Tinker Gnome
Adventurer
You could just say Necromancy is not inherently evil in your game, regardless of what the spell descriptor says.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
"Good" Necromancy
- Thread starter Summer-Knight925
- Start date
frankthedm
First Post
If it bothers you, just say no. Necromancy often assaults the life force/soul, a target at best suited for an anti-hero. Officially IIRC until 3.5, victims of death effects didn't even go to the afterlife, last time that showed up was 3.0 Manual of the planes. Sadly, 3.5 Complete Divine flip flopped on the subject.
Just for example
Energy Drain And Negative Levels
Some horrible creatures, especially undead monsters, possess a fearsome supernatural ability to drain levels from those they strike in combat. The creature making an energy drain attack draws a portion of its victim’s life force from her.
.....
A character with negative levels at least equal to her current level, or drained below 1st level, is instantly slain. Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight.
Enervation
You point your finger and utter the incantation, releasing a black ray of crackling negative energy that suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes. You must make a ranged touch attack to hit. If the attack succeeds, the subject gains 1d4 negative levels.
If the subject has at least as many negative levels as HD, it dies.
Related thread
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ption-obliteration-souls-campaign-s-tone.html
Last edited:
Dross
Explorer
At the risk of bringing real world religion in on this, most major faiths consider fiddling with the corpse a bad thing at best, if not downright evil/sacrilegious.
My knowledge of voodoo is only TV deep (i.e. less than superficial) but is the only one I'm aware of that doesn't consider it outright bad in all instances.
The major exception to this if you donate your body to science/medicine or your organs to the living when you die. Which is the deceased making a decision pre-post mortem
(and depending on where you are the family may be able to veto your decision regardless).Now if you run your necromancer that way, maybe that would work (possibly with a homemade PrC)?
And resurrection type spells ~= dealing with the dead ~= necromancy, so they are not all bad. Just keep yourself from falling to the dark side.
This thread covers a lot of the ground of Necromancy = Evil vs Necromancy ≠ Evil arguments:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...alking-your-dead-grandmother.html#post5192736
Midway through the thread, I (and others) point out that "Eastern" faiths tend to place less of a taboo upon behaviors/actions would be Necromancy in a typical FRPG, and that even "Western" faiths like Judaisim & Christianity have varied in their treatment of such things- like the Witch of Endor and certain ossuaries and the like:
The Skull Cathedral of Otranto: Where the Bones of 800 Martyrs Adorn the Walls
Humour Cafe: Bone Church In Czech Republic
The Bone Sculptor | Curious Expeditions
Then there are religions like Vodoun that see "necromancy" as a tool: whether it is evil or not depends upon the use to which it is put. Calling up the dead for advice or to serve a good cause is a good thing; calling them up to harm the innocent is evil.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...alking-your-dead-grandmother.html#post5192736
Midway through the thread, I (and others) point out that "Eastern" faiths tend to place less of a taboo upon behaviors/actions would be Necromancy in a typical FRPG, and that even "Western" faiths like Judaisim & Christianity have varied in their treatment of such things- like the Witch of Endor and certain ossuaries and the like:
The Skull Cathedral of Otranto: Where the Bones of 800 Martyrs Adorn the Walls
Humour Cafe: Bone Church In Czech Republic
The Bone Sculptor | Curious Expeditions
Then there are religions like Vodoun that see "necromancy" as a tool: whether it is evil or not depends upon the use to which it is put. Calling up the dead for advice or to serve a good cause is a good thing; calling them up to harm the innocent is evil.
Summer-Knight925
First Post
Im going to talk to my player hopefully tomorrow, see if me and him cant find some common ground for this necromancer, i have always wanted to play one, but my old group never allowed it (probably because we were all paladins and vampire hunters, im not sure, im not a wizard) but it should be interesting
Is the player set on playing as a Wizard or Sorceror? The most acceptable use of necromantic spells and zombies that I've heard of being discussed comes from a cleric of Wee Jas. Now, to the argument:
- The character was lawful neutral and made no value judgements. Things were either within the law, or not. Surprisingly, most laws make little mention of zombie creation being illegal (see if your national laws prohibit it!).
- The character viewed people and creatures directly attacking him as, firstly, breaking the law and thus able to be killed in his self-defence.
- People and creatures that attacked him, a representative of Wee Jas to the world, also attacked Wee Jas. Thus, they must server penance until Wee Jas was satisfied.
- Penance was served by reanimation of the body.
It was a fantastic argument for non-evil necromancy and legions of undead. The character was played to the hilt...before level 5 he performed the "rites of the dead" on any and all things killed that had greater than animal intelligence. LN clerics of Wee Jas also channel negative energy, so he could control his minions...
- The character was lawful neutral and made no value judgements. Things were either within the law, or not. Surprisingly, most laws make little mention of zombie creation being illegal (see if your national laws prohibit it!).
- The character viewed people and creatures directly attacking him as, firstly, breaking the law and thus able to be killed in his self-defence.
- People and creatures that attacked him, a representative of Wee Jas to the world, also attacked Wee Jas. Thus, they must server penance until Wee Jas was satisfied.
- Penance was served by reanimation of the body.
It was a fantastic argument for non-evil necromancy and legions of undead. The character was played to the hilt...before level 5 he performed the "rites of the dead" on any and all things killed that had greater than animal intelligence. LN clerics of Wee Jas also channel negative energy, so he could control his minions...
thewallshadow
First Post
There is always the make the undead good approach. This takes a bit on your part for being the dm, his undead could be former heros/etc that he calls on to fight for a cause.
Possibly even it have that say there is a mindless undead already around if he uses command undead a spirit of a hero takes over the form. While the restrictions remain the same that you can not put it in direct harms way if it is an intellegent undead. Chalk it up to the undeads mind trying to regain control.
Possibly even it have that say there is a mindless undead already around if he uses command undead a spirit of a hero takes over the form. While the restrictions remain the same that you can not put it in direct harms way if it is an intellegent undead. Chalk it up to the undeads mind trying to regain control.
I humbly put forth a tried-and-true favorite: AD&D (yep, Second Edition) Complete Book of Necromancers. Admittedly, it's a completely different system; however, it has three kits that you both may want to look at. If nothing else, it'll give you some intriguing new ideas (and part of it, at least, can be converted in some form to 3.5):
Anatomist: The Anatomist kit is intriguing, mostly for being what amounts to the Dr. Victor von Frankenstein of necromancers. They use necromancy as a means of healing in conjunction with the Anatomy and Healing non-weapon proficiencies -- useful if you find yourself lacking a cleric, at least to a certain degree. The main drawback is that the Anatomist is definitely not someone you want anywhere remotely near the front lines, particularly given the kit's lack of weapons for proficiency, and that you can lose the kit's benefits if you don't autopsy at least one corpse every month.
Deathslayer: If you want to fight fire with fire, the Deathslayer kit is for you. The Deathslayer uses necromancy to strike at the undead, using their own Negative Energy against them. Best when coupled with some moderate melee capability -- Talib, the NPC Deathslayer in the book, was a 5th level human fighter before he dual-classed into the Deathslayer kit as a means of destroying any lich he came across (after a lich had killed what little was left of his family).
Philosopher: The Philosopher sees necromancy as the Art -- best for neutral-aligned characters (lawful neutral might actually be best alignment-wise, depending on personality). For them, necromancy is a tool (much like one of the previous posters had commented about Vodoun's view of necromantic practices). Philosophers tend to also be very educated and book-smart.
As far as converting the kits over... the Anatomist is likely the most difficult one, particularly now that they've changed healing spells from being Necromancy sphere in AD&D to Conjuration (healing) in 3E / 3.5. The Deathslayer... I'd say Fighter / Wizard (Necromancer) / Eldritch Knight as the most likely bet; Hexblade / Dread Necromancer would be interesting thematically for showing how the obsession with fighting undead carries with it a terrible price, as the use of Necromancy affects the character (through the Dread Necromancer's gradual transformation into a lich). For the Philosopher... straight-class Archivist is far and away the most likely choice for following such a concept.
Anatomist: The Anatomist kit is intriguing, mostly for being what amounts to the Dr. Victor von Frankenstein of necromancers. They use necromancy as a means of healing in conjunction with the Anatomy and Healing non-weapon proficiencies -- useful if you find yourself lacking a cleric, at least to a certain degree. The main drawback is that the Anatomist is definitely not someone you want anywhere remotely near the front lines, particularly given the kit's lack of weapons for proficiency, and that you can lose the kit's benefits if you don't autopsy at least one corpse every month.
Deathslayer: If you want to fight fire with fire, the Deathslayer kit is for you. The Deathslayer uses necromancy to strike at the undead, using their own Negative Energy against them. Best when coupled with some moderate melee capability -- Talib, the NPC Deathslayer in the book, was a 5th level human fighter before he dual-classed into the Deathslayer kit as a means of destroying any lich he came across (after a lich had killed what little was left of his family).
Philosopher: The Philosopher sees necromancy as the Art -- best for neutral-aligned characters (lawful neutral might actually be best alignment-wise, depending on personality). For them, necromancy is a tool (much like one of the previous posters had commented about Vodoun's view of necromantic practices). Philosophers tend to also be very educated and book-smart.
As far as converting the kits over... the Anatomist is likely the most difficult one, particularly now that they've changed healing spells from being Necromancy sphere in AD&D to Conjuration (healing) in 3E / 3.5. The Deathslayer... I'd say Fighter / Wizard (Necromancer) / Eldritch Knight as the most likely bet; Hexblade / Dread Necromancer would be interesting thematically for showing how the obsession with fighting undead carries with it a terrible price, as the use of Necromancy affects the character (through the Dread Necromancer's gradual transformation into a lich). For the Philosopher... straight-class Archivist is far and away the most likely choice for following such a concept.
Malachei
First Post
I'd say creating a background that allows a necromancer without being evil should be fairly easy. I have a necromancer in one of my campaigns -- he studied the spiritworld and the energies out of curiosity, came across ancient tomes and has been fighting evil necromancers ever since, which also got him access to many necromancy spells via captured spellbooks. He will readily use death magic, enervation and even summon undead, but he will not animate them -- and this works fine for me.
However, I would not appreciate a good party walking around with a few "undead pets", and if your player cannot live without animating, I'd say he should consider coming up with a completely different character concept and play the necromancer in another campaign.
However, I would not appreciate a good party walking around with a few "undead pets", and if your player cannot live without animating, I'd say he should consider coming up with a completely different character concept and play the necromancer in another campaign.
jefgorbach
First Post
all depends in WHAT spells he uses.
Necromancy primarily focuses on the physical body so there's no reason he couldn't be good/neutral, however I would be tempted to house-rule each use of negative energy effects/[Evil] effects carry a cumulative% of drifting the caster's alignment towards evil because of the associated taint (offset by each use of positive energy/[Good] effects) so carefully using both could/should maintain an acceptable equilibrium.
Necromancy primarily focuses on the physical body so there's no reason he couldn't be good/neutral, however I would be tempted to house-rule each use of negative energy effects/[Evil] effects carry a cumulative% of drifting the caster's alignment towards evil because of the associated taint (offset by each use of positive energy/[Good] effects) so carefully using both could/should maintain an acceptable equilibrium.
Similar Threads
