AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

First off, not a big lore junkie, so this is merely an opinion.

Having a neutral character that studies the arts of Necromancy, I have begun to wonder if it is necessarily true that all gear for Necromancers must be restricted to evil characters. It seems to me that it should depend on the abilities provided by such items. Class restriction I understand, but Evil necessarily?

Obviously, something that actually has evil powers, should be considered to be required for evil. But, does an item that provides Spell Focus: Necromancy, and other somewhat ambiguous abilities necessarily be evil restricted? I mean, it is possible to study the necromantic arts and not be evil, and what had me thinking is that as such a character, I would have to have a HIGH UMD to even be able to use necromantic stuff.

Is this really necessary?

I would love to answer your question, and my answer would be that it is indeed possible (and normal) to study necromancy and not be evil, but I seriously would not be giving you a DnD-lore based response, and might get myself in trouble with Iron.

Or, worse yet, with the Eternal Order. I mean, they already have grounds to burn me at the sake for the opening statement!

I rather assumed the Kelemvorites have a hard-on for necromantic studies themselves. Know thy enemy and all that jazz.

Edit, to get into the item question, too...

I think the necromantic items on Amia have been mostly aimed at the traditional evil necromancer types, because that's what everyone's been playing mostly. If there's suddenly a swarm of good or neutral necromancers, the trend eventually changes.

It's been debated a hundred times. I think the simplest of answers is this:

-Necromancy and animating the dead must be seperated. There is nothing wrong in necromancy as a school, though many necromantic spells do have the Evil descriptor.
-Undeath, as a concept, is not necessarily evil. However:
-Many spells that animate the dead do have the Evil descriptor. This makes them evil spells.

What's unclear in this simplified presentation is the relation between Evil spells and character alignment. No D&D rules outright state that casting an Evil spell makes you evil, in itself. Most good gods and civilized people obviously consider this evil, though.

However, there are no metaphysical rules preventing Good or Neutral characters from castin Evil arcane spells. (This is not true for priests, whose spell selection is limited by their alignment and/or the alignment of their deity, I forget the specifics.) How many times you can cast such spells before you yourself turn evil is up to the DM, of course. Neutral necromancers (those kind who deal with undeath) are perfectly viable, but Good ones would generally be a stretch.

I don't think I've made any mistakes in the above post. If I have, and you can back them up with source material, please correct me. However, what I've said is very basic, and matters get more complicated in actual situations that you might come across in RP.

EDIT: As for the items, I guess Nekh's pretty much right. I suppose it might be possible to get some of the restrictions changed, removed, or equivalent items added, if you can convince Disco. Buying such with DCs is another option, of course.

I would be interested to know if opening items to neutral would be an acceptable option, but I know this is probably not high on the priority list. I'll just have to be creative.

Have you read the items? I mean, one of them is the skin of a celestial.. Some of them should very much so be evil only, though, i dont see why neutral and good classes COULDNT ware it, just that it might be worth getting a point down on the alignment tree.

Last edited by Pony on Tue, Nov 05 2019, 14:29 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Iron hit the coffin nail on the head; it depends on the nature of your spell casting more then anything else. Divine means no choice really, you do what your god says. Arcane however is a different story. If you don't pay credence to a deity then the good and evil associated with their attitudes towards necromancy wouldn't worry you.

Starts to get complicated with the items; are they made be divine casters? do they channel the energy of a god, blah blah blah... In a general sense however, it is kind of restrictive to limit the use of all the necro stuff to evil

If a spell has an evil descriptor, casting it is an evil act ... D&D works off absolutes. Those without the evil descriptor are just ... spells, to be flung around as much as you like.

The reason necromancy and undead summoning is considered an evil act is because that's what the religious propaganda says.

Unlike Torm, Helm, Ilmater, Tyr and Kelemvor which are worshipped mainstream in most Faerun cities, the deities who promote the use of Undeath are underground in comparison. If the Tormites say to their population "Necromancy is bad, we will slaughter anyone who does it" then the population is going to brand necromancy as a bad act.

Whether or not the intentions for necromancy are good, bad or undefined... the populous will believe it's bad because their uneducated minds have had that thought drilled into them by their religious overseers.

I dont belive this post is so much about is necro evil, but why are the necro items in, say, tarkuul, evil only.

For the same reason that certain items available to Grovies are Ranger/Druid only, incidentally.

Which was answered by Nekhy.

Most necros are evil aligned so they catered for that. If the trend changes then items will be changed naturally with time.

White Necromancers are awesome. Got one on Transpiria. One of the most GRIM'N'DARK characters I have ever managed to pull off. Getting Undeath to Death really meant something.

Should replace Gagis with something like that if I had the time to powerlevel a new character to 30. ;P

Conclusion: Add white necro shop to Kelly temple. ;P

No matter what the lore says, I'm still of the opinion that munipulation of negative energy shouldn't be considered an act of evil. Meaning, items that use negative energy shouldn't really be marked as evil only, which quite a few are.

Necromancers, in my opinion, are not inherently evil, and Kelemvour is just a big hypocrite.

Most Druids will practice white and grey necromancy. My Druidess specialises in necromancy spells like Finger of Death and Slay living, etc...but like all druids, will destroy undead summons on sight or at the very least, leave the area if she's likey outmatched.

Though she practices necromancy (heavy focuses in it), she's never likely to wear a 'skin of the celestial'. There again, its not likely she'll wear a bear skin either...

As for neutral necromancers, they're likely quite a rare thing indeed.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

No matter what the lore says, I'm still of the opinion that munipulation of negative energy shouldn't be considered an act of evil. Meaning, items that use negative energy shouldn't really be marked as evil only, which quite a few are.

Necromancers, in my opinion, are not inherently evil, and Kelemvour is just a big hypocrite.

And alignments shouldn't be absolute, everything should be relative.

Necromancy itself is not evil, but spells with the evil descriptor are, for the simple reason this is not real life ...

Player's Handbook wrote:

Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are forces that define the cosmos.

In this world something can be inherently evil even if you could morally justify it.

DnD is based off absolutes.

Good is good, evil is evil. You have three variants: lawful, neutral and chaotic. That's it for DnD, that's as grey as you're going to get from the black and white.

Summoning undead to save a child from a burning tavern might be a chaotic good action but it doesn't stop the fact you'll be condemned for it. Kelemvorites and Tormites are still going to kill you for it because it's what they're bred and brainwashed to think. It's absolute.

Galenson wrote:

DnD is based off absolutes.

Good is good, evil is evil. You have three variants: lawful, neutral and chaotic. That's it for DnD, that's as grey as you're going to get from the black and white.

Summoning undead to save a child from a burning tavern might be a chaotic good action but it doesn't stop the fact you'll be condemned for it. Kelemvorites and Tormites are still going to kill you for it because it's what they're bred and brainwashed to think. It's absolute.

There's more on 'ends justifies the means' in the Book of Exalted Deeds

Regardless on how you interpret the alignments or the actions done by people of those alignments, in the end if it's an action that -will- be condemned by the mainstream "Good" deities and their followers, you -will- be condemned.

Ignorance is bliss and it's how faith works. We've discussed this with the Salandran view on constructs a few days ago. It doesn't matter how sentient they prove themselves to be, they're still a construct and will be scrapped for it.

undead summoning is just pulling a zombie or whatever from another plane. what makes simple transportation so evil? you don't have to be making your own to be an undead summoner, just borrowing one.

Galenson wrote:

Ignorance is bliss and it's how faith works.

Galenson wrote:

Ignorance is bliss and it's how faith works.

what your character's religious beliefs are don't set the precedent for what the alignment restrictions are on items though. The salandrans' opinion do not matter in this topic. Each individual item should be looked at. If it creates undead, it should be evil only. white and grey should be all allowed, and some dark should allow nuetral too, as summoning premade zombies isn't defiling a corpse, its using your resources

Not all Undead summoning is Evil. Jergal, for instance, Allows the use of undead in order to bring about the final result of Death for others. from the Jergal Wiki

In ethos, Jergal is colder and more inhumane than Kelemvor, his master, sanctioning the use and creation of undead by his followers, provided they serve the cause of advancing death in the world. He is not evil or malicious, but impassively records the death of all things.

He's Lawful Neutral, for those wondering.

blackvswhite wrote:

undead summoning is just pulling a zombie or whatever from another plane. what makes simple transportation so evil? you don't have to be making your own to be an undead summoner, just borrowing one.

Summoning an evil creature is an evil spell, as is create undead. See the Player's Handbook description ...

PHB wrote:

Create Undead
Necromancy (Evil)

Summon Monster
Conjuration (Summoning) (See text)
...When you use a summoning spell to summon an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful or water type creature, it is a spell of that type. For example, summon monster I is a lawful and evil spell when cast to summon a fiendish dire rat.

I know I quoted summon undead, but it specifies any summoning spell. I am not sure whether it would apply for Calling spells too, but I would assume so.

The simple transportation is evil - it is inherent in its nature ... D&D isn't a 'shades-of-grey' or 'morally-relative' game.

Deadlydread wrote:

Not all Undead summoning is Evil. Jergal, for instance, Allows the use of undead in order to bring about the final result of Death for others. from the Jergal Wiki

In ethos, Jergal is colder and more inhumane than Kelemvor, his master, sanctioning the use and creation of undead by his followers, provided they serve the cause of advancing death in the world. He is not evil or malicious, but impassively records the death of all things.

He's Lawful Neutral, for those wondering.

Just because a LN god allows it doesn't mean that it isn't evil.

I'm just curious... If one uses something in the likes of a Create Undead spell, is it entirely possible to say that it's not summoned/called (since honestly, it does say "create" undead, not summon undead) nor is there any inclusion of a spirit ripped from the netherworld and forced to obey your bidding, but rather a simple reanimation of a corpse by filling it with magic with which you manipulate said corpse, much like how one creates and/or controls a golem of any kind?

If such case is possible, would it still be evil? If yes, why?

Magnum Opera wrote:

I'm just curious... If one uses something in the likes of a Create Undead spell, is it entirely possible to say that it's not summoned/called (since honestly, it does say "create" undead, not summon undead) nor is there any inclusion of a spirit ripped from the netherworld and forced to obey your bidding, but rather a simple reanimation of a corpse by filling it with magic with which you manipulate said corpse, much like how one creates and/or controls a golem of any kind?

If such case is possible, would it still be evil? If yes, why?

Yes it would be evil, and because D&D rules states that it is evil. The world is black and white - creating, summoning or calling undead are all evil acts. It is a world of absolutes ... creating undead and using a corpse as a puppet are different too.
As far as I know creating a golem is evil too, since you are binding a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth, although I cant find anything that states that t is evil.

Yurell wrote:

Magnum Opera wrote:

I'm just curious... If one uses something in the likes of a Create Undead spell, is it entirely possible to say that it's not summoned/called (since honestly, it does say "create" undead, not summon undead) nor is there any inclusion of a spirit ripped from the netherworld and forced to obey your bidding, but rather a simple reanimation of a corpse by filling it with magic with which you manipulate said corpse, much like how one creates and/or controls a golem of any kind?

If such case is possible, would it still be evil? If yes, why?

Yes it would be evil, and because D&D rules states that it is evil. The world is black and white - creating, summoning or calling undead are all evil acts. It is a world of absolutes ... creating undead and using a corpse as a puppet are different too.
As far as I know creating a golem is evil too, since you are binding a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth, although I cant find anything that states that t is evil.

Golems are just creepy and feared by non-mages, not entirely evil. Them being powered by elemental spirits is correct though, and people concerned over elementals might be a tad pissed.

Undeath on the other hand, defined as The Evil thing to do, and thus it is the evil and creepy horror it should be in a fantasy story.

To hell with cute and cuddly necromancers, I want awesome horror to rival Nosferatu and evil charm to rival Dracula, not tieflings in a thong crying over how it is unfair she can not raise her lesbian lover as a vampire.

Dont forget not all undead is evil

There are even liches which are not evil called Arch Liches

Once again... it doesn't matter what kind of undeath they are, they'll still be killed because undeath is taught to be an evil act to the population by the mainstream "good" churches.

An arch lich is just as likely to be hunted down by Tormites as a Zombie would.

Magnum Opera wrote:

I'm just curious... If one uses something in the likes of a Create Undead spell, is it entirely possible to say that it's not summoned/called (since honestly, it does say "create" undead, not summon undead) nor is there any inclusion of a spirit ripped from the netherworld and forced to obey your bidding, but rather a simple reanimation of a corpse by filling it with magic with which you manipulate said corpse, much like how one creates and/or controls a golem of any kind?

If such case is possible, would it still be evil? If yes, why?

Simple answer: Higher level of this spell summons a Mummy. A Mummy is a sentient undead, which means that you are raping a conscious spirit into doing what you want it to.

If you animate bones into a skeleton, then you are still holding all the strings and there is no consciousness involved, only the intent of the caster. This could be argued to be not evil.

Halecta wrote:

Dont forget not all undead is evil

There are even liches which are not evil called Arch Liches

Those are some of the most stupid things ever to be printed in a book.

Dunno of Arch Liches are relevant for FR, but Baelnorn at least are a proper joke.

HAAHAA!

Silvarus wrote:

Yurell wrote:

Yes it would be evil, and because D&D rules states that it is evil. The world is black and white - creating, summoning or calling undead are all evil acts. It is a world of absolutes ... creating undead and using a corpse as a puppet are different too.
As far as I know creating a golem is evil too, since you are binding a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth, although I cant find anything that states that t is evil.

Golems are just creepy and feared by non-mages, not entirely evil. Them being powered by elemental spirits is correct though...

So.. what powers a Demonflesh golem? :?:

xordae wrote:

Simple answer: Higher level of this spell summons a Mummy. A Mummy is a sentient undead, which means that you are raping a conscious spirit into doing what you want it to.

If you animate bones into a skeleton, then you are still holding all the strings and there is no consciousness involved, only the intent of the caster. This could be argued to be not evil.

Can't one not argue as well that you're simply animating a mummified corpse? Or if such is the case, what if the spirit consented to it's binding to a corpse?

You could argue it were a mummified corpse, but it would not turn out to be a Mummy then. It'd be some kind of a Zombie with wrappings around him. At that level of the spell, you get a Mummy which has certain characteristics such as Diseased Claws, Fear aura and weakness to Fire and etc. There's no way around that this thing is a proper Mummy, and those are sentient.

'Course an agreeable spirit is another can entirely and it would not be evil by divine truth. It would however still be considered evil by 9 out of 10 PCs and NPCs simply because "He make Mummy! Mummy bad!"

xordae wrote:

You could argue it were a mummified corpse, but it would not turn out to be a Mummy then. It'd be some kind of a Zombie with wrappings around him. At that level of the spell, you get a Mummy which has certain characteristics such as Diseased Claws, Fear aura and weakness to Fire and etc. There's no way around that this thing is a proper Mummy, and those are sentient.

'Course an agreeable spirit is another can entirely and it would not be evil by divine truth. It would however still be considered evil by 9 out of 10 PCs and NPCs simply because "He make Mummy! Mummy bad!"

Ah, yes, that does make sense. Excellent points.

Yurell, you fall for the same trap so many before you. You make an unjustified leap of logic. I cannot stress this enough. I've many times shown the error in this line of thought, yet people still make the same, simple, mistake.

Moral relativism has no direct correlation to the metaphysical existance of good and evil. Morals are a human construct, they are rules governing human behaviour and human beliefs of right and wrong. So what if there's Good and Evil somewhere out there? Your characters don't comprehend such ideas. Even gods can't fully understand them. Behaviour will be directed by social norms and, as Galenson said, church doctrines. It doesn't matter if, say, slavery is Good or Evil; people in the Dales will consider it an abomination, whereas paladins of Tyr in Calimshan will enforce laws that accept slavery. A universal Good doesn't mean moral questions are simple, either. Moral realism does not exclude the situational nature of ethical dilemmas. So you know lying is wrong, and letting a friend get hurt is wrong. Even if there's an objective ideal somewhere out there, it doesn't make the situation any easier when those two moral norms conflict.

Black and white are colours, as is grey. Unless you specify what you mean by the metaphors, you're going to be misunderstood. If by black-and-white you mean a clear-cut world of right and wrong, good and evil, the forces of righteousness and the hordes of darkness clashing against eachother, then Forgotten Realms is certainly not at all black-and-white. If by shades of gray you mean uncertainty, conflicting agendas, complex moral dilemmas and blurred lines of right and wrong, then I must say the Realms are extremely gray.

Yurell, you also fail to prove the direct connection between the caster's alignment, the alignment of his action which includes motivation and result, and the alignment of a spell. Yes, many necromantic spells are evil, they have the Evil descriptor. You have to elaborate on how this relates to the whole action (ie. saving a town with a skeleton) and the caster's alignment. This isn't obvious or simple deduction, even if you make it sound like that. Surely you don't believe that using a Good-descriptor spell to rape a child for fun makes the action or the caster Good? Or, for that matter, if you cast Dispel Chaos, which is a Lawful spell, to banish a chaotic outsider who tries to rob the same house you're about to rob, does that make you Lawful? Either this applies for all alignments and descriptors, or it doesn't apply at all. It's inconsistent to pick spells that create undead as some kind of an exception.

And Silvarus, if you think Archliches, Baelnorn or Spectral Harpists (Neutral Harper ghosts) suck, or you're just silly. They're cool and make perfect sense. It's a classic thing of fantasy to have benevolent spirits remain in the world to protect something important. Saying that life after death should be evil because it's unnatural is inconsistent if you don't apply that to all things unnatural, and I can't think of another reason why the very concept itself would be evil.

And if someone still believes I advocate good necromancers or whatnot, I certainly don't. But I abhor the false information and shaky logic with which they're usually opposed. My point is this: you don't have to know the end-all of Good and Evil to play a great character. In fact, you shouldn't, because that will lead to metagaming. Metaphysical matters of alignment are things your character doesn't know, and can only glimpse hints of in the form of some spells, most of which luckily don't even exist in the Amia game. You don't have to debate OOC whether casting some spell makes a character evil, because your Good character will consider it evil 95% of the time, regardless. That's what role-playing is.

Iron I believe she was refering to the rules. as gray as the realms are it does not change the fact that the rules state X is evil or Y is good. if everything is so gray why not just throw out the alignment system all together? I personally use it more as a guide then anything else and try not to build my charachter around it.

I also have a slight feeling this is one of those threads that try to justfy toleranting and allowing necromancers to wander freely, when I do assume in the realms they would be well hated if not KOS. Your own question is it a good action to use undead to save a town, you can replace undead with any other evil group, I assume a good city would love to be saved by demons or devils. it is afaik evil to do so.

just my own thoughts on the matter.

This is a very timely topic, for I have a True Neutral wizard who's becoming a necromancer. He visits Tarkuul frequently and is frustrated by the "Evil only" requirement for most gear there.

This 'evil descriptor' for spells, where does one find that? I don't see it in the NWNwiki spell descriptions. I'd like to know more about it.

I'm struggling with how to balance my PC's neutral alignment with his interest in Necromancy. He's most interested in Negative Energy and what one can do with it. But I wouldn't be surprised if he becomes interested in controlling undead as well. I wonder how 'evil' he has to be to do that and how he justifies Necromancy spells to others.

Knowing the lore behind Necromancy is very helpful. So thanks for all the good info/discussion so far. I see that opinions are all over the board on this one, as would be expected.

Last edited by Pony on Tue, Nov 05 2019, 14:29 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Phearnun wrote:

However, what I do believe is relevant is that in the book of Exalted Deeds it was stated that irl moral discussions such as "is torture alright in a ticking bomb case" do not apply to D&D but it is evil either way. That in my eyes clears up that using an evil spell, or conducting an evil deed, even for a good cause is wrong morally in Dungeons and Dragons.

Except it's not an FR book. And besides, these things are left vague for a reason: it's up to the campaign's DM, and the DM only, to say when something affects alignment. Players can argue it as much as they want, and there can be interesting academic discussions, but at the end of the day the DM has the responsibility of assessing the role-play. There are no rules for that, and there never should be.

Morality refers to the norms and beliefs people have. And this is what is relative. Your character does not know anything more than what he's learned from experience. They haven't read the Book of Exalted Deeds, even if we could consider it an authority. (IMO, it's one of the lamest books around.) We, as players, are supposed to play our characters from their perspective, and keep metagaming to a minimum. Therefore not only is OOC knowledge of what your DM considers objectively good or evil in your campaign, completely irrelevant, it's also potentially harmful to RP. Such knowledge should never affect your RP, because that's blatant metagaming.

Last edited by Pony on Tue, Nov 05 2019, 14:29 PM, edited 1 time in total.

What Deadlydread said about Jergal is correct he summons undead to help bring thoughs to there final death when the time is right for them to die. And yes they do record every death that they now about to a record but as it is record for a year then is sealled and never to be opened again. The reason Jergals statue is by the Kelvemorites temple is because Kelvemor has respect of thim not that he like the fella for using undead.

Back to the subject Undead summoning is classified as evil under the rules but it is how a person plays it. An evil person would go out and kill everyone with undeads just to say he did it. A neutral person would go around helping both the soul of his summon and the soul of the person he is fighting move on if that other person wish to. A good person would see the undead and try to help it move on with the spell Undead to Death. So really it is all the person tries to procive it as not how others think it should be.

Last edited by Pony on Tue, Nov 05 2019, 14:29 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Stumbled around this pic today and somehow it fits into this thread.

for undead summoning to the people who think it ain't evil.. its basically the following:

mutilating a corpse for public humiliation and service to the master forcefully and not permitting it to honorably be buried/whatever holy ritual there is. Mutilation of a corpse is one of the most disrespectful things you can actually do to any character's remains.

if u want someone to move boxes from a location to another, hire a kid or something to do it. you don't need dark magics

Moridan_X wrote:

for undead summoning to the people who think it ain't evil.. its basically the following:

mutilating a corpse for public humiliation and service to the master forcefully and not permitting it to honorably be buried/whatever holy ritual there is. Mutilation of a corpse is one of the most disrespectful things you can actually do to any character's remains.

if u want someone to move boxes from a location to another, hire a kid or something to do it. you don't need dark magics

.. You don't necessarily mutilate a corpse, nor have to exhume a buried corpse to summon/create undead.. What if you just happen to have stumbled upon a pile of bones or a corpse of someone who died alone out in the woods, then just reanimated the said bones/corpse? Or what if you're actually carrying a bag of bones, or have a handy corpse on your bag of holding? There's so many angles on how you can play out this scenario without it becoming absolutely evil.

I kind of agree with Iron with regards to moral relativity of this issue. One cannot say with absolute certainty that such actions are inherently evil. Heck, one cannot say with absolute certainty that whomever wrote all the D&D guides have such infallible moral compasses that they can be considered the authority on morality.

On another note, to those who only see undeads as absolutely evil, I highly advise you to search for details about Lady Arcana Elestar and Srinshee, baelnorns of renown and reverence.

It's not all black and white.

At best, doing good with evil means would make you neutral. Hence, Palemasters must be neutral or evil. The spell has the evil descriptor not so that you can add -1 alignment point each time you cast it, but rather to know how that spell applies to protection vs evil, detect evil, etc. The DM can then take into account the method and the action, and determine of alignment change is nessicary. Usually however it's not from an isolated incident, save for clerigy and paladins persay since an isolated incident of betraying the laws of thier gods tend to f- things up for them royally.

Magnum Opera wrote:

.. You don't necessarily mutilate a corpse, nor have to exhume a buried corpse to summon/create undead.. What if you just happen to have stumbled upon a pile of bones or a corpse of someone who died alone out in the woods, then just reanimated the said bones/corpse? Or what if you're actually carrying a bag of bones, or have a handy corpse on your bag of holding? There's so many angles on how you can play out this scenario without it becoming absolutely evil.

Animating a corpse automatically mutilates it for ya.

If you happened to stumble upon a pile of bones, those are an actual person's remains, the last thing he/she has left. If your character wants to force that into some kind of cheap manual labor, fine. Carrying a bag of bones is preventing an honorable burial/holy ceremony thing.

dunno about you, but if someone took my dead father's corpse and animated it, i definitely wouldn't call it 'good'
it would be even worse if he put his whole skeleton in a zip-lock baggy to have a 'portable animate'

Moridan_X wrote:

Animating a corpse automatically mutilates it for ya.

How so? Care to elaborate?

Moridan_X wrote:

If you happened to stumble upon a pile of bones, those are an actual person's remains, the last thing he/she has left. If your character wants to force that into some kind of cheap manual labor, fine. Carrying a bag of bones is preventing an honorable burial/holy ceremony thing.

Sorry, prevention of honorable burial/holy ceremony is evil depending on the society, and thus is a moral evil, NOT absolute evil.

Moridan_X wrote:

dunno about you, but if someone took my dead father's corpse and animated it, i definitely wouldn't call it 'good'
it would be even worse if he put his whole skeleton in a zip-lock baggy to have a 'portable animate'

Me? Well, if someone took my dead father's corpse, animated it, and used it to save the world... damn.. If my father was watching from the heavens I'd bet that he'd be so proud that even in death, he is still able to contribute good things to the material realm. See? It's "relative".

The Evilness of Necromancy

Who is online