big deal. They'll become as overwrought and overdone as vampires currently are in popular genre culture. And do any of us really want that?

In D&D, it is a fact that there is life after death. Spirits do rise up and go to the plane of the god they worship. It's more than a mere belief, it is a fact.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

If you are going to play a person using 'Animate Dead' a lot and you stroll into town followed by your undeqd minions, please god don't act surprised when the town comes after you with torches and pitchforks.