Is necromancy evil or only as harmless as talking to your dead grandmother?

Is necromancy inherently evil?

  • Yes. It is an abomination in the sight of all the good gods.

    Votes: 56 42.1%
  • No, it is just another form of magic. Depends how you use it.

    Votes: 77 57.9%

Barastrondo

First Post
We're pretty much all agreed that Necromancy in and of itself is to some extent evil, depending how far you take it.

Technically, I disagree. I see it as much like a sword. A sword serves no other purpose whatsoever than to injure or kill human beings: it isn't a hunting implement, or a utility tool. It's a weapon, nothing but. And you can do a hell of a lot of evil with a sword, and you can even have a setting which is very gritty and emphasizes how bloodshed never brings anything but misery. But D&D isn't really that setting. It allows for glorified violence that turns out to be right and necessary — so I figure schools of magic can be portrayed as the same.

Fair enough. But, the corollary question becomes: are Necromancers playable?

If people who kill other people with swords are playable, so are necromancers.

So, money where my mouth is. Here's some examples of non-evil necromancer PCs in fantasy games I've been involved in. (Feel free to skip over if uninterested.)

- The Witch's Apprentice: Mundrun Sigrikkr, from a Nordic-style game. Second son of a huscarl, given over to a witch as her apprentice in exchange for her saving the life of the huscarl's first son. Learned a style of necromancy that is tied to winter and cold; a bit of an outcast who still labored under the burden of serving his clan. Last seen fighting against a cruel and rapacious raiding band of ice elves with an animated polar bear skeleton at his side. (AD&D 2e; might have been 3e. I forget.)

- The Sorcerous House Scion: From a game loosely inspired by Renaissance Italy, a young woman of low status adopted into one of the five great Sorcerous Houses, a House focusing on shadow magic and necromancy. Her mentor and only real friend within the House was murdered shortly before play started, and although his soul has moved on, she carries his willing animus within her to give her guidance. Her most "evil" trait is that she is quite willing to pursue the cultural tradition of vendetta to avenge her teacher. (D&D 4e. Mechanically a reskinned vestige pact warlock; her primary "vestige" is the animus of her deceased mentor. Definitely inspired by Garth Nix's Abhorsen books.)

- The Reclusive and Macabre Gentlewoman: The youngest scion of a family of eccentric necromancers; the great-grandparents and other aged relatives are essentially liches by this point. One part Addams Family, one part Jane Austen drawing-room comedy, and doses of Bradbury, Poe and Peake throughout. A reluctant hero archetype who nonetheless has a very strong ethical center; she developed a cure for vampirism at one point during the campaign largely because she felt sorry for some vampirized animals she encountered. Most of her solo adventures involve trying to put restless spirits at peace, or defend people from the undead. (Champions, but with a fantasy setting.)

I love having evil necromancers around. Love love love 'em. But putting it off-limits to PCs seems to close more doors than it opens, at least to my tastes. The possibility of neutral or even good necromancers doesn't remove the possibility of truly evil ones, just as the possibility of benevolent priests or lovable rogues doesn't remove the possibility of blasphemous hierophants and rapacious cutthroats. The Dia de los Muertos and the Sedlec Ossuary weren't created by bad people; I'm basically pretty enthusiastic about letting players explore that kind of attitude toward death and its trappings.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
We're pretty much all agreed that Necromancy in and of itself is to some extent evil, depending how far you take it.

Not me- I'm of the TheAuldGrump "The choice [] It Really Depends on the Setting"/Barastrondo "Technically, I disagree. I see it as much like a sword." school of thought.
 

Set

First Post
Random things a non-evil Necromancer could do, while staying within the themes of life-energy transfers and spirit manipulation;

Your best bet for an effective good necromancer is to research some necromancy spells of your own.

Necromantic energies are great at killin' stuff. Some stuff *needs* killin', such as hostile organisms, contagions and parasites. A Necromancer makes a *perfect* source of arcane cure disease, by sending a tiny flood of negative energy washing through a living person’s body, sickening them and inflicting a point of ability damage to Con, but kill all of those pesky less-than-one-hit-point diseases and parasites. (The sickness and ability damage? Well, some of the stuff killed might have been helpful gut bacteria. We takes the good with the bad...)

The same feature makes negative energy useful for sterilizing an area, for purifying tainted water, for purging foodstuffs of contagion, etc. in a magical medieval version of shooting radiation into food to kill bacteria. And there are people who will pay good money to be 'sterilized' for a short time, such as high-priced prostitutes, noble brats who want to party with the hoi-polloi without 'consequences,' etc. If you want to go with science, a flood of negative energy to kill reproductive cells would render a woman infertile until her next cycle (which, if that time is uncertain, would be in the next 2d8 days), and a man infertile for a day or two (6d8 hours?). Alternately, we can toss science out the window and have it last 30 days, regardless of gender, 'cause it's magic, and the spell is actually leaving a charge of negative energy in the person's body throughout the duration, making it a reliable and affordable form of magical birth control.

Contacting spirits of the dead, the actual original role of the 'necromancer,' could allow for a wide array of benefits. The spirits could be consulted for lore, allowing for bonuses to knowledge checks, they could be consulted for assistance in skills they have mastered, allowing a spirit-caller to possibly 'Aid Other' on skill checks of all sorts, by contacting the appropriate 'spiritual advisor,' and they could even, if made manifest, however weakly, be called upon to provide other benefits, aiding a particular target as if using the Aid Other combat action, as the young warrior feels the spirit of a grizzled veteran flow over him like water, lending skill to his sword-arm, or pushing his shield up in the way of an oncoming blow. This sort of thing would be a fine low level buff, since it's only giving the recipient a +2 to attack rolls or AC, switchable round by round, as the spirit of the deceased soldier provides tactical advice from within the beneficiary, temporarily 'possessing' him.

Spirits of the dead also make superior scouts, perhaps having only a single hit point and being easily dispelled back to the spirit world, but being able to pass incorporeally through surrounding walls and doors to observe what is on the other side. At low levels, the necromancer has to find (and bargain with!) a local spirit, so that he might only be able to use this spell if he can find a suitable corpse. At higher levels, he might be able to bind such a scout to him, perhaps as an Improved familiar, using Shadow stats (but not evil and with no Create Spawn ability, resembling a translucent black and white image of the person from whose body it was conjured), and have it follow him around (and return in 24 hours, like a ghost, if 'dispelled' by damage or turning or whatever). The spirit *might* be a very weak ghost, of someone who refused to pass on, for whatever reason, but, more likely, would be one of those spiritual echoes that get left behind in a corpse, with which one speaks when casting Speak with Dead, and while the necromancer has a 'fetch' of the person, their actual soul is off in Nirvana, counting turtles or whatever. At higher levels, a necromancer can barter with and bind one of these 'fetches' into a spirit jar or something, and bring them around with him, opening the jar when he needs their services, instead of having to find a convenient body at the target location. These jars would usually be one-use items, with the spiritual fragment free to return to its resting place when the service is over, but higher level versions would be re-usable, perhaps containing the ashes of the deceased (or even being crafted from their skull!) as an 'anchor' for the echo.

One step beyond conjuring souls, or these 'echoes' used by the Speak With Dead spell, a necromancer could use *his own spirit* for such things, sitting down cross-legged on the ground and shaking and rolling his eyes back as his own spirit travels forth with Shadow-like stats, to scout an area, or even to attack people. If his own spirit is 'slain' or dispelled, he suffers some traumatic result (dropped straight to -1 and Dying, for instance), so he's ill-advised to send his *soul* out to kill people...

He could also project a fraction of his own life-energy, necromantically, into unliving matter, allowing him to animate objects, similar to the Animate Objects spell, but one item at a time, and with the HD limit dependent upon his own power (the 'strength of his soul'). The low level version of this spell would, again, require him to send his soul out of his body, to 'possess' the object, but at higher levels, he could cast a spell that infuses an object with a fraction of his life-force, and allow him to animate it while remaining active himself (albeit at reduced hit points, as some of his life-energy is animating the object). If the object animated is destroyed, he loses the hit points he sent over to animate it (instead of flat hit points, I'd make it cost Con points, 1 for a smaller item, 2 for an item of his own size, etc.), and would have to recover the lost life-energy through healing, either over time, or through magic. Perhaps he can project life-force into anything, and animate it, or perhaps only into substances that were formerly alive (things made of bone, wood, leather, etc.). Perhaps the item needs an association with death (graveyard soil, animated by the necromancer with the stats of an earth elemental of appropriate size, or a weapon, functioning as a dancing weapon while he's 'possessing' it). Whatever seems thematically appropriate.

By projecting his life-force like this into another person, he could heal them, starting at a one for one ratio, and, at higher levels, learning to more precisely control the healing effects, and healing another of 2 hit points for every 1 that he takes, or something similar, doing a kind of magical transfusion, where he floods the wounded person with his own magical life-energy, to reinforce their body's own healing rate.

Less benevolent applications could allow him to project a fraction of his spirit into another, like a weak version of Magic Jar, allowing him to spy upon them as they go about their business, peering through their eyes, and hearing with their ears. At higher levels of this effect, he might be able to influence their actions, to a limited extent, or even totally seize control of them, lurching their body around like a puppet, if his soul can overpower their own. In a less sinister vein, he could perhaps perform the same 'buffing' service of the lesser spirits he used to call up, 'back in the day,' and from within an ally's body, warn them of danger, inform them of knowledges that he possesses, or even guide their limbs in battle, giving them the benefits of Aid Other. This more benevolent 'Rider Within' spell wouldn't allow him to seize control, or to perform actions like spellcasting through his 'host,' and his own body would remain in a death-like trance during the spell, as his animus is out to lunch.

Earlier editions made decent use of Feign Death type spells, another necromantic staple, and while not a 'cure' spell by any means, it can help someone survive poison or the effects of starvation or bleeding to death, by putting them into a deathless trance until they can be gotten to a safe place, or to someone who does have the cure needed to prevent their death.

The majority of a good necromancer's effects should work similarly, using *his own* life-energy to animate things or heal people, using his own spirit to scout places or inhabit things, and perhaps using his mastery of life and death to help others resist effects, by giving them immunities similar to those of undead (infusing someone with extra life-energy to make them resistant to environmental cold / heat effects, for instance, or suppressing their bodies need for air, so that they can go without breath for a short time, or making them incapable of bleeding, etc.). When he does call up spirits, they should be bargained with, or represent the 'echoes' that one contacts via Speak with Dead, not souls dragged screaming out of Heaven (or Hell), which should be way, way beyond the beginning Necromancer's purview (and terribly unsafe, since Asmodeus, for one, takes a very dim view of people taking things that belong to him!).

This 'bargaining' should occasionally include it's own Side-Trek, as the spirit you wish to interrogate about information promises to tell you everything, so long as you go make sure her family is safe, or that the bastard who killed him is punished. Unlike a divination spell, which 'just works,' negotiating for the services of a spiritual scout or advisor may occasionally require some extra effort.’

For a more shamanistic take, a 'primitive' necromancer may even learn spells that call up the spirits of animals, infusing them into the spirits of his tribe's warriors, who streak their faces with blood and ash and wear the skins of the animals whose abilities they seek, so that when they go to the hunt, they have the keen senses of their 'benefactor,' or the savage nature of the bear, etc. Yet more 'necromancy buffs,' only, in this case, using the life-force and spiritual residue of animals to empower allies.
 

Rechan

Adventurer
if you make necromancy/undead "Oh they are just misunderstood!" you ruin it.
One of the joys of playing Wolfenstein, is the SS/nazi monsters are outright bad guys deluxe, slaughtering them is FUN! :p

If you make every orc, drow, necormancer "just a misunderstood loveable dude underneath"...blech...! Who you gonna fight, and why?
I don't want ot play "Papers & Paychecks" ;) You can go way too far and ruin the game by making it to much like RL, which is what we play to get away from.
Nice dismissal of a game style that's clearly evident by what, half the poll respondants? Not eveyr enemy is a "misunderstood lovable dude underneath". I dislike "They're irredemable evil and you're completely justified for killing them simply because they exist". That's to me a poor motivator; I prefer more depth than 'it is, therefore it must die'. I find no difference between a warlord who has his mortal minions to abuse the people under his thumb, and a necromancer playing despot and using his undead minions to abuse the people under his thumb. One is using a sword and one is using magic.

No one has suggested that necromancers are misunderstood and lovable. It's that necromancy isn't inherently evil, therefore necromancers are not evil. Some necromancers are evil, some are morally gray. That's a far cry from lovable and misunderstood.

I might ruin it FOR YOU, but it isn't ruined FOR MY GROUP. For me. Stop telling me how things should be for my game.

So in general keep necromancy as evil as messing with the Far Realm stuff but worse, as necromancy involves snuffing life/souls out completely not just warping flesh and mind.
1) For your game. Why must it be kept evil "in general"? What's it doing to you for it not to be in my game?

2) Really? Raping someone's mind and changing them into something alien is less evil than flat out snuffing their soul?

This really is us simply viewing the world differently. :erm:
 
Last edited:

Rechan

Adventurer
There's one obvious much-broader question that's been touched on once or twice here, so let's drag it out into the open.

We're pretty much all agreed that Necromancy in and of itself is to some extent evil, depending how far you take it.
Which is like saying "Using magic to burn people alive with fireballs si in and of itself to some extent evil, depending on how far you take it".

I've rather strongly been saying that to me casting a spell of necromantic origin isn't evil, animating inert corpses, manipulating existing undead and possibly the animus isn't evil in itself. Bullying a soul is. Human sacrifice is.

But, the corollary question becomes: are Necromancers playable? And this leads straight to the 800-pound-gorilla-in-the-room question:

Are players in your game allowed to play evil characters?

Only by answering that can you determine whether Necro's (and Assassins) are playable in your game.
1) I really don't think assassins are inherently evil. I mean, some assassins are evil, just like some rogues are evil, but not all assassins are evil.

2) Yes, evil characters are allowed in my game. But that doesn't presume that just because they use x technique or y spell school, they must be evil.
 

Rechan

Adventurer
This reminds me of a thread that popped up about a year, year and a half ago. The question boiled down to: Do you think Orcs are born evil or raised evil?

The thread was split.

One camp thought that orcs were inherently evil. You take a baby orc, you send it to an orphanage, you clean it up and put nice clothes on it and give it everything it wants and it will try to cut your throat the minute you aren't looking. This group wants Orcs to be Evil, end of Discussion, because: 1) It's Traditional. 2) They wanted the luxury of not having to question whether slaughtering the orcs was a moral question, they wanted something they knew was evil they felt utterly justified in killing.

One camp saw orcs as being raised evil, and thought that there were more variety of potential orc cultures and ways to use orcs in different manners. If the Orc was raised evil, then if you changed the culture you changed the orc, and thus you could have your noble savages, your primitive neanderthals, or your viking barbarian hordes that are just inclined to rampage, without the big neon EVIL sign flashing above their head.

And this gets back to this thread. Some want necromancy to be evil, and others want the actions that necromancy is used to be evil. To me, the latter offers more opportunities to present it in interesting ways (Hollowfaust, undead fighting necromancers, the above poster using the purifier necromancer). I understand the need to have the fantasy Nazis, who everyone can feel good about fighting, but I don't put necros in that group, as I think that takes some of the Fun out of them; as soon as you declare them evil from the get-go, you take some of the Personality away from it, none of the PCs care about the guy now because he's just Evil.

But to an even deeper extent, I dislike the idea that "You touch this and you're Evil. No question." I think necromancy is cool, but I don't want to be forced to be evil just to play it. It takes away story potential and forces one narrative. I think Necromancy, the Infernal or the Far Realms stuff being a highly Tempting force - you do one, it gets easier to take the next step down the downward spiral and you lose sight of right and wrong - is more interesting because it also means that someone who gets involved and isn't evil has real strength of character, real willpower, and a line in the sand they won't cross, or possibly an established Tradition that is offering some ethical guide. It also lets you have the conversation of "What is evil" in this action vs that action. That's a much more fun avenue to explore in a game for me.
 
Last edited:

Barastrondo

First Post
No one has suggested that necromancers are misunderstood and lovable. It's that necromancy isn't inherently evil, therefore necromancers are not evil.

I would be just pedantic enough to amend it to "it's that necromancy isn't inherently evil, therefore necromancers are not inherently evil," but otherwise I must spread some experience points around before giving them to Rechan again.
 

Silvercat Moonpaw

Adventurer
We're pretty much all agreed that Necromancy in and of itself is to some extent evil, depending how far you take it.
No, no we are not. We may be agreed that it could be evil depending on how far it is taken.
One of the joys of playing Wolfenstein, is the SS/nazi monsters are outright bad guys deluxe, slaughtering them is FUN! :p
Nazis are bad guys based on their beliefs. Giving them even eviler things to do therefore overdoes it and ruins their flavor.
If you make every orc, drow, necormancer "just a misunderstood loveable dude underneath"...blech...! Who you gonna fight, and why?
1) People who are hurting other people.
2) No one.
You can go way too far and ruin the game by making it to much like RL, which is what we play to get away from.
In real life people people make up stupid reasons to hate other people and then don't get punished for it. I want to punish them, and I don't want them to be right. Therefore to get away from that I want to play in a game without the stupid reasons being right (i.e. "inherently evil").
So in general keep necromancy as evil as messing with the Far Realm stuff but worse, as necromancy involves snuffing life/souls out completely not just warping flesh and mind.
Your argument contains a flaw: you assume warping the flesh and mind is evil. I don't agree with your opinion. If the warpee is willing then it is not evil; consent is the key to evil/not evil. And if warping flesh and mind is evil then shapeshifting and mind-affecting effects are also evil.

(This is not to mention that you assume necromancy must mean snuffing out life/souls, whether or not it's complete.)
 

Rechan
please remember, in previosu post #34 I said it can be ok for some settings/games :)

In general though it should be kept really damn horribly evil, it's important for heroes to face things that really are worse than death!

now, in some settings sure necromancy could be neutral, but in most settings, or most uses of it, it rots the soul of the one who uses it, never mind the victim.
consider the use of it to be akin to a dirty nuclear weapon: even the user by contact is irrevocably poisoned by it's radiation. there's a price to be paid for such.

Fire burns flesh and kills, but it's a natural force of the living world, necromancy is completely unnatural.

please go read up on a lot of fantasy/folk lore before "evil became the chic cliche' '" ;)

you could have a setting where necromancers keep the undead at bay, where they keep a ruined world working, where they are the last remnants of civilization (due to udneath) etc.
but in MOST settings, necromancy and the unfead are best kept very nasty, very scary, not just form superstition but as said, because it's so foul.
havinf a friend fall to a zombie horde, then rise as one himself...that would losen the bowels! :devil:

Again, the simile' to an NBC weapon is apt. yes a gun can kill, swords could (and have) slaughtered huge numbers of innocents.
But nerve gas coudl kill a city in a night..and leave it's user poisoned, too.

A conjuror could summon fire elementals and burn a city down..but demons would be far worse, demons don't just kill, they corrupt, they take pleasure in sadism etc. It would be a horror!

In D&D you'd have to have the gods or something wokring against the udnead, because they'd soon swamp every civilization! No natural death, many are able to spread their "taint" into fallen victims...
in 1st/2nd ed their level drain would mean a wraith or spectre would suck the life out of hunreds of citizens...who'd turn into more wraiths...

The Far Realm is in effect about perverting the physical and mental nature of creatures, nercomancy, in general, sucks out life and leaves an empty hollow behind that needs filled...
it wasa telling in 1st, 2nd and 3rd ed, that mind flayers feared the undead above nealry all else ;)

Skeletons are not constructs because they like killing the living (check their desciptions), so the udnead, creatures of necormancy are inherently hateful, jealous covetous, angry, spiteful of the living.
Remeber Jeff Easleys gorgeous painting of a nercomancer riaisng undead? :)
not very "neautral" I'd say ;)

Each to his own, I know :) but folks do want their cake and to eat it, in this situation. ie ot have necromancy be "eerie, scary" etc, AND ot use it without consequence.
Sometimes, there are powers/things best left alone! And that is good for the game.
if PCs use them, they run risks...risks are good frisson', DM shouldn' ban, just give warnings of possible conqequences if used.
 


Remove ads

Top