Chaosmancer
Legend
You seem to misread what I said.
I never called anything "unnatural". You seem to be getting that idea from elsewhere?
I never called the Spore Druid "Evil".
I did say that a focus on "blood and guts and death and corpses ... is darkside", which it is.
But you also keep associating "darkside" magic with fiends and aberrations, which ARE evil in the DnD context. If you are suddenly shifting contexts from calling something "black magic" which is understood as "evil, harmful magic" to "creepy magic" then you have to state that or people are going to get confused.
Spore Druids can be a grim focus, death, decay and rot. I agree. I also would say they are very much Necromancy. Which is why I DISAGREE with calling necromancy the black magic of fiends, which is basically a way of saying "the evil magic of evil things" because Spore Druids are not evil.
Beasts are generally Unaligned and incapable of making ethical decisions.
Generally, Fiends are Evil. However, similar to how there is such thing as Evil Celestials, there is also such thing as Good Fiends.
In any case, player characters might have Good reasons for engaging Fiends.
Right, here is the problem. Cosmologically Evil Celestials make more sense in the DnD context, because DnD has decided to have evil gods AND fiends as seperate beings (a dumb decision, but I can't deny it was a decision they made). Yes, very rarely a good fiend exists, but like conjoined twins, it isn't going to be the first thing you think about when presented the concept.
And you are 100% correct that a player might have good reasons for engaging with fiends. Do you know the typical story beats of that? "This person is making a stupid decision". It is the Faustian Bargain, it is the Deal with the Devil. And only two types of good characters do that, the stupid/naive and the desperate. By setting up a space for "this is magic associated with fiends and demons" you are not creating a neutral category, you are creating a category that is filled with evil. And then you double down on that with the Aberrations, which are evil, even if technically they are blue/orange morality.
You, even if only because of the context of DnD, are creating a category that lumps all death and soul magic with two of the most evil forces in existence, and then just to hammer the point home called it "black magic" which is usually just a shorthand for "evil magic"
Precisely.
A particular setting can easily comment on the ethics of Enchantment.
In a Norse setting, it would be tricky to discuss, because it is gender divided. The men of the family have a duty to defend the family, and values of "courage" are existential. But it is generally acceptable for women to engage in mind manipulation.
(That said, in a Norse setting, a man can be respected for their skill at feminine magic even if viewed askance for their shirking masculine responsibilities. Likewise, a woman can be respected for their skill in warfare.)
Personally, I view the use of Enchantment to be more ethical than killing.
Right, a setting. A world. Not the rules itself. Not the category itself.
A Greek-Inspired Setting might state that all Divination magic is evil, because it implies trying to fight against your Fate. But the game rules themselves do not make that distinction. But when you say "Necromancy is the magic of evil beings and evil magic and also evil" as the category itself, you have enforced that morality in the meta-setting. You have stated that, beyond the setting itself, this is seen as evil and bad and wrong.
Again, this may not be your intent, but you have to understand that this is being seen in the context of DnD, which has made some of these assumptions.
To say that Necromancy itself is Evil seems off. To say that Necromancy engages Evil or harmful creatures, and that many necromancers are Evil, would seem more fair.
Necromancy is essentially a weapon, like Fireball is. Perhaps Necromancy is more like modern biological weapons. The ethics of it depend entirely on how one uses them. It is easy to imagine many unethical scenarios − but the same goes for any weapon.
I kinda agree. Evil characters can use "good" magic, like Healing. Good characters can use "evil" magic, like Necromancy. The magic itself is a neutral tool.
That is my main point, when I say "darkside". I also include Fiends and Aberrants, tho.
The magic itself is neutral, but it includes genres like temptation to do Evil, cruelty, insanity, fear, and so on.
Yes, Fiends and Aberrations are "typically" Evil. Celestials are "typically" Good. The exceptions are important.
Whether these creature types are Evil or not, has nothing to do with whether the player characters are Evil or not.
And the rest of this is just covering the same ground. The problem is you are trying to make the exception, the rule.
Yes, Good Fiends can theoretically exist. Just like Cold Fire can theoretically exist. But if I say "it is safe to walk through fire, because it is sometimes cold" that is wrong, because the exception is not the rule. If DnD cosmology made Fiends and Aberrations more like Dwarves and Humans, then you could do this, but it doesn't.
What you seem to want to do is say something to the effect of "evil magic used for good purposes becomes neutral magic" but that IS NOT how DnD presents things. In DnD, evil is a quality. Evil Magic used for Good is still evil magic. And I want to REMOVE the distinction of evil from Necromancy. Being grim or "dark" in terms of being death magic is fine with me, death makes people uncomfortable and for good reason. But I want to avoid associating it with Evil, because then it becomes based off the usage and the setting, not based off of the meta understanding of the design intent.
Take away Fiends, Abberations and the label of "black magic" and then don't call necromancy evil, and then my goal is met. Fiends and Abberrations, along with elementals, celestials and fey then all move into the various planar things, such as conjuration and divination. You can use divination magic to contact a planar being and ask for advice, and that magic is the same regardless of WHO you contact, but who you are contacting changes the context. And that is what matters. Now it is intent that creates whether or not the magic is seen as good or bad, not the magic used itself.