[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


My 5e group keeps expecting me to be evil.

I'm a School of Necromancy wizard and my group expects me to go full evil. But I don't wanna. I like making bone guys
>>
Necromancy is evil, retard.
>>
>>84513271
How so prove it
>>
>>84513300
No.
>>
>>84513300
You're literally using magic that corrupts life and creates plagues, insanity, rot, and generally attracts evil shit. Retard.
>>
>>84513300
>>84513254
Depending on the setting and cosmology necromancy is inherently evil as negative energy is essentially radiation made of suffering and hate

What setting what system
>>
>>84513254
Why not just make rock guys? You're usually going to be going through a shitload of good earth-golem dirt to get to the bones anyway.
>>
>>84513254
>I wanna play an evil guy
>But... I'll be hecking wholesome chungus instead!
Eh. Kys.
>>
>>84513451
It's a lot easier to make bone guys than golems
>>
>>84513254
you are committing ontologically evil acts in your practice. you're evil.
>>
I'm in a similar boat. I made my character an innate necromancer with strong morals, expecting to pull off a kind of tragic, fated fall from grace character arc, but in practice I haven't had any particular reason for a slip up that would feel natural, and, in fact, my character still tends to act as a voice of and force for morality even while everyone looks down on her for consorting with dark powers and desecrating the dead.
>>
>>84514350
>my character still tends to act as a voice of and force for morality
She desecrates the dead and consorts with dark powers. She is not a voice or force of (good) morality. She's self-righteously evil.
>>
>>84514859
I basically agree that she's substantially evil in a platonic kind of way, and she does display self-righteous and hypocritical tendencies, but she still legitimately cares on some level and is apparently the only one in my game who wants to stop innocents from being killed by monsters, etc. It's just interesting to me that she passes broad secular standards of being a more or less "good" person. Things get more complicated with her morally at the level of intention, but I don't think I'll get into that here
>>
>>84513254
Don't let the haters stop you. Follow your dreams. Don't ever stop making skeletons. If the dead didn't want to be dancing skeletons, they wouldn't look so happy doing so.
>>
>>84513300
Ok, here you go, explaining why this is evil in baby steps so you understand. Think of the people you love the most, parents, children, friends, pets, etc. Got them in your mind, yeah? Now, imagine they die. You are heartbroken, you cry, you wail, you are heart broken with grief. You attend a funeral for the person, a lovely service in which you remember all the good times and achievements they had done and are consoled by your surviving family members and friends.

Next week, you are horrified to find that some fiend has dug up the grave and you later see that dead person's rotting and bloated corpse shambling down the street, being forced to drag the carriage of a dude dressed in black. Wouldnt you feel slightly upset, horrified or angry at the defilement? Most people would, this is why Necromancy is considered evil. (PS, if you dont feel anything, you are probably a sociopath/Evil yourself)
>>
>>84513254
Play a better system.
>>
File: dab-primaris.jpg (122 KB, 600x870)
122 KB
122 KB JPG
>>84513271
>when the first post is the best post
>>
>>84515526
actually any pile of abandoned bones will do. they dont even need to be humanoid
>>
File: Necromancy.png (119 KB, 620x534)
119 KB
119 KB PNG
>>84513254
Fun Fact

All healing is Necromancy

Always was until WotC decided to become more politically correct

Now it's labelled as either "Conjuration" (as if we're fucking CONJURING the exact DNA accurate flesh onto our patient??) or "Evocation" (What ever that means, evoking healing I guess?? How about evoking teleportation then?)

Worse yet they kept sister spells like "Harm" or "inflict Wounds" as Necromancy, may as well call them evocation, makes more sense for Harm then Heal

I'm not being a grog about this, it's legitimately thematically thoughtful to call it Necromancy, it makes stories more interesting and puts a double edge on all spells, not just "evil" ones
>>
File: 1647215887453.jpg (54 KB, 283x352)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>84513254
Based giga-autist with zero grasp on morality
>>
>>84513271
Stop trying to make evil happen. It's not going to happen.
>>
>>84515526
B)BUBUBUBUT ITS CONSENSUAL!!!!!!!!! I'M A G-G-GOOD NECROMANCER!!!!! T-THINK OF THE DECREASED LABOR COSTS
>>
>uhhh you cant just reanimate that corpse we were going to leave rotting and unburied in the woods anon, thats evil
>>
>>84515526
Yes, that's horrible, I'd never want to do that to some nice family, which is why I only reanimate the corpses of assholes who tried to kill me, who are usually bandits, evil mercenaries, and servants of demons or dark gods. These fuckers deserve the desecration, and if their family is mad about it they can fucking fight me and join the horde once they die.

Really though, humanoid corpses aren't even the best for combat. Decent enough as servants I guess, and distractions. Animating monster corpses is where it's at. Are you gonna tell me to cry for the Owlbear's family because I turned him into a skeleton? Give me a break. And how about dragons? People have no trouble slaying a dragon and wearing its hide as armor but if I want to animate the bones to have a bad ass skeledragon somehow now I'm the bad guy.
>>
>>84515902
is this your brain on libertarianism?
>A-as long as it's not hurting anyone *animates that which should be dead to unnatural life*
>>
>>84515526
How do you know that some random skeleton is your relative's skeleton? Oh, that's right, you don't. Idiot.
>>
>>84516225
>that which should be dead to unnatural life
thats a whole lot of editorializing. I was just taught to waste not want not
>>
File: 1418612682298.jpg (119 KB, 375x821)
119 KB
119 KB JPG
>>84513254
I mean I love good necromancers. They listen to the dead and solve crimes and avenge innocent blood. Spooky paladins.
>>
>>84515902
Yes, one of my character's (>>84514350) arguments is that what she is doing with the corpse is no less honorable than what nature would do in her absence and that people who think she is evil for somehow "tainting" a corpse ought to dig up a month-old grave sometime and see what we hide away from our sensitive eyes.
>>
File: 1413483139268.png (1.26 MB, 900x1200)
1.26 MB
1.26 MB PNG
>>84516453
I really like the idea of necromancers being treated like shit by the same people and for the same reasons as 18th century scientists writing the books on the human body that modern medicine still uses today. Fucking illiterate peasants telling you not to do the thing because "the body is sacred" and "man wasn't meant to know" and "it makes me uncomfortable" shut the fuck up and get out of my way.
>>
>>84516482
Well, in this particular case, while the argument is fairly solid, it's also beside the point for a few reasons, one being that her ministrations twist the bodies into hellish mockeries. She's wrong, and in her arrogance she's the only one who doesn't recognize the essential truth that Evil is using her as its plaything. This of course makes it that much more delicious when I have her make a sensible point.
>>
File: Unknown.png (74 KB, 370x380)
74 KB
74 KB PNG
>>84513254
Ah... the duality of man. But well, I will give my take - not sure how well it would fit into D&D tough. There are various ideas - a scientist or scholar who just wants to help (Think of "Who mourns a Necromancer") or maybe someone who seeks to end slavery by selling servants, but many of those are highly dependent on souls and morality of the setting. My personal answer for the "Good Necromancer" would be to go the religious route, revenants and ancestral cults, have your character be an old warrior who summons back his former shieldbrothers for "one last quest" or something like that for example. I mean, look at this thread – what are the core things, why necromancy should rightfully be evil – for example the defilment / disrespecting of the corpses rest – and how can you spin them around?
>>
File: 1476275832659.jpg (198 KB, 980x552)
198 KB
198 KB JPG
>>84513254
>>84516783
Cont.
I for example, have within my setting something that you could call “good necromancy”, although its mostly tied to a specific culture, where this prevalent. To make it simple, they take their ancestral beliefs, which itself to some degree exist in all cultures to its extreme. Not only to they believe, that their ancestors watch over them from heaven, they also will come to their help once again, should the need arise. Whenever attacks from man or monster threatens them, they will take the dead from their clans tombs lovingly clad them in their old armors, adorn them with flowers and bands of silk and awaken them in grand ceremonys, so they will protect their descendants once more, as all of them will one day. For that reason, the destruction of ones corpse is the worst thing that can happen to someone there and to it sacrilege. They also have specific type of blood feud, that is kept strictly talionic by having the to be avenged dead himself kill his own murderer.
>>
>>84513365
fireballs kill people too and enchantments strip away people's free will. What's your point?
>>
>>84516241
>hey thats uncle dave's gold tooth
>>
>>84513254
Unless the DM enforces some kind of consequences, Necromancy in 5e is no more evil than Conjuration. There are no innate features of Necromancy in 5e spell descriptions or rules that say that Necromancy is evil besides the usual "spoopy negative energy is bad in a vague and undefined way".

In other words, its up to the DM to make you evil if you don't specifically act evil. You could eventually find out that your shtick has caused some kind of undead plague or something, and that would technically be appropriate, but until then, you can 100% just say that your character had no idea it could cascade or get that bad. You can still be a good dude with skeletons.

Its when the DM whips out the consequences and then you still keep making skelebros that you turn evil.
>>
You're fucking up the labor market by making tireless workers that don't need to be fed or paid
>>
>>84514350
>planning a character arc
Shiggydiggy
>>
>>84516790
I dig this idea but I still think there should be something bad that happens if you bring them back
>>
>>84516931
Think of it as something like giving an arrow a trajectory at the point of release. Gusts of wind, etc., can alter its path, but you might as well point it somewhere in the vicinity of a target. Ultimately, your character's background, motivations, and personal traits bias the outcome of his life in a general direction. Seeing that this is the case, you might as well choose a direction that seems interesting at the outset, even if the events of the game ultimately take your character elsewhere.
>>
>>84517108
>your character's background, motivations, and personal traits
I don't think about these at all when making a character and neither should you.
>>
>>84517195
oh so you're retarded, there is nothing else to argue about
>playing a game about creating stories
>don't want to create stories
well fuck off then
>>
I'm fine with you playing a necromancer, but not if you start doing apologetics for it. It's evil, end of story. Allowing argument for it means it's already too late, I will convince you by the end of my mace. Basic morality is not up for discussion.
>>
>>84513271
There are a lot of evil things otherwise good people do.
>>
>>84518737
>playing a game about creating stories
I've had this argument before. D&D is not and has never been about creating stories. It's a boardgame with fantasy trappings. It's fundamentally closer to something like Monopoly than it is to improv theater or a work of fiction.
Also, I did not say I don't come up with a personality or motivations. I said I don't think about them when CREATING a character. I come up with them through gameplay. Why would I ever spend more than five minutes on a character that might not last more than ten ingame?
>>
>>84513271
>healing people is evil
stop being retarded. Even in 5e Spare the Dying, Revivify, Gentle Repose, and Resurrection are Necromancy Spells. Let alone prior editions where every healing spell was Necromancy because it's the magic of life and death.
>>
>>84515526
As someone who works in the bereavement sector and I see how different family members and friends grieve this is the best explanation one could give as to why necromancy is inherently evil. The sanctity of remains and the treatment of it is pretty much paramount to how a family will deal with their loss. For example when it comes to collecting the cremated remains there is a massive difference in their level of satisfaction between just handing them the urn holding dad over the table like a business transaction versus setting up a room and putting the urn on a pedestal and letting them spend so time there.
>>
>>84515526
I would also feel horrified if somebody set my loved ones on fire and forced me to watch as they horribly burned to death, or mind controlled them and forced them to horribly torture and murder me while laughing about how they love their new master.

Does that mean Evokers and Enchanters are also evil? Enchantment magic can be capable of even greater atrocities and trauma because you're actively breaking and interfering with a living being's free will. Raising somebody's loved one as a mindless bone puppet to maul them to death is awful and in bad taste, but doing so while they're STILL ALIVE is even worse. You can take comfort that your loved one is dead and you're simply putting their body to rest while their soul is peacefully in the afterlife, your loved one being dominated and puppeteered while they yet live is far more horrifying. But nobody ever argues enchantment magic is inherently evil.

maybe wizards are just assholes.
>>
>>84518990
>completely missing the point
>>
>>84518990
There's no scenario where necromancy is not objectively evil regardless of its utilitarian benefits. There are scenarios where mind control can be morally good.
>>
>>84516888
>"i want to play a good necromancer"
>"sure thing bro"
>multiple sessions later
>"im a level 7 necromancer and i've done multiple heroic deeds despite people fearing me"
>"oh btw you discover that necromancy is in fact evil because it causes necrotic damage to the environment and bad spirits start coming back to hurt people if you cast your spells, you've been a villain all this time"
>"dude wtf"
>"yeah dude, it was your choice to use necromancy, isn't this cool how you're actually a piece of shit?"
>"this isn't cool, it's a bait and switch where you said i could play a good guy necro"
>"it's a twist, and i'm challenging you to overcome this situation and roleplay"
>"no it's not a twist, it's not an in-universe in-story unexpected outcome, it's you lying as a person outside the game to get me to play with you. there is no overcoming the situation in this game, my character is locked in as a necromancer with necromancer abilities and spells and i can't just respec. but here's the roleplay for you, my character is distraught and upset and decides to give up necromancy"
>"oh ho so that's interesting he gives up necromancy and then it will be more challenging to beat the next parts i have planned"
>"no, he knows that his only way of helping was with necromancy but that is really no help at all. so instead when he gives it up he goes into retirement. the end. gameover. i'm done."
>"no nooooo! you're being a bad player, you're quitting!"
>"no you made this situation. you approved of a morally good necromancer, and then you made it impossible to play, so you ended that character's involvement. i acted in good faith and you caused this by lying to me."
I suggest not lying to your players out of character by saying their concept is fine and then revealing later on that you would never allow it. If what they want is impossible then just tell them that. If you want twists then admit you won't tell them everything and what they want will come with complications.
>>
>>84519054
>acquire real human scum, rapists, torturers, serial killers, the likes
execute them
>reanimate them after you stripped them of their flesh so they're nice and clean and sanitary
>put them in fully enclosed armor/robes so they're nicer to look at
>make them patrol the streets to protect the innocent and fight off monsters

flawless, you can not refute this
>>
>basic medieval society where mass deaths aren't uncommon
>those bodies are either mass buried when there's too many and not enough/any relatives left or they're just sold to the local necromancer who is nice enough to not graverob or kill random people for his work
also if hes using humanoid corpses that no one even cares about when they're alive. or animals.

of course people still don't want to see shambling corpses around because thats creepy but as long as its far out of sight, who cares? the local lord might even appreciate the added muscle in turf wars
>>
>>84519104
>Bringing their evil back into the world instead of throwing it away
>Now their victims have to deal with the fact that those that abuse them basically still walk the streets
>"B-But it's okay, they're just a zombie. They can't hurt you unless you obey the law."
>>
Necromantic Shock Corps(e) employed by the Local Lord©:
Should anyone die and wish to be buried in the Local Graveyard™ he volunteers to be reanimated as frontline troop to protect the still living Men at Arms™, but only in a defensive scenario/internal matters of The Realm.
The Necromantic Shock Corps(e) is to be deployed ahead/at the very front of the Men at Arms™ formations to weaken the enemy and ensure no Full Harnesses are needlessly damaged.
>>
>>84519234
>Bringing their evil back into the world instead of throwing it away
can't be evil if you're dead and controlled by a necromancer
>Now their victims have to deal with the fact that those that abuse them basically still walk the streets
the victims don't know who the robed protectors are, not even that they're undead
>"B-But it's okay, they're just a zombie. They can't hurt you unless you obey the law.
not a Zombie. clean, bleached, Skeleton completely covered in robes.
think Golem but more natural in origin.
>>
>>84519234
I'm not sure you know how raising undead works. You're not casting resurrection if thats what you're thinking
>>
>>84519290
>>84519295
There's going to be no population ever that'll be happy being protected by zombies the second that society figures out those robed soldiers are walking corpses
Which happens the first time one of them gets knocked over.

>>84519295
Oh I'm fully aware, but it's still the corpse of a yaddayadda animated by dark magic. a "Foul mimicry" of life. Everyone knows and feels how wrong it is. But I had assumed that the creation of this things weren't a secret in the scenario a "You're sentenced to the skeleton crew" type thing that would never fly well with the victims because no one wants to be saved by their abusers, skeletonized or not.
Which reminds me:
>Redeeming those that do not need to be redeemed.
>>
>>84513254
Just don't be evil.
Our just so stereotypically evil things, rub your hands together and say ominous things to yourself but have it end up being nothing/ mundane
>>
>>84513365
So does medicine.
>>
>>84519347
>no population ever that'll be happy being protected by undead
>no one wants to be saved by their abusers
>Everyone knows and feels how wrong it is
So it's evil because people are stupid and biased against it? That's not a convincing argument, and you seem to be arguing from a setting specific stance, so it's just whatever shit you like to make up and doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else's games.

Using the dead on your side is not axiomatically evil and is not always condemned in fiction that may inspire games. Aragorn had an army of ghosts and he was consistently portrayed as moral and became accepted as a leader and king. The Horn of Valere, and it's ability "the grave is no bar to my call" is seen as mythic and heroic, a force for good. Exalted has a society where undead and necromancy are regular accepted parts of their culture. Necromancers in the Diablo Sanctuary setting are often treated as moral, even heroic. Summoning the dead is not necessarily evil in ancient Greece and heroic protagonists like Odysseus even do it.

>Redeeming those that do not need to be redeemed.
That would mean that necromancers are now as moral as a God of all that is Good. Redeeming those that don't need to be redeemed can be optimally good, better than what just what is needed, and make the world and its people better off.
>>
>>84513254
God I can handle necrofags normally. I just can't handle the ones who try to cope with "I'm actually the good guy!"
>>
>>84519514
Your point being? Medicine is unnatural, borderline evil.
>>
>>84513254
>run a fantasy RPG where necromancers are powerful and don't have to be evil at all
>necromancy itself is just a tool and a person could use it for many good purposes
>a lot of necromancers still end up being assholes for a variety of reasons, personal, systematic, and social, and necromancy can be an influence but it wielding those powers is not an evil act
>players think the setting is cool
>one player wants to play as a necromancer
>he plays as a completely evil necromancer and allies with the other necromancers who like to use their powers ruthlessly where he can fit in and be accepted while doing almost any evil things he likes
I guess classic stories will often just play out naturally without having to force it at all.
>>
>>84519534
>So it's evil because people are stupid and biased against it?
Yes
Just like fucking kids, stealing from each other, rape, slavery, necrophilia, and every other "B-but it's efficient" behavior that's outlawed.
It's evil because it's explicitly "Foul corrupting magic." Copy-pasted from the description of Animate Dead itself.
You can sit there and think up every exception you can think of, but people have good reason for some corpsefucker to not dig up corpses and raise them to serve him champagne.

>Aragorn
I'm calling this one out specifically. He didn't create the Army of the Dead, and he called on them to serve so that they could fulfill their oaths and finally pass on.
A two second wiki search could pull that up
>>
>>84519104
>Denying them afterlife
>Tipping the cosmic scale in favour of evil by casting necromancy
>Committing more evil deeds to summon them back into a skeleton
>They either slave away for eternity, or rampage and kill more people
>Their mere presence is a scourge on life
>Caster condemns their soul

Keep your luxury gay boner communism
>>
File: 0c7qa4h8lrr81.png (1.27 MB, 942x1080)
1.27 MB
1.27 MB PNG
>animates skeletons because he likes the funny click clack noises they make
>doesn't know what an alignment is
>>
>>84519706
>there is no exception
>except all the exceptions that aren't your personal fantasy
>also aragorn is an exception
So what if Aragorn didn't create them? Aragorn went to them for help, he called upon them, he unleashed evil supernatural forces to kill of his own free will. Redeeming them is not a valid argument for you. You already declared that evil dead don't need redeeming and that doesn't excuse using them to fight for you.

If Aragorn can do this, then any necromancer can just call up the dead to fight as long as they didn't "make them" into undead and it's totally moral. If the necromancer calls a ghost and tells it to fight for good, and the ghost inhabits their old bones and goes to fight as a skeleton that's the animate dead spell with different flavor. For someone that claims no exceptions that's a huge fucking exception even in your own made up fantasy land.
>>
>>84513254
Raising the dead to do your bidding is an inherently evil act.
One guy in my group is always treating me as if I'm evil just because I'm a hexblade in a pact with Graz'zt. The closest thing to evil I've done, is take a guy that surrendered from the enemy (a group of magic supremacists that were fucking up the locals whenever possible and trying to take over the land) and rip him apart in a ritual for my patron. This was done outside of the party's view, far away, and neither him or his character were in that session.
>>
>>84519932
>So what if Aragorn didn't create them? Aragorn went to them for help, he called upon them, he unleashed evil supernatural forces to kill of his own free will.
Ah, so you choose to be willingly obtuse.

It was a curse that bound the ghost army, and by calling on them, Aaragorn freed them from the dark magic, undoing the curse laid upon them and allowing them to pass on. At no point was he a necromancer who enslaved and bound spirits to his will.

>If the necromancer calls a ghost and tells it to fight for good, and the ghost inhabits their old bones and goes to fight as a skeleton that's the animate dead spell with different flavor
That's also a really fucking different reflavoring of animate dead from the "Bound skeletons of zombie criminals" that we started with. Regardless the difference is Aragorn was helping the souls to pass on, to "Fulfill their oath and be free." While the Necromancer is dragging a spirit from the after life to ask/demand help, which depending on the flavor might be magically binding it, otherwise it could tell him to fuck off and go back to being passed on.

>Redeeming them is not a valid argument for you. You already declared that evil dead don't need redeeming and that doesn't excuse using them to fight for you.
And because you don't get it, it was the criminals that didn't need to be redeemed. No one needs to talk fondly of "Charlie the child rapist" but if his corpse is running around protecting people, that's what's going to happen, people will be grateful that "Charlie the child rapist's" body is here to save them, even if they don't know its him.
The ghost army fulfilling their oath to pass on doesn't need redeeming past fulfilling their oath. Turning Charlie the Child Rapist into "Charlie, defender of the city" is redeeming a bastard who doesn't need redeeming.
>>
>>84513300
Unless you're doing something to counteract this, creating undead traps the soul against its will. It is denied the afterlife. It is cruel to do this even to evil souls.

Talk with your DM about it and maybe you can get a paladin or something to help you perform necromancy in a manner that doesn't torture their souls.
>>
>>84520020
To be fair if you're in communion with a literal Demon Lord and please them to a point where they're willing to give you power, it's a safe bet that you're doing evil stuff or otherwise pulling one over on a hyperintelligent master of deception and guile. It's definitely a dangerous path to walk either way.
>>
>>84519718
Create Undead doesn't interact with the soul of whatever you're animating, it fills the body with an imitation of life.

Making Skeletons by dumping a corpse into a pit of maggots/acid is really not evil. Distasteful and disgusting maybe, but definitely not evil.

>They either slave away for eternity
Yes, and? So does a waterwheel.
>>
OOOOOH!! It's one of those DEPENDS ON THE FUCKING SETTING threads.
>>
>>84520063
>Ah, so you choose to be willingly obtuse.
That's been you the entire time.

>actually it's different in this setting, but um it has to be evil in all other settings, because uh, it just is okay
Clearly my necromancer doesn't pull people from their afterlife and mind controls that. No, no, no, my necromancer is instead a holy servant (with a level of cleric even, say in serving the noble god of the underworld) calling upset ghosts to perform righteous tasks willingly to redeem themselves or just to help others so they may be sent to their proper afterlife. Their undead forms may be 'foul mimicries of life' according to the spell (no talk of corruption there, I'm afraid you're wrong), but as Aragorn shows us the appearance of foulness doesn't make one bad, and using ugly, evil, foul looking dead for good purposes can be a good thing.

That's to say nothing of all the other fantasy settings that exist. Some settings might make necromancy evil all the time, just as you want it to be. Some settings don't make necromancy automatically evil, deal with it.
>>
>>84520158
>but as Aragorn shows us the appearance of foulness doesn't make one bad, and using ugly, evil, foul looking dead for good purposes can be a good thing.
Helping them to fulfill their oath to pass on=/=making them in the first place.
Aaragorn exorcised them. You are arguing that making them in the first place is good.
The fact that you can't comprehend the difference between these acts and think it's just about the "spooky" is honestly astounding

>I-In my setting where I removed everything negative about it, it's good!
Every time with you zombiefuckers
>>
The Priests of Rathma from Diablo are pretty cool. Not evil too.
>>
>>84518990
Yes, war wizards are evil. However, fire magic itself is not inherently evil since it has uses that are specifically not evil. There is no way to twist necromancy, an act that inherently violates bodily autonomy, to be not evil.
>>
>>84519104
Performing evil acts on evil creatures still makes you evil. That is how morality works.
>>
>>84520207
>Helping them to fulfill their oath to pass on=/=making them in the first place.
I already told you that, my obtuse chum. It's irrelevant and I already explained it to you.

>Aaragorn exorcised them.
He called upon them to serve their oath and fight for him, and then be released. He didn't perform a proper exorcism unless you consider calling upon dead to fight for a cause by a follower of a god to be proper. This is clearly fantasy stuff where you can demand the dead serve you for some reason. In Aragorn's case it's because of an oath. Well I can make up a fantasy character who is the rightful king of a dead kingdom and thus all my magical sorcery about necromancy is calling upon dead oathbreakers to redeem themselves like Aragorn.

>You are arguing that making them in the first place is good.
No, not exactly. I'm not the original anon. It depends on the setting and how it all works exactly. You are arguing it's never good, and always bad, but then ignoring all the settings where you're wrong and making exceptions for Aragorn using evil undead troops. If Aragorn was so righteous like you think he should be, then he could have simply released them and sent them to rest without using them as supernatural killers. Aragorn chose to unleash evil supernatural dead to kill his evil enemies. Animating undead, depending on setting and the magic, can be similar or not to what Aragorn did. Either Aragorn has done an evil act by this, or it's morally acceptable to do something similar ( IF it is similar in that setting) by calling up evil dead to earn some redemption through doing good acts.

>the fact that nooo you dum you zombie fucker uuuuuuh im astounded
Keep being astounded. You might learn something, some day.
>>
>>84518959
Making bone guys is evil, and that's what OP is doing.
>>
>>84520439
>It's irrelevant and I already explained it to you.
No it isn't. The ghost army was already there and he saved it. He didn't make it. There's no evil act to "using" the undead, especially if it means they get to pass on. It's the MAKING of the undead that's evil.

>He didn't perform a proper exorcism unless...
He brought the spirits to fulfill their oaths and brought them to pass on. They're exorcised.

>If Aragorn was so righteous like you think he should be, then he could have simply released them and sent them to rest without using them as supernatural killers.
They were bound by a curse that could only be removed by fulfilling their oath. And again, animating the dead is the evil act. Helping the dead to rest, even if it means giving them a task, is not evil. If anything, it's a delayed funeral with extra steps.

>and thus all my magical sorcery about necromancy is calling upon dead oathbreakers to redeem themselves like Aragorn.
In order to be like Aragorn, they would all have to be cursed beings that never passed on in the first place (because again, Aragorn didn't force them into unlife and servitude) and all willing to help you so they can pass on.
If they died and their spirits passed on (so they aren't haunting the land) then you're actively ripping them from the afterlife, and thus evil for reasons I shouldn't have to explain.

>N-No but it can be totally good.
If your setting removes all the negatives of necromancy like >>84519718 listed, then sure its not evil, but at that point: Why bother? Because you like bones?
>>
>>84520439
Aragorn is an evil character, just less evil than the obviously evil antagonists. So honestly, im not sure what you're talking about.
>>
>>84519514
>medicine
>corrupts life
>creates plagues
>insanity
>rot
>generally attracts evil shit

Anon is redpilled as FUCK on big pharma
>>
Threadly reminder that utilitarianism is garbage and utilitarians should never be taken seriously
>>
>>84513254
The skeletons you're using are the bodies of somebody grandma, brother, uncle, etc. Those people were laid to rest so their soul could transcend, and you disturbed their corpse. It's disrespectful and therefore an evil act to raise the dead. Doesn't matter what "type of spell" it is, nor does it matter what system.
>>
>>84520792
when they decided to start being brigands on the open road they lost the right to try to claim that they should be treated with respect
>>
>>84520638
>i accept that aragorn did some evil
Well at least you're consistent.

>>84520636
>For it to work it would have to be like this
So if done similar to what Aragorn did, it's similarly as moral as Aragorn was when doing so. So like I told you, but were now discussing the specifics of that exception.
>animating the dead is the evil act.
In your opinion, okay then there is no immorality with talking to some evil ghosts, and using magic to give them a contractual task they may consent to undertake where they decide to animate their remains themselves, they do good, and are brought to proper rest after. That can be moral and it is necromancy.

Necromancy has many spells that aren't just animating skeletons. Using magic to speak to the dead is necromancy. Protecting the dead from being made into undead is necromancy. Transferring my life force into you to heal you is necromancy. Maybe animating dead bodies is moral, it depends. If it's creating foul evil abominations that destroy and pollute the world with harmful dark magic, then in that setting it's evil. If it's reanimating your skeleton friend Jack in the Nightmare Before Christmas to maintain the proper cosmic balance then it's probably not so evil.

So different spells, or even the same spell from different sources (divine, sorcery, warlocks, etc.), could work differently and settings can have a different explanation for how it works and what is moral.

>If your setting removes all the negatives of necromancy, then sure its not evil, but at that point: Why bother?
Because some people like it and think it's cool, so it's fun for them in their game. Sometimes it's also cool to have a setting with just a few negatives. Sometimes there's enough negatives that to do right with such powers is difficult and that struggle to do right with it leads to good roleplaying, interesting dilemmas, and an interesting character.

Sometimes it's cool to have what you like, where it's just terrible and evil all the time.
>>
>>84521207
>In your opinion, okay then there is no immorality with talking to some evil ghosts
If you can immediately prove the ghosts are evil and maliciously haunting, then remove them. But if they can talk and just want to pass on, then helping them pass on is a good act.
The ghosts in the Aragorn situation weren't evil.
It's also not necromancy as we're discussing. He didn't pull them from the dead. They were already there. And they didn't want to be there, so he found a way for them to not be there.
The "raising" is the evil part, as I keep saying.

No the necormancy school isn't evil, but we (or at least "I") haven't been talking about the necromancy school. We've been talking about your average media necromancer, who raises the dead, pulls souls from their gods/devil given afterlives to force them to continue serving.

But yes, in your setting where bringing back the dead doesn't:
Upset the flow of spirits
Fuck up the balance of life and death
Upset people to know that when they die some guy in a robe is going to make their corpse do the macarena for his amusement
Upset the gods of good for screwing up their afterlife system
Cause any consequences whatsoever
Then yes, raising zombies and binding ghosts isn't evil because there's no consequences. But at that point, you just striped away everything so you can be "right" and there's nothing to care about anyway
>>
>>84513254
> I'm not evil I just like desecrating corpses
>>
Honestly my biggest problem is the D&D founded arguments contradict long-supported precedent on the big picture of the alignment system.

For one, Flesh and Bone Golems do not get this response despite being powered and operated by an enslaved sapient. Liek, it's not even "bit of soul unimportant to the afterlife", it's a whole-ass Elemental that goes on a homicidal rampage when it takes control. Somehow, this is less evil than a basic Skeleton made out of a dead wolf.

And nature's irrelevant to the Alignment system, Druids were flat-out disallowed from being "corner" Alignments because Nature is Neutral. So violating "nature" can't be ontological Evil.
>>
>>84520084
My character just does what he does best as part of his pact: shed blood, maim, and kill. All in a ritualistic fashion, dancing with the sword as he slices through things. And the best way to satisfy his murderous thirst (and the pact) is by killing other things everybody hates like bandits and shit.
Also he's getting increasingly fond of a young light priestess who has a searing hatred for demons. She doesn't even knows he's a warlock.
>>
>le good necromancer!

Fuck you redditor.
>>
File: 1608475663428.jpg (329 KB, 1000x1273)
329 KB
329 KB JPG
>>84515526
>Wouldnt you feel slightly upset, horrified or angry at the defilement?
Wholly irrelevant, however if you must know? I would be angry. I would be upset, and I would likely attack that person for doing that. This does not however make them "evil". It makes them an asshole I just so happen to disagree with. No different than a person whom I happen to have a disagreement with.
>Most people would
For the longest time in history, it was acceptable to fuck what we would call small children. It was acceptable to keep slaves, and it was acceptable to rape those slaves as if they were your property. What the majority "believe" is largely irrelevant as what they believe as right and wrong can change when it becomes convenient to do so.
>PS, if you dont feel anything, you are probably a sociopath/Evil yourself
No, it just means you've established a convenient strawman to attack.
>>84513254
There is no good. There is no evil. There is only power, and those too afraid to make use of it. The relativity of morality based on circumstances is proof enough of this. You are not Evil, you're not even close to Evil. You want to be Evil? Be an Enchanter, whose entire M.O. and sole claim to fame is the domination and suppression of another sapient beings free will to achieve their goal.

... However, as stated? Be prepared to face the consequences of your actions if you animate someone who just so happens to be important to someone else. You're not Evil for doing that. You're inconsiderate, and while most Evil people are inconsiderate, not all of them are.

I can relate with your situation Anon. My group is playing 3.5e and this is a thing my current character is dealing with. And you know what? The DM is the one who claims, with an absolutely adamant nature, that all Necromancers HAVE to be Evil. Why? Because in a prior game, in the same setting, he was called out by a Paladin for animating the dead once to fight an army. I've elected to simply embrace Evil.
>>
>>84521952
Highly retarded opinion
>>
>>84521998
>name calling
You sure showed me.
>>
>>84515526
How is that any different than a wizard abusing his power to set people on fire, crash economies through transmutation, perpetuate fraud via illusion, or rob people of their free will? Again, it's all about how you use your power. A necromancer using the remains of bandits, cultists, people he killed in self-defence, etc. Or bones that are not buried he found in an ancient battlefield, or a ghost town's graveyard.
>>
>>84521952
>of all the horrific examples he could have chosen, he instead went for pedophilia
The feds are probably waiting for you, Anon
>>
>>84522109
>Pedophilia was practiced in time period X
>Pedophilia was wrong then and it is wrong now
Listen, if you disagree with that assessment, then by all means kill yourself
>>
If you or anyone else in your party dies, you ABSOLUTELY cannot cast resurrection spells or resurrection items on them. That is EVIL as it corruptsand denies the soul afterlife. If you have ever asked to be revived or have revived someone, you are an evil creature deserving of death regardless of what god you serve. In fact, goodly gods would thank anyone who removes such traitorous individuals who use their divine power for evil.

If you want to troll your group, play above: make a turn for good and then when someone in your party dies, DO NOT resurrect them if you are the only healer-adjacent character. If they complain about you being evil for not reviving them, tell them if he revives people anyway, why would reviving bandit 1 and 2 be evil.
>>
>>84515677
Additionally, all healing and resurrection is life magic, all necromancy is all magic dealing with life
>>
>>84518962
Based bereavement anon sticking it to the goody two-shoes necromancer incels
>>
>>84515679
What is this a picture of?
>>
>>84523889
A man many people have reported seeing in their dreams over time.
>>
File: todd-ulrich-jan17-2.jpg (643 KB, 2400x2400)
643 KB
643 KB JPG
>I want to do the bad thing but not be bad
Just be bad. It's a game of make-believe, pearl-clutching and trying to dance around it is pointless.
>>
>>84513254
I played a lawful evil "evil but for a good cause" necromancer once
It was the Wrath of the Righteous campaign in Pathfinder, so we were fighting against the literal forces of the abyss that were trying to destroy the entire world and my character pointed out that none of the previous crusades had even tried using undead, and all of them had failed
He was really heavy on the ends justify the means, but he didn't shy away from the fact that what he was doing was also an unmistakably evil act
When we won in the end he was hanged for his crimes. Death didn't take though, now he's a villain in our new campaign
>>
>>84513254
>>84513300
Stop making these threads already autismo
>>
>>84524228
>Saved the world
>Gets hung for it
I like how this is so vague it means that your party was just totally cool with your character, who very likely fought beside them for however long it took you to finish that adventure path, were just totally okay with sending you up the river to face the noose. They deserve whatever hell they rot in.
>>
>>84524794
He did some pretty evil shit by the end of the campaign, like curse the entirety of the World Wound with a DM-fiated mythic Cursed Earth spell that caused everything, even demons, which died within the area to be raised as zombies
>>
>murder hobos mad at you for making bone guys out of the guy the murder hobos just murdered.
I've communed with the spirits. They tell me to call you a faggot.
>>
>>84520355
Spare the Dying, Gentle Repose, Feign Death, False Life, and pretty much all of the resurrection spells would beg to differ. And that's just in the PHB.
>>
>>84520355
Spells in D&D are like programs. They do one thing, and one thing only, within specific and inflexible parameters, each time they are cast. You can't twist or misuse any spell; they only do what they were intended to do, for good or ill.
>>
File: 1540952544399.jpg (26 KB, 300x280)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
Just lean in on the evil. Being evil doesn't mean being a targeted force of malice. Sometimes, it's just a weakness of character. I'm playing a necromancer now. He's a sailor afflicted with survivor's guilt after being the sole survivor of a ship wreck. He picked up necromancy to attempt finding some affirmation from his former crew, and ended up losing any real distinction between the living or dead. He's squarely evil whether he thinks so or not. Trying to come up with justifications to subvert expectations is a waste.
>>
>>84513254
Blessed bone brother
>>
>>84513365
>"Evil's just destructive? Then storms are evil, if it's that simple. And we have fire, and then there's hail. Underwriters lump it all under 'Acts of God.' "
>>
>>84520070
Nice fanfiction
>>
The real reason to disallow Necromancy isn't >muh evil, but because it has a strong tendency to break the game
Assuming you can raise any recently killed monsters, you basically get to add mindless versions of the creatures you fought to your party meaning you get to take monsters that were designed to fight entire parties by themselves, give them undead immunities and then have them fight the next group of monsters
Nothing can be balanced when the party can just add previously slain creatures to their ranks
>>
>>84526676
The DM can adjust difficulty as needed or just start throwing shit designed to fuck up undead your way.
Trust me, the party will start to feel it after a while.
>>
>>84520070
>creating undead traps the soul against its will
>source: I made it the fuck up
Even the 3rd Edition Book of Vile Darkness wasn't this retarded.
>>84524859
If this is the case, then yeah. Your guy was kind of a cunt, but not necessarily for creating undead. Reckless environmental damage is always a shit move.
>>84524228
Are you coming back perhaps as a Worm that Walks?
>>
>>84526696
Just as a generic Lich but that probably would have been better. I don't know how he came back exactly, the DM is keeping it a secret for now
I was actually okay with how my character died, it was fairly on brand for him to give himself up after his work was done because he genuinely thought of himself as a good person pushed to extremes he wasn't, ooc I very much didn't want him to be, but in-character that's how he thought of himself, he just had somewhat psychotic ideas about what exactly "his work" was
The DM liked him enough to want to use him again, so we just had to come up with a reason that he would feel his work wasn't finished he's begun to look for new "absolute evils" to destroy, meaning he has to spread his influence beyond the World Wound which is still permanently cursed and almost as bad as when the Demons were pouring out of it
>>
>>84526690
The problem then is that the DM has to change shit just to counter one character
If that character isn't there the balanced has to be changed again and at some point when the entire encounter is made just to fight one PC the others start to feel like sideshows
>>
>>84516832
Of course nobody answered this question. Always these threads about how necromancy can only ever be used for evil and almost nobody ever mentions how fucked up enchantment can be



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.