AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic - Necromancy for Non-Evil Toons

I was thinking hard on how I could be a necromancer and NOT an evil character...

I have come to this RP edge (which has probably been attempted before).

My mage was born to an ancient family line (undisclosed at this time). They were great and ancient warriors and twisters of the arcane thread. At some period (still working on it), another family of warriors pledged to defend them for all of eternity. Eternity that extends into the afterlife. For each member of the first line, they carry a trinket of some sort that is used to 'Call' the spirit of one of these countless defenders. I am not doing anything malicious, and the family that pledged themselves did it willing. I am still fleshing it out, but I want to know if this angle to 'Non-Evil' necromancy would be legitimate.

Thank you very much for your consideration,

-Gerald
aka, Varian Hashasheen (Fghtr/WM)
Salamandastran (Wizard -Necro- LG)

Necromancy isn't evil, people who use animate/create undead-like spells are evil. Also, avoid spells that have 'evil' in the descriptor and you will be safe from the EO (hopefully)

One of the most vile and atrocious acts are to call a body back to life, because you're fuelling the process with negative energy and thus harming yourself and probably the environment around. You're creating sentient life that isn't life - Just an echo, a mimic of it.

Then some necromancy involves actually trapping the real soul into a corpse, husk, spirit etc.. that's not the nicest thing to do either

I say it would be very easy to play a good necromancer that raises bodies and all of that black art stuff. Just use the knowledge that evil and good are just social perspectives and that having a character that some might call delusional solves most moral and political issues.

I personally don't have a single evil character in my list. Sure the D&D rules or the player base at general might disagree, but that's not how I choose to see it. You can pull it off. I'm sure I could if I gave it a try.

Here's a Link that shows you what the Eternal Order considers Dark, White, and Grey necromancy. All spells are accepted excluding Dark. If you use Dark, you'll likely be hunted down and burned. Any spell in the Dark we consider evil, and i bet the Book of Vile Darkness does too.

Also, there are undead that are not considered evil or against the laws of Kelemvor, such as Baelnorns. Those are often good aligned, and have a purpose and sentience.

hadeismetirion wrote:

I say it would be very easy to play a good necromancer that raises bodies and all of that black art stuff. Just use the knowledge that evil and good are just social perspectives and that having a character that some might call delusional solves most moral and political issues.

No, no, no. In D&D (I am *not* talking about the real world here) Good and Evil are fixed absolutes. They're not matters of personal opinion that exists on some sort of sliding scale, where evil can be less evil if only the evildoer really wishes it, or refuses to accept his/her own evilness. The character you're describing - one who is delusional about whether black necromancy is evil - is also delusional about his/her own alignment. That character is evil, whether he believes that he is or not.

Lizzie wrote:

hadeismetirion wrote:

I say it would be very easy to play a good necromancer that raises bodies and all of that black art stuff. Just use the knowledge that evil and good are just social perspectives and that having a character that some might call delusional solves most moral and political issues.

No, no, no. In D&D (I am *not* talking about the real world here) Good and Evil are fixed absolutes. They're not matters of personal opinion that exists on some sort of sliding scale, where evil can be less evil if only the evildoer really wishes it, or refuses to accept his/her own evilness. The character you're describing - one who is delusional about whether black necromancy is evil - is also delusional about his/her own alignment. That character is evil, whether he believes that he is or not.

Not really. Intentions are the most important factor in determining alignment. If you want to be evil but accidentally do something good, you don't suddenly become a paragon. The same should obviously work in reverse: if you try your best to do good, but due to reasonable and justified ignorance you fail, you are obviously not evil for it. In both cases, you would operate somewhere between the extremes, getting both Good and Evil points to add to your alignment. Always ask yourself: does this argument work identically for both good and evil? If not, it's probably flawed. If good and evil are quantifiable cosmological forces, rather than moral concepts, then they must behave identically.

The spells themselves are Evil. That is established in the descriptor. But every action consists of smaller parts than can be divided ad infinitum. Some of them are Good, some of them are Evil, some of them are cosmologically irrelevant. The descriptor is only one factor in determining the final outcome of the act.

Perhaps you defile a grave and raise the inhabitant, because you know it's the only way to save the village from being annihilated by a horde of orcs. You need the undead to scare them off, but you regret the vile deed you must do. Obviously this action has good intentions and a good outcome, but it also has evil factors in it. I wouldn't deny the spell that raises the corpse is evil, but at the end of the day, the total sum of alignment points you get from the action would probably still be on the good side of the spectrum. A character who regularly uses evil tools to do good is probably somewhere around Neutral, while a character who does it occasionally when it's absolutely necessary can very well remain Good.

Things are anything but black and white on Toril. Sure, you can say there are fixed absolutes of Good and Evil in some cosmological realm, but they do not exist as such in social reality. Everywhere in the mortal realm, they are blended in confusing shades of gray that just don't open up to thorough analysis.

It's also important to note that "Black","Grey" and "White" necromancy are also all colloquial terms, used by our very own EO. There's really no such tiers for what may be a metaphysical value. Just descriptors.

IMO opinion, its best to look at spells by descriptor rather than "Which of X school are Evil". It's completely possible to play a Good Necromancer by virtue of the fact that every Necromancy spell isn't evil in the axial sense. And it's not really any more special than that. A NG Necromancer doesn't use Animate Dead for the same reason a NG Evoker doesn't purposely aim his Maximized Delayed Fireball at an orphanage filled with children. They're both innately evil actions, and while they're both within their ability to do most likely, they simply don't for reasons that simple.

Don't expect your average Joe commoner to realize this, though. I imagine when they hear the word "necromancy" they picture a dude digging up their uncle's corpse the same way they picture an old crone looking into a crystal ball when they hear the term "divination." It's wise to separate what may be social opinion and otherworldly truth when it comes to Spells vs Alignment.

Followers of Jergal have the good necromancer thing goin for them.

Many followers of Kelemvor are also Necromancers.

ShortSlasher wrote:

Followers of Jergal have the good necromancer thing goin for them.

Erase the good, and you're right on. Jergal cares not for "good" and "evil." He has both and the in between-ers.

I used to play a Good-aligned necromancer. She didn't raise Undead, period, but she was the perfect Necromancer-bashing Necromancer. It's very possible, but there are spells you simply can't use (regularly, if you agree with Iron's view of alignments) if you're Good - unless you request very particular reskins for certain Undead.

Jes wrote:

I used to play a Good-aligned necromancer. She didn't raise Undead, period, but she was the perfect Necromancer-bashing Necromancer. It's very possible, but there are spells you simply can't use (regularly, if you agree with Iron's view of alignments) if you're Good - unless you request very particular reskins for certain Undead.

Aye, however, spells such as Undeath to Death totally make up for it. Awesome spell is awesome. Especially hilarious against plot monsters that have thousands of hit points but low will saves. Good memories, good memories.

Lizzie wrote:

hadeismetirion wrote:

I say it would be very easy to play a good necromancer that raises bodies and all of that black art stuff. Just use the knowledge that evil and good are just social perspectives and that having a character that some might call delusional solves most moral and political issues.

No, no, no. In D&D (I am *not* talking about the real world here) Good and Evil are fixed absolutes. They're not matters of personal opinion that exists on some sort of sliding scale, where evil can be less evil if only the evildoer really wishes it, or refuses to accept his/her own evilness. The character you're describing - one who is delusional about whether black necromancy is evil - is also delusional about his/her own alignment. That character is evil, whether he believes that he is or not.

Pff. I could take the whole goodly paladin persona, the lawful stupid attitude and cast it into an evil (acording to D&D) character. Selflessly fetching back escaped necromantic experiments for others. Without asking for reward or pay rebuilding the burned down house of some skeleton the EO just trashed. Rescuing undead puppies from EO prisons to return them to their cute half rotten little girl zombie owner.

I could do that so well. It's not my fault D&D was largely made by Americans and has the depth of a puddle. Good or Evil is what you make/think of it. What the universe thinks about it and good old AO. Those aren't cares for those that have convinced themselves or know not better then what they are doing is good. That's a detail to be dealt with after death when its judgement time.

It's really far far from a uncommen mindset amongst players.
If I had less of a life, I might have had time for more then the 4 characters I play. I might just make such a goodly evil persona. But I'm keeping well busy as it is.

It's about how the character feels to you and the ingame sociaty you play it in, not how others judge it by the D&D rules.

Mind that while I disagree with Lizzie, I don't fully agree with Hadeis either.

Anyhow, about the actual topic: Good necromancers (the animating kind, which I will be referring to) may be very situational and quite a stretch, if they use their talents with any regularity. However, neutral necromancers are dime in a dozen. Even Pale Masters, the guys who want to become like undead, can be neutral. So non-evil necromancy is certainly legitimate, and your background is cool.

I would love to argue the distinction between spell alignment and the alignment of casting the spell, but I'm afraid I have to go. While I agree that casting an evil spell probably usually brings evil alignment points, it's not necessarily evil. It's a logical fallacy people continue to make. Doing X to Y is not the same as Y, and therefore there's no reason to assume the doing and the object will have the same alignment. "Casting an evil spell is evil" has the same logical structure as "killing an good man is good" or "giving birth to an evil man is evil".

IronAngel wrote:

Mind that while I disagree with Lizzie, I don't fully agree with Hadeis either.

Ah semi agreement, just the way I like. Life isn't fun without some friction. This is as much as I ever wanted.
Well I'm done posting in this topic. Enjoy the rest of it.

True story, greater restoration is a Necromancy spell. Which is just hilarious considering all the clerics who use it on all steps of the alignment staircase.

But yes there are some spells that no matter your intentions, are evil as shit, and using them makes you evil. DnD is great in that you can very literally find evil, make it manifest and then kill it.

Lizzie wrote:

hadeismetirion wrote:

I say it would be very easy to play a good necromancer that raises bodies and all of that black art stuff. Just use the knowledge that evil and good are just social perspectives and that having a character that some might call delusional solves most moral and political issues.

No, no, no. In D&D (I am *not* talking about the real world here) Good and Evil are fixed absolutes. They're not matters of personal opinion that exists on some sort of sliding scale, where evil can be less evil if only the evildoer really wishes it, or refuses to accept his/her own evilness. The character you're describing - one who is delusional about whether black necromancy is evil - is also delusional about his/her own alignment. That character is evil, whether he believes that he is or not.

Fixed absolutes are often used an ugly and rather poor excuse to PvP(I.E:"U R TIEFLING DIE"). That aside, whether it is a fixed absolute or not, it is his character. Though note well anyone raising the dead(Good or no) tend to be considered senile and evil by most just for working with the Black Arts in general, so finding allies as a neutral/good aligned necromancer may be quite hard.

My take on the 'fixed alignments' is that yes your char can have delusions about his/her alignment. Yes they can think evil necromancy can be used for good things. The problem is, that doesn't change the fact that you are committing inherently evil acts.

Your character doesn't choose their alignment. It is based upon their actions. If you have a character that regularly goes around raising dead then, even if your character thinks they are Neutral or even Good, they are Evil. The fact that it is cut and dry has nothing at all to do with society. Alignment is not something branded on you by people, it's a cosmic thing. You can have a character that is Evil but everyone thinks is Neutral because everything that he does that is wrong they never see, that makes him EVIL. The same goes for someone that believes they are Good but does Evil things.

The thing that people forget in DnD is that 'Alignment' has no representation on what society views you as. 'Alignment' on the char sheet is what the cosmos thinks of you. Your 'Societal Alignment' might be radically different. Evil Things are pretty cut and dry in DnD, unless you decide to do something different for your campaign.

On the main subject of Necromantic spells, I cannot offer much that hasn't been offered. But as long as you are not making undead or purposefully harming others without cause then you are not doing something evil (aside from killing good people). I don't even think Slay Living is considered an evil spell, if used to help Good people. Some of them depend on how they are used. But some are obviously evil (ie Inflict Wounds).

*BSG hybrid voice* All of this has happened before, and it will happen again, again, again, again, again, again.......

What makes you think alignment isn't dependant on social reality? Yes, it is the cosmos that ultimately stamps you with a label, but what makes you think the cosmos is insensitive to the unique subtleties of each situation? I think you are grossly underestimating the cosmos. Do you think the Forgotten Realms cosmos is a 40-year-old, white American male with a soft spot for bigotry and easy answers?

If you want to do good and try to good, I am pretty sure the cosmos recognizes this and stamps you accordingly. If you fail in this due to ignorance and the kind of upbringing that practically prevents you from seeing things differently, don't you think the cosmos will react differently than with someone who tries his best to do evil? (I am not suggesting you would be purely good, but that there is always a blend of alignment points with the total sum pointing slightly one way or the other.)

You still keep talking about inherently evil acts, by the way. But I think I've sufficently debunked that argument. You can take any duration of time, consider the factors and give this act an alignment. But you can also pick a different duration, and label acts differently. So I don't think there's any sense or meaning to even talk about individual "acts" on a metaphysical level. So the alignment of every "act" is extremely context-specific.

Furthermore, there's just no good argument presented as to why casting an Evil-descriptor spell is an evil act. That's pretty much the same as saying that casting a spell with the Illusion descriptor is actually illusory - you're not really casting a spell at all, it just looks like you are. And that makes no sense. And what would it mean to say that casting a Fire spell is a Fire act and makes you Fire? It doesn't make any sense, yet we must treat the spell descriptions identically and assume that replacing "Evil" with any other descriptor will produce sensible, true statements in any valid argument.

But let's assume the alignment descriptors are somehow different from the other descriptors. If the argument above applies for Evil, it must also apply for Good. So you would have to agree that casting Protection From Evil (descriptor: Good) in order to summon a fiend to slaughter a village of innocent people is a Good act. (Alright, the summoning may be evil, but let's say someone else does that for you.) That seems highly suspect to me.

I am splitting hair, yes, but this should illustrate why you can't just non-problematically derive the evilness of an action from the evilness of one component employed in it. It's better to not talk about the "inherent" alignments of actions and just go with the social reality of things, because that is the only thing with any relevance to characters IC.

And what Hendrack said. I've pretty much made this exact same argument at least three times already, it's never been debunked convincingly, and people still keep on insisting otherwise.

I was just thinking that I only used the spirits of a family that pledged to protect our family for eternity. I was thinking of having some sort of 'plot' item to show this. A trinket of some sort, a bone, etc.

I like many of your perspectives on the good/evil side of necromancy, but what IF said spirits volunteered or pledged themselves, and what IF said necromancer uses no other spirits but those who pledged themselves, knowing what they are doing is not out of the 'Order' of the pledge (the Lawful side) and would do no harm to the spirits outside of the service (the Good side). Does that make sense? I would love to hear more.

Iron, I agree with your argument, and you cant really debunk it. Perhaps for simplification purposes in FR, it might be debunked, but, essentially, it is, IMHO, correct.

All this talk that there's no such thing as an inherently evil act, and that it's people's attitudes towards an act that make it good or evil... you all just better hope that there's no DM watching when you actually put those ideas into practice.

If you do an evil thing, you have done an evil thing. Period, full stop. It might not necessarily make you an evil person. And yes, it is possible to do an evil thing with the intended purpose of achieving a good end. That does not make a speck of difference in the question of whether the act was evil. If I stab you in the eye and take your wallet? Evil. If I use the money in it to buy lunches for starving babies? Good. You won't catch me arguing that different portions of an act can fall onto different places along the alignment scale.

But what is immutable fact (at least, as I said, in D&D) is that a person who consistently uses Evil to accomplish Good is not a Good person. That character is, at best, Neutral, and at worst, walking a very treacherous road, in danger of slipping over the line between N and E without realizing it.

Lizzie wrote:

If you do an evil thing, you have done an evil thing. Period, full stop.

But herein lies the issue. Every act, every thing, is unique. There's no real metaphysical box full of "killings", another box full of "animating corpses" and a third box for "doing charity." People don't pick their actions from a pre-labelled box of Good, Evil or Neutral things. How you define an action is purely a matter of language. Cats are cats because they're similar enough to all be called cats by humans, but that definition is arbitrary. We could just as well decide that if they lose their tails, they're no longer cats.

Therefore, it is simply fallacious to argue that a certain "type" of action will always be Evil, or Good. That is, unless the definition also includes the alignment, but then two outwardly identical actions with different alignment stamps would be called two different things. Every action has an alignment, and that alignment isn't later changed by perceptions. However, at the time of labelling that action, I am sure the cosmos/DM perceives all the finer points of the situation and evaluates it accordingly. You can't know that stealing and murder will always, in every case, be evil. You would have to observe every single theft and murder to know that, and you can't observe events that haven't happened yet. At best, you could say that every murder up to now has been evil, but that gives us no reason to assume it will also be the case with the next murder.

Therefore it's just pretty pointless to categorise actions and make sweeping generalisations about their alignment before they even happen. No action exists in a vacuum, so analysing the different Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic and Neutral factors in someone's behaviour without the goal of synthesis in mind, is an academic exercise at best. It also cheapens the spirit of RP, IMO, but that's another matter.

EDIT:
I was just wondering something. Why can't you stay Good if you consistently do Evil things to achieve Good things? Certainly you would stay Good if the good things you do outweigh the evil things in alignment point gain? That is completely equivalent to saying a person who consistently does Good things (like feeding orphans) for Evil ends (to get their trust and allegiance so you can use them as pawns) cannot remain Evil but will inevitably become Neutal or even Good. Or to use an example more relevant to the topic: if somebody consistently casts Protection From Evil (a Good spell) to summon fiends who will wreak havoc at his bidding, he cannot be an Evil person? It's simple mathematics, if we indeed maintain that Good and Evil are quantifiable cosmological forces detatched from the moral reality of social life. Rule of thumb: if it works one way, it must work the other way. Evil shouldn't be given some special privileges and restrictions above the other alignment forces.

ShortSlasher wrote:

Followers of Jergal have the good necromancer thing goin for them.

The cons outweight the pros of it.

Jergal, the scribe of the dead. Everyone and everything has a time when they die and they write it down ehn people die. Have fun recording how many Giants, Lizard folk and spiders you have killed. ^^

Most hilarious RP I ever had, people were always like "What the hell are you doing?" "Taking notes.." "Of what?" "What we killed.." "Oh really?" "So far, 74 ettins, 43 fey folk and 21 medusa's." "..."

HellScourge wrote:

ShortSlasher wrote:

Followers of Jergal have the good necromancer thing goin for them.

The cons outweight the pros of it.

Jergal, the scribe of the dead. Everyone and everything has a time when they die and they write it down ehn people die. Have fun recording how many Giants, Lizard folk and spiders you have killed. ^^

Most hilarious RP I ever had, people were always like "What the hell are you doing?" "Taking notes.." "Of what?" "What we killed.." "Oh really?" "So far, 74 ettins, 43 fey folk and 21 medusa's." "..."

I approve of this.

I could understand some of what Iron is saying but not all of it. The problem with that line of thinking is that it convolutes everything. Paladins can rape and pillage because in the end there's some greater good. Necromancers can rape souls from their final rest and claim it was all for the greater good.

It is really hard to categorize evil/good deeds because of the inevitable truth that good/evil are points of view that can be argued, like religion.

I lean more towards selfless/selfish as a moral compass when defining my ideas of good and evil.

A paladin can torture some necromancer for the greater good but who is actually benefitting from this good? A single person? A city? Is the Paladin sacrificing something of themselves for it?

The same could be said for a necromancer who feeds orphans and is merciful. If the Necromancer is being good but for themselves, then they are in fact selfish and evil. Likewise a paladin who is only committing some evil deed on behalf of only a few/their own religion/something involving themselves would be considered just as evil.

In the real world we can convolute any action to be good or evil, but in dnd evil and good are in fact black and white and some acts are, no matter what the back thinking of the character who commits them, good or evil.

Rape and torture are two prime examples of evil. No matter how much you justify it, raping some five year old will always in my book be regarded as evil.....even if your religion says raping five year olds is a good thing.

Likewise self sacrifice will always be a good thing. No evil necromancer who sacrifices themselves for others can be all bad.

There's something to be said about the ideas and difficulty of good/evil. Good is hard, evil is easy. It is easier for a paladin to be evil and commit evil acts then it is a necromancer to commit good deeds or be seen as good. Evil is usually the lazy way out, while good takes work and actual dedication.

We can use a paladin/necromancer encounter as a way to gauge what evil/good aspects can occur.

A paladin who kills necromancers mercilessly.
A paladin who has to work to convince the necromancer his deeds are wrong and help him reform.

Even spelling out the two acts, the second takes more difficulty to type out. The first statement is easy, simple, not that good either. The second statement took longer to type out and is much more difficult to achieve, and in the end looks better, is good, and the rewards are greater.

I'd also like to point out that in a sense summoning undead is actually raping the soul and committing it to torture.....so when you summon an undead you're actually committing two evil acts in one fell swoop.

A necromancer who doesn't summon undead and can still achieve their greater good will always be better than the necro who summons and takes actually the "easy road" to achieve that same greater good.

boobookittyscrew wrote:

I could understand some of what Iron is saying but not all of it. The problem with that line of thinking is that it convolutes everything. Paladins can rape and pillage because in the end there's some greater good. Necromancers can rape souls from their final rest and claim it was all for the greater good.

It is really hard to categorize evil/good deeds because of the inevitable truth that good/evil are points of view that can be argued, like religion.

Of course they can do that. But maybe they will get an alignment shift. They probably will.

The point isn't that "anything goes" or "subjectivity is everything." The point is that there are a million factors you need to consider before making the perfect alignment call, and therefore there's absolutely no point trying to pin them down beforehand. Only the player herself and the DM overseeing her should judge the action, and then only after it's done. Not beforehand, not according to some Manual Of Good And Evil Things, but by being extremely sensitive to the finer points of ethics, subjectivity, objective values and actual consequences. Like you said, you can argue this back and forth, and I already have a handful of counter-examples to your examples of "always good" or "always evil". But because I acknowledge that it's even theoretically impossible to categorize actions in any valid manner, there's no point in trying.

I kind of agree that being good is harder than being evil, but only if we're talking about social ethics. But if we want to preserve the integrity and objectivity of Good and Evil alignment forces, we must seperate them from any human notion of morality and treat them as something else entirely. As quantifiable cosmological forces, it makes no sense to say being one is harder than being the other. They are polar opposites, and gaining points in one should result in an equal loss of points in the other. It's not a weighted scale, it's just the arithmetic mean of your daily behaviour. If doing X+Y gains you +5 points in Alignment 1 and +3 points in Alignment 2, then your net gain is +2 Alignment 1. It doesn't matter which is Good and which Evil, the math is the same.

However in dnd evil/good are in fact quantifiable. By your logic Iron, a paladin could rape and murder simply for the exercise so that may more effectively kill evil demons later on. Problem is by the third murdered/raped innocent, your paladin would no longer be a paladin.

The problem with this in Amia is that there is no quantifiable good/evil scale.

Example: in a single player game you get evil/good points for each act committed. These acts are in fact quantifiable. If you murder some hapless innocent you get a five point bonus towards evil for every murdered innocent. Likewise moments of selflessness get you bonus points towards good. At the end of the acts there is a point where one is asked "Why did you do this?", depending on the answer it could mean a lot of points towards good/evil.

Also if you truly think on it, good/evil are only aspects of empathy/apathy. A paladin that cracks a smile during someone's torture will always look less goodly then the paladin who cries when witnessing such.

No amount of layers of players thoughts would convince me the smiling paladin is more goodly then the crying paladin.

And just as there are a thousand factors as to why one commits to an evil deed for the greater good.....there are also thousands of other options outside the evil deed itself...the fact that a paladin would choose the evil deed over the other options should also be taken into account....hence why evil deeds would get you evil points regardless of your intent.

Zzzz, I am not reading this topic. I skimmed, got about half way and saw certain people posting and knew what the topic devolved into.

Quote:

My mage was born to an ancient family line (undisclosed at this time).

I hope this is not a line that requires a character request.

Quote:

Furthermore, there's just no good argument presented as to why casting an Evil-descriptor spell is an evil act.

Because DnD says it is. It is definitionally so and there is no argument against it. Why isn't there? Because the DMs say so.

Quote:

True story, greater restoration is a Necromancy spell.

Bzt. Wrong.

Quote:

Restoration, Greater
Conjuration (Healing)

Quote:

I say it would be very easy to play a good necromancer that raises bodies and all of that black art stuff. Just use the knowledge that evil and good are just social perspectives and that having a character that some might call delusional solves most moral and political issues.

Good thing spells like Detect Evil proves that alignments are definable and quanitfiable.

~

If your character raises undead, you will be moved to evil for it. That's the bottom line, because the DMs say so. "Greater good" blah blah blah doesn't matter, literally defined as evil etc etc etc

If you're a Divine caster, Good aligned characters can't even cast spells with the Evil descriptor proving this even further.

~

THAT SAID:

Your entire concept is better served as outsiders or "spirit guardians", or "Deathless", not traditional undead or necromancers and so completely sidesteps this entire topic that has completely missed the point of your questions in favor of their own masturbatory arguments.

My favorite part of this whole thread is where we Americans were called stupid and uncreative.

Stop trying to play Warhammer on Amia dammit.

DerkDerkistan wrote:

My favorite part of this whole thread is where we Americans were called stupid and uncreative.

Read again, we weren't called either of those things. We were called shallow, which we most certainly are if we think absolute, quantitative and immutable morality is more fun than some ethical ambiguity. Much like the faithful of the world pick and choose from their holy texts those interpretations which best suit them, we, as consumers of Dungeons and Dragons, are most certainly able to favour a more unsure cosmic reality than is provided to us. Unfortunately it seems that view is held by a minority, and one whose opposition holds the voice of God in Amia.

That's incorrect. If I want moral and ethical ambiguity, I'd play RL. I like my absolutes because it's an escape from it. I like my absolutes because it's fun to play a role in a world that doesn't exist because of its acceptable bigotry, racism, and hatred. That has absolutely nothing to do with being shallow.

Going to assume Bioware had head-up-assitis once more. And if that is the case can this be fixed at all? Not to derail this totally enthralling moral ambiguity or anything.

Logicality wrote:

DerkDerkistan wrote:

My favorite part of this whole thread is where we Americans were called stupid and uncreative.

Read again, we weren't called either of those things. We were called shallow, which we most certainly are if we think absolute, quantitative and immutable morality is more fun than some ethical ambiguity. Much like the faithful of the world pick and choose from their holy texts those interpretations which best suit them, we, as consumers of Dungeons and Dragons, are most certainly able to favour a more unsure cosmic reality than is provided to us. Unfortunately it seems that view is held by a minority, and one whose opposition holds the voice of God in Amia.

You can't remove the absolutes unless you remove alignment from the DnD system. This is largely untenable and requires a redo of entire comsologies, lists of spells and bestiaries.

Edit: And Bioware was dumb, yeah.

Silvarus wrote:

HellScourge wrote:

ShortSlasher wrote:

Followers of Jergal have the good necromancer thing goin for them.

The cons outweight the pros of it.

Jergal, the scribe of the dead. Everyone and everything has a time when they die and they write it down ehn people die. Have fun recording how many Giants, Lizard folk and spiders you have killed. ^^

Most hilarious RP I ever had, people were always like "What the hell are you doing?" "Taking notes.." "Of what?" "What we killed.." "Oh really?" "So far, 74 ettins, 43 fey folk and 21 medusa's." "..."

I approve of this.

I did that with my Jergal priest ... However, after level 14 I had about one thousand kills down in my book and the way combat went was it way to hectic.

I believe the point Iron was trying to make that i think, was missed is that.. while casting Animate Dead moves you say.. +20 points to evil. Fighting off the horde of orcs to save the village full of virgins gets you say +10 Good. Now i did not read everything, but i do believe that was the point trying to be shown. Yes, Animating the Dead is evil, but in DnD you can balance evil and good deeds, and still remain in the good alignment. Obviously using the numbers i gave you cant just use Animate Dead every day, but if that same man stays in the village to help rebuild after the orcs are destroyed, and then helps remove the bodies and perhaps build a wall and train a few people to defend themselves when he moves on.. Suddenly he ends up breaking even, or maybe even having more 'good' then he had before.

Unless the DMs do it differently here, one evil act will not suddenly make you evil, it takes a series of foul deeds to change your alignment from good to evil. Given you are required to make requests to change alignment here i would assume that they dont do jumps in alignment, but would rather see steady change. If that same man starts to animate the dead more and more often, and no longer sticks around to pick up the mess, he will fall into neutral, and if he keeps at it, eventually he will be evil.

If you're casting spells which animate the dead, expect to be moved to evil sooner or later. Simple as that.

Feonir wrote:

Going to assume Bioware had head-up-assitis once more. And if that is the case can this be fixed at all? Not to derail this totally enthralling moral ambiguity or anything.

What do you mean? The fact that GR is Necromancy? Never understood why it shouldn't be as there are plenty of other nercomantic spells that do the exact opposite of the sinister soul abuse thing.

Uncle-Opustus wrote:

Feonir wrote:

Going to assume Bioware had head-up-assitis once more. And if that is the case can this be fixed at all? Not to derail this totally enthralling moral ambiguity or anything.

What do you mean? The fact that GR is Necromancy? Never understood why it shouldn't be as there are plenty of other nercomantic spells that do the exact opposite of the sinister soul abuse thing.

DnD Wiki cites it as a Conjuration spell, which makes more sense. That's what Tormak was referring to.

Also, PHB backs that up regardless XD

Casting Animate Dead is an evil act because some DMs in their small-mindedness say so. Not because "D&D says so". It doesn't, which I proved extensively. My arguments may look masturbatory, but that's only if you don't understand half of them.

And as I said, you can animate dead to your heart's content and stay Neutral, as evidenced by plenty of Neutral PM characters. But yes, Good is a stretch though of course possible.

IronAngel wrote:

Casting Animate Dead is an evil act because some DMs in their small-mindedness say so. Not because "D&D says so".

Actually, yes it does.

From the 3.5 Player's Handbook:

Animate Dead
Necromancy [Evil]

(Page 198).

EDIT:

This is exactly the absolutes others are referring to. Some acts are evil, no matter the rationalization you give them. I'm sure in the mind of a necromancer the deed might be justified or whatnot, but it violates the established order and by any unbiased entity (which in this case represents the "order" of FR) is considered an evil deed. No sidestepping that. Of course some characters might be more tolerant then others, but you still are doing in evil deed.

From the 3.5 Player's Handbook:

Animal Trance
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-affecting, Sonic]

(Page 198).

So when you cast Animal Trance, do you become more mind-affecting and sonic?

The answer's been given, however 'small-minded' it is. :roll:

Locked.

Necromancy for Non-Evil Toons

Who is online