What was the reason for D&D 3.5 turning necromancy into an

>>53901805

Mini-Satanic Panic around the time 3.5 came out?

Very early builds of 2e removed demons and devils, and made evil alignments NPC only, because they wanted to sell the game to middle America. The 3.5 thing might have been something similar.

>>53901891
The transformation of the fiends into Baatezu, Yugoloth and Tanar'ri were part of the old 2e "satanic panic", which was responsible for some great comedy (tunnels and trolls, dark dungeons, etc).

File: 1492373619599.jpg (26KB, 224x216px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 224x216px

>>53901805
Because they knew goth weeb faggots like you would use it to ruin the game for everyone

>>53901805
>What were the out-of-game reasons for this?
How should we know? I don't know any of the devs have talked about this point ever.

In addition to what >>53901891 said, methinks the rise of popularity of zombie-based media around the time that 3.5 came out may have had something to do with it as well. 3.5 came out in 2003, and around that time we were starting to begin the rise of an unlimited amount of zombie video games, a few movies and shows, and the occasional book.

Zombies also did not get their Twilight that softened their image in any way (or at least, none that were commercially successful) for all the normies out there, so with 3.0 and 3.5 running up to be their most popular edition yet I can only assume that they felt the need to conform to what everyone had in mind at the time when they thought of the undead, and pretty much none of it was positive unless it was for something related to a "kids version" of the popular monsters in fiction.

>>53901805
>2e, 3.0, 4e, and 5e were all more lax about the morality of raising undead.

That's not quite true. In 3.5, a skeleton, absent orders, will just stand in place waiting for orders from something with the power to give it orders; otherwise, it's harmless. In 5e, a skeleton, absent orders, will attack the nearest living creature that it can perceive. Check out the 5e Monster Manual if you don't believe me.

Bearing that in mind, raising a skeleton comes across as more evil in 5e than in 3e, since in 3e you're basically just creating a gross robot that's only as harmful as you command it to be, whereas in 5e you're creating a dangerous killing machine that, if you lose control over it, will immediately start attacking anything alive.

File: 10b8abe057d43091f21c1bc0cd05d0b4.png (549KB, 845x947px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 845x947px

I take this back in 5e's case.

The 5e Player's Handbook has this to say:

>Necromancy spells manipulate the energies of life and death. Such spells can grant an extra reserve of life force, drain the life energy from another creature, create the undead, or even bring the dead back to life.

>Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

By 5e logic, only evil people cast False Life to fortify their bodies for the rigors of battle often.

Also by 5e logic, necromancy is the magic of life as much as death, yet Cure Wounds and Healing Word fall under evocation.

>>53902548
>By 5e logic, only evil people cast False Life to fortify their bodies for the rigors of battle often.

That is not what it says, you illiterate mong. It specifically states - in your own quote - that *creating undead* is not good, and only evil casters use it frequently.

False Life does not create undead and so is not covered in the quote. That you posted. You illiterate mong.

>Also by 5e logic, necromancy is the magic of life as much as death, yet Cure Wounds and Healing Word fall under evocation.

The logic is that those spells manipulate negative energy, and energy manipulation is the domain of evocation. However on this I actually agree, they SHOULD be necromancy spells.

As for why creating undead is not good, see my previous post, >>53902163. Although note that the book only calls the creation of undead "not good", which isn't the same thing as calling it evil.

File: 401cdfa7253f25b0df00241774f1f1bb.jpg (896KB, 800x1084px) Image search: [Google]

896KB, 800x1084px

>>53902589

I take that back, and I apologize. I had misread the statement entirely as "such spells" referring to "necromancy spells in general."

>>53901805
>What was the reason for D&D 3.5 turning necromancy into an "almost always evil" affair?
Because skeletons and zombies are fucking evil, and necromancy has always been evil, and your question falsely presumes it had to "turn" that way.

Duh.

Even in 2nd ed they were FUCKING EVIL

http://gctm.free.fr/add/necromant/

>>53903294
Necromancy, not undead. Entwined but not the same.

>>53903335
Yeah, kinda like how murder and murders are "entwined". Dipshit.

Or fire and arson.

Or arrows and archers.

Or swords and swordsmen.

It's like asking why 5th ed made Druids into some sort of nature-themed priest.

>>53901805
Because necromancy requires either the desecration of the dead at best, or the enlacement of souls at worst. There is no way to do necromancy that isn't evil unless you start a cult that wants to worship you eternally or have people fill out release forms for their body, but then an argument could be made for fucking with nature.

>>53903548
>out of game reason

File: Good Necromancers.jpg (154KB, 891x603px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 891x603px

>>53901805

>>53903645
>out of game reason
Read.

>>53903647
The in-game reasons are the reasons. Stop trying to justify your fucking zombie fetish.

>>53903652
No because they're free to say magic works how they want.

File: 1477695609293.jpg (107KB, 644x830px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 644x830px

>>53903647
OK, the out of game reason is that corpses and death and messing with the cycle of life and death is generally considered abhorrent in every form of media and repulsive to most mentally normal people.

>B-b-but muh edgy snowflake dark power!

You are That Guy, stop being That Guy, faggot.

>>53903686
The writers could tag Dominate with evil shit and they didn't.

File: 1471402825568.png (19KB, 160x186px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 160x186px

>>53903693
If you have ever played with DM who considers magically dominating the free will of another sentient creature to be socially acceptable or "good" in any way... well, That Guys attract other That Guys I guess.

>>53901805
Because people like you are cockbags.

Simple, huh?

>>53903671
Yeah and they wanted to say necromancy was bad. Why is this an argument?

>>53903693
>Arguing that stripping a creature of it's free will isn't evil because the rules say so.

Holy fuck, you're actually serious right now, aren't you? You're beyond help.

File: every wizard ever.png (184KB, 513x522px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 513x522px

>>53903671
>They're free to say magic works how they want
>They say necromantic magic is inherently evil and against the natural order
>"I DON;T LIKE THAT ANSWER! THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY HOW MAGIC WORKS ANYMORE!"

Huh, it's like you're allowed to homebrew it working however you want anyway.

File: Nephthys_Symbol.jpg (11KB, 200x243px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x243px

>>53902163
In 5e you can be a cleric of Nephthys with the Death domain to animate dead and she's a CG god, the book even says this.

Checkmate, 5e.

File: 1455690822906.jpg (17KB, 680x383px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 680x383px

>>53903786
Convenient how blatantly evil things are the height of morality just because a religion says so.

>>53903719
Not that guy, but that wasn't what he was saying. He was saying that it's weird that Necromancy and raising the dead and all gets a free pass while Dominate doesn't get tagged.

It's a stupid argument anyway, because there's no real reason to waste wordcount on Dominate being evil because it so blatantly is, but you're no less a retard for misinterpreting it so wildly.

>>53903817
>Not that Guy
How to, at a glance, tell a samefag trying to save face on an anonymous internet forum.

>>53903817
What does "tagged" even mean. Spells don't have good/evil tags regardless of the edition. This isn't Star Wars with clearly defined Light Side and Dark Side powers. Your alignment score doesn't drop because you cast a certain spell. Everything is up to DM fiat.

File: anhur.jpg (194KB, 1048x408px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1048x408px

>>53903294
Wrong, specialty priests/shaman of Anhur, Arvoreen, and other gods are GOOD ONLY and they get Necromancy as a sphere and Necromancy lets you raise dead.
http://www.dragonsfoot.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=42664
Check it if you don't believe it.

>>53903852
Hell, shamans of Corellon are GOOD ONLY and they get necromancy.

File: sashelas.jpg (334KB, 818x705px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 818x705px

Priest of Sashelas? CG only, gets necromancy.

File: garl.jpg (366KB, 809x730px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 809x730px

Garl Glittergold? LG/NG only, gets necromancy.

File: hanali.jpg (275KB, 829x568px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 829x568px

Hanali Celani, elven god of beauty? CG only, gets necromancy.

File: ilmater.jpg (98KB, 674x339px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 674x339px

Ilmater, FR's Jesus? LG only, gets necromancy as major sphere.

>>53901805
as someone who played necro mostly in diablo 2
i like the tiny blurb in 5e that says not all necromancers are evil

something about spooky skeletons are really cool to me, and using something as terrifying as that for good is cool to me, edgelords be damned

but really, i dont think i ever gave a damn what the manual or the DM says, they can scribble EVIL all over my char sheet or make everyone call me evil, but i will never waver my characters pursuit for justice or righteousness

And necromancy is more than just raising the dead by your own admission, so good dieties getting this as a domain are irellivant.

Animation is still evil.

File: I have won an internet argument again.png (1MB, 790x1095px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 790x1095px

>>53903849
> Spells don't have good/evil tags regardless of the edition. This isn't Star Wars with clearly defined Light Side and Dark Side powers.

>>53901805
>Necromancy only dead centric spells
>Not the general magic field of life, body and soul
>No medicinical use
>No religious background making necromancers also take duty as morticians

File: drink the pain away.gif (1009KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 500x280px

>>53903949
And thus Pathfinder/3.5 became even more retarded than I previously assumed it was.

>>53903956
Hell in original folklore a necromancer was just someone who talked to dead people and acted as a pyschopomp

>>53903982
Setting where necromancy is a respectable field of work sounds fun. Like people hiring necromancers to communicate a last time with dead family members to say a final goodbye.

File: DX_Alum94_3.png (633KB, 1029x600px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 1029x600px

oh it's that thread again
Look, necromancy should have some cost, otherwise there's no point in not having lich oligarchies rule the whole world and things never fearing death because they can become skellies anyway.
Having a cost of "It's evil" is pretty dumb, especially with modern and postmodern morality system of "everything is subjective, life is absurd, do what you want". Feel free to replace it with "Your life force", "Others' life force", "Magic irradiation", "Blood", or giving the monopoly ovre death magic to some asshole everyone hates and have necromancy require doing jobs for said asshole.

>>53903967
Never underestimate just how retarded 3.PF can be. It's always safer to just assume the worst with that garbage """"""system""""""

>>53904001
they also make scary but dependable bodyguards
skellys to escort your escort
false life to buy the package more time
feign death, just in case you need to make a feint
blight/inflict wounds for extra firepower
high INT or WIS means that their decisions tend to be very good ones

There sure are a whole lot of idiots in this thread that seem to conflate the necromancy school, filled with plenty of non evil spells and even ones that are useful and beneficial, with the very specific evil ones of making undead. Necromancy is not evil, and has never been evil, raising the dead is evil, and those spells account for about 1% of the necromancy school. Many of the spells used specifically to destroy and eliminate undead and the corpses they come from are necromancy spells. Its also the big debuff school.

>>53902163
>In 3.5, a skeleton, absent orders, will just stand in place waiting for orders from something with the power to give it orders; otherwise, it's harmless.
Except that's wrong. Its specifically controlled undead that won't immediately attack. Controlled undead will stand there motionless, waiting for orders. Uncontrolled will roam aimlessly killing anything that is alive. This is true of 3.5, 4e, PF, and 5e.

>>53903967
PF eliminated the Evil descriptor from certain spells which made no sense to have it, like Deathwatch. However, any undead creation spells are always labeled with the Evil descriptor. Evil gods and demon lords gave people the knowledge of their use, and they want more souls in their hells.

>>53904310
if i use my skeletons for good, am i still evil?

>>53903967
>>53903949
Those are descriptors, and it is explicitly stated they have no game effect unless called upon.

>>53904331
Yes. Because in order to use the spell, you must either be someone who is Neutral leaning evil, or Evil. In addition, you've created a horrific abomination of unlife, a being which leaks literal anti-life all around it, and which if ever set loose will ravage and destroy any living thing in its vicinity to satisfy its lust for life energy. It's like walking a tiger on a leash down a city street, you might get lucky and it won't maul someone, but the minute you let go, it's going to kill people.

It freaks out any sane person, and marks you as the spawn of an evil cult. There is no doing good with skeletons since any town guard will see that skeleton, immediately inform his superiors and will bring the king's men and his mages down upon your head.

>>53904418
so it doesnt matter what good i do with my powers? my actions are completely irrelevant, and niether my intent nor actual good i do doesnt qualify me as good because i have skeletons?

>>53904431
You won't have the chance to do good before your monstrosity of unlife is found out and you're put to the sword. There is a reason reanimators live on the fringes of cities, away from all those people, it's because they know that if they walked into town with their horrific spawn, they would be killed on the spot. In order to use those spells, you must also be either a neutral (evil) or evil cleric or a wizard who thinks he will get away with being an idiot who flaunts the decency of any sane person.

Why is it that reanimatorfags dismiss the huge cultural background for their spells and think they will be accepted as normal or even good people by those who rightly and strongly fear their creations. That the religious significance of their act won't register upon the common folk who will cry for the Undead Smashers of the local death god to come and fuck your shit up and make sure your little flight from civilized decency is rooted out and stamped out forever.

Do you think the local psychopomps of the area are going to put up with your shit either? That the shepherds of the dead and souls are going to look the other way as you rip the bodies of the deceased from their restful graves? Your a fool and madman.

The system may say you can, but the game world will rightly and strongly put you down.

>>53904528
so my only choice is to give in and become evil and prove them right?
there is no way for me to to let my actions speak for me and to let everyone know that I can use skeletons for good?
it is too hard to be good, so why even bother, only people for whom good cpmes naturally should have that chance?

1e
>The act of animating dead is not basically a good one, and it must be used with careful consideration and good reason by clerics of good alignment.

2e
>Casting this spell is not a good act, and only evil priests use it frequently.

3.5e/Pathfinder
"Animate Dead" has the [Evil] descriptor.

4e
No reference to alignment in the "Animate Dead" spell.

5e
>Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently

Conclusion: the game has not significantly changed. Most editions agree that animate dead is typically bad but might be used by good characters in rare circumstances. 3e is a break in style rather than substance due to the introduction of [descriptors]. 4e is the odd man out for ignoring alignment altogether.

>>53904431
In D&D dumb morality terms, doing evil for greter good is still evil. And necromancy is evil because negative enrgy is radiation but instead of making you sick it makes you sick AND an asshole.

File: c25c25d71584ac88df5b9568cece90ed.png (2MB, 1753x1453px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1753x1453px

>>53904418
>>53904431
>>53904528

During D&D 3.5's late-cycle books (e.g. Complete Scoundrel in 2007), the writers decided to be more progressive with the morality of alignment-tagged spells.

The prime example of this is the malconvoker, one of the game's more powerful prestige classes. It revolves around summoning and binding (that is, with spells like planar binding) evil creatures and using them for good purposes. For example, a malconvoker might repeatedly planar-bind fiends in order to put them to work in hunting down other evil creatures.

Notably, a malconvoker *cannot* be evil. It is strictly a noble endeavor to turn fiends to good ends in such a fashion.

>>53904310
>There sure are a whole lot of idiots in this thread that seem to conflate the necromancy school, filled with plenty of non evil spells and even ones that are useful and beneficial, with the very specific evil ones of making undead. Necromancy is not evil, and has never been evil, raising the dead is evil, and those spells account for about 1% of the necromancy school. Many of the spells used specifically to destroy and eliminate undead and the corpses they come from are necromancy spells. Its also the big debuff school.
Yeah, but most of the posters in this thread started with 3.5 so expecting intelligent replies is a fool's endeavor.

>captcha is "Select all the dumbbells"

>>53903889
You calling Garl "just a prank bro" Glittergold a good and trusting the book doesn't really make your argument stronger.

>>53905630
That was after 2e.

I don't like the good necromancer meme, and by "necromancers" I only mean the undead raising/controlling characters, not random wizards casting finger of death or whatever. In my settings raising undead will always be evil, you may consider yourself a hero when your undead army defends a village from orcs, but for every zombie you raised, three ghouls will awaken somewhere else and go on an uncontrolled rampage.

>>53902163
>>53902589
Necromancy is a violation of a dead person's body.
It's like arguing why is rape bad.
Besides the issue of using someone's dead relative/friend/lover as an expendable servant by reanimating their remains. There's also the issue of how you acquired that knowledge, the years of experimentation that you had to do on living and dead things to end up knowing how to do that and why you pursued that knowledge.
Necromancy is just sadistic in nature.
The only way I wouldn't consider it evil in a campaign is if the necromancer comes from a culture where people don't consider it evil, where necromancers are accepted and are actually trained on dead bodies with the consent of the dead person or its family AND is limited to only using that power ethically, on the bodies of people that consent to it beforehand or when the family allows it. And if that isn't the case and you decide on desecrating that dead person, then you better have a pretty good reason to it or you're gonna get some evil points in your resume.

Just draw a parallel with how in real life there is people who desecrate dead bodies for personal gain. There's also old time surgeons that had to steal bodies to train their skills, but by doing so would cause suffering to the family of the deceased. And then there are the surgeons that go to a medical college and there they train their skills on a fresh body that was donated with full consent.

>>53905643
That is contrived. You can't convince your players of the general evilness of mystical graverobbing so you just say "It (somehow) causes evil monsters to spawn and it's all your fault!"

Does this asinine line of logic work with every other school of magic? For every fireball I cast, does a child burst into flames? For every divination I cast, some poor sap goes blind? If I mystically destroy the undead I raise does that, just as arbitrarily cause the three ghouls to fucking evaporate?

File: c70f86c502fd238c79162cf96071958a.png (195KB, 520x800px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 520x800px

>>53905706

>The only way I wouldn't consider it evil in a campaign is if the necromancer comes from a culture where people don't consider it evil, where necromancers are accepted and are actually trained on dead bodies with the consent of the dead person or its family AND is limited to only using that power ethically, on the bodies of people that consent to it beforehand or when the family allows it.

The necromancy-focused Dustmen of AD&D 2e's Planescape had a corpse cart program for exactly such a thing.

>>53905706
>, where necromancers are accepted and are actually trained on dead bodies with the consent of the dead person
Sir, would you like to volunteer for some lively reanimation?
>.....

>>53905807
That's why finding a heart donor is so hard, then.

File: 17881498_p0.jpg (1MB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x768px

Orin is best kitty

>>53905734
Necromancy having tangible evil influence on the world keeps the setting coherent. See >>53904014

>>53905971
But the post you're quoting is arguing against the auto-evil.

>>53905971
That post doesn't say it needs evil, just a cost

>>53905971
So why don't the other schools have this "evil influence" on the world?

File: 15288603_10155553504828242_2690238954497930478_o.jpg (67KB, 752x1063px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 752x1063px

>>53905999
It's not auto-evil, it's evil due to the associated cost. Making the cost "it causes bad shit to happen" is more or less in line with the tradition of having evil baby-eating liches and undead kingdoms.

>>53906032
Some settings/systems do make it have bad influence on the world, Warhammer is an example. But it's a stylistic choice in that case, whereas with d&d necromancy you need to something to keep the setting coherent. There is some other d&d magic that needs similar treatment such as infinite permanent conjuration/creation. You can make conjuration spells evil, or you can make a deity who specifically hunts down those who want to break a setting. And as I said, necromancy usually gets the "it's evil" because of tradition.

>>53906032
Because you aren't harnessing the power of the plane of destruction and anti-life to fuel horrific abominations that leak Fuck You energy all over the place. Otherwise there isnt a problem with the school of necromancy. Seriously, the only part of this that has any evil cost is creating undead.

No other school does anything close to what necromancy does with undead.

>>53903852
You're neglecting to mention that in AD&D necromancy was bundled together with healing magic under the same sphere, so any cleric who wanted to do one also had to do the other. It's stupid, but that's the way it was.

>>53906669
Wrong.
http://people.wku.edu/charles.plemons/ad&d/priests/healing.html

Healing is the sphere for that.

http://people.wku.edu/charles.plemons/ad&d/priests/necromancy.html

Necromancy is the sphere for doing spooky skeleton shit. All those good gods are letting their specialty priests do it.

>>53906032
You gave me an idea.
What price would destructive Evocation magic have?

>>53905555
>>53904310
It's all about the fluff, you retard.
You can't get knowledge and practice on the necromancy school of spells without experimenting with living and dead things. Basically, you need to get your hands dirty if you want that sweet knowledge of life and death.
You think you learned how to revive dead bodies, channel negative energy, make a death shroud, summon a ghost, and even erase the life of something, all that by simply reading a fucking book? The same way surgeons get to make brain, heart and spine surgeries after reading a quick pamphlet guide on how to do it? No. You learned that by stealing dead bodies from graveyards and experimenting on them, by imprisoning animals and people and torturing and experimenting on them, by making large amounts of people suffer so you could channel their pain and suffering. It doesn't matter if that necromancy spell isn't exactly about animating dead things, this applies to any spell in that school, you don't just magically learn spells by leveling up. That is what happens on the metagame, not in-game.

>>53903786 >>53903805
5e says that creating undead is not good. That does not make it evil, although only evil beings make a habit out of it.

About 50% of all alignment debates only happen because people forget that "neutral" exists. Not everything is good or evil. Sometimes it's just a thing.

With specific regards to Nephthys, I can totally see her as being okay with the creation of skeletons and zombies when the situation calls for it, but otherwise desire the bodies of the dead to be left alone in their rest.

>>53907296
>herpa durr necromancers are frankenstein
Most wizards went the same route those surgeons went, they went to school to learn the foundation of their career. Most surgeons don't start cutting until well into their schooling, and even then it's in controlled environments and all legally sanctioned. Just like necromancers would be who don't specialize in making undead.

This is a school of wizardry, not fucking sorcery. Wizards teach in schools, necromancers, evokers, transmuters, and all such others learn from their teachers. It's only when the students hear of dark whispers of power over the dead that they descend into the psychopaths who steal corpses and start torturing animals and people.

Once again, necromancy fine, reanimating not.

>>53903548
>>53903686

My particular goddess sees the soul as sacred, the body merely a meat puppet. Intelligent undead are taboo in that case, but mindless ones are not.

After all, what better use for the dead than to serve the living?

>>53907860
Fertilizer.

>>53907899

Hah, certainly.

I was rather amused when I was hired by a cleric of a small town to create him a zombie army to repel a coming goblin warband. They really had no recourse after losing most of their able bodied men, but had plenty of corpses.

My response after the initial shock and confusion at the rarity of the request was to remark that zombies were unsanitary, and a skeleton army much more effective.

>>53907690
Except those harmless spells are not even a third of all the spells available in necromancy.
The huge majority of them are spells that deal with death, dark energies, curses, fear, despair, magical diseases that infect your soul and other spells that interact with the astral plane of death. But those spells are all somehow learned and practiced in completely safe environments and by people with perfectly good intentions, right? It's not like you need a living subject as a target so you can practice your life draining spells on, right?
Necromancy is frowned upon for a very good reason, anon.

>>53908062
I always imagined they were like medieval doctors, practicing on corpses of executed criminals, and with skelly bodyguards and blight just being nice side effects of their mastery of human anatomy and the secrets of life and death

the average user doesnt think about good or bad when it comes to research, only whether or not their ultimate goal of knowinh all about the secrets of life, and they are as good or bad as they come otherwise

skeletons being raised are just them learning to construct a crude simulacrum of life to learn just how complex life can be

wizards seek knowledge above all else, whether they use it for good or bad is up to the individual, and a little discrimination will never stop their research

>>53908221
That still makes it evil.
And that's my point.

>>53908304
it's just an art to be learned like anything else

its only bad when used by irresponsible people to harm others
when used by the righteous for a righteous cause, what does it matter that people don't like it

skellys used to save lives and to stop does who mean harm are hardly the works of a madman

and a righteous person would only train using bodies nobody would miss, and would swear a hippocratic oath to use his skellys for good

saving the world 3 or 4 times in full view of the public would be enough to convince people of thw righteousness of his cause, especially if he had paladin party mates to vouch for him

>>53908304
Knowledge can never be evil.

>>53908425
Necromancy is Evil but the use of it is something else. To raise undead is Evil but to use that undead to do good is obviously Good. It's the same logic behind summoning Devils and Demons being Always Evil, yet being able to do good anyway.

>>53904431
You've already acted; and are being judged accordingly. You acted to bring an autonomous mobile murder-machine made of radiation and cancer into the world through soul rape. Your excuse? "Oh, it can swing a sword or plow a field; because people arent doing that fine already."

>>53908781
>Knowledge can never be evil.

Perhaps not in the real world, but Things Man Was Not Meant To Know exist in fantasy all the time.

>>53908883
so it doesnt matter if I save the world with my skellies, or if I kill only the unjust, or usw them for any purpose other than for good?

>>53904310
>any undead creation spells are always labeled with the Evil descriptor

Unless they aren't. There's plenty of explicitly non-evil ways to raise undead.

>>53908948
That's still not considered Evil though. Like, reading the King in Yellow is fucking STUPID, but it isn't Evil.

>>53908883
So what about Conjure Elemental? That also summons an autonomous murder machine if you lose control. Is it always evil to summon up a Fire Elemental simply because it MIGHT go berserk and burn down the village?

>>53904331
>If I grab someone's eternal soul from paradise and shove it inside their corpse so they can get tortured eternally from all the negative energy, forced to be trapped inside their own rotting husk, so I don't have to spend 10 minutes doing my own dishes, am I evil?

Gee, I wonder.

>>53909027
skeletons dont normally have souls on them, they have a crude artificial imitation

>>53908883
Your description is completely arbitrary. You house ruled the evil radiation and soul rape aspects. In my setting Animate undead attaches a bundle of mana to a shell the same way animating a golem works. Simply put, the more points of articulation and detail the shell has the easier it is to animate, therefore using an actual body makes for incredibly easy to animate golems that are more fragile than one made from stone or metal.

My house rule says Skeletons are just robots made from recycled materials, yours says they are the worst crime imaginable. It's all up to the DM and the setting.

>>53909060
Yeah no, you're not getting out this one Steve. You just tore that nice old lady out of heaven so she could do your gardening. You're fucking evil.

Also, about 12 Paladins just kicked your door down after detecting .5 Hitlers on the Evilometer in your house, roll initiative.

>>53908987
But in some fantasy worlds it can be.

>>53909060
Look, if you want an animated corpse that isn't evil, study Transmutation and learn Animate Object. A corpse in D&D rules is an object so there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to raise it using magic that merely animates it and doesn't pervert the natural order of the universe to do so.

Through Animate Object zombies at my players once. Good times. Especially when the Cleric tried to turn them and it didn't work.

>>53909097
>You just tore that nice old lady out of heaven so she could do your gardening
That's uh
Not how necromancy works generally

>>53909115
>pervert the natural order
Not possible, I hate this meme. The very fact that I am physically able to do so means it's part of the universe.

>>53909097
Whoah what's that? Now the setting has the local Lawful Good clerics animating the bodies of the faithful for a few decades of charitable service as an act of faith!

Killing an undead is an act of heresy and a crusade of 300 Paladins is here to kill the transdimensional idiot who showed up and tried to assert his morality in a setting he doesn't belong to. Also FYI animating a skeleton absolutely and 100% does not affect the soul of the person the body belonged to, that is not up for debate, that is RAW.

>>53904014
>necromancy should have some cost
Intelligent undead are held back from achieving moksha. Unintelligent undead are fine, because it's just the body, but having your intelligence persist after death prevents you from reincarnating and advancing.

>>53909139
>That's uh
>Not how necromancy works generally
Well, those Paladin's smite evils are working on you, so it means your doing something evil.

>>53909097
animate dead in 5e describes it as mimicry of life
they certainly don't possess any sapience as a souled creature would have
and if your setting has common skeletons use real souls, then it doesnt really apply

>>53909180
>are still working
They're actually not working on the horde of Solars I just summoned if you're playing that gme.

>>53909256
Yeah, those solar just turned around and punching you after thru speed the zombie. Then summon more, do you now have 12 Paladins and 15 Solars trying to smite your stupid evil ass.

>>53903949

What are Domains?

>>53909150
Not too bad.
When intelligent undead die, do they cease to exist or are they stuck in some limbo?

>>53909139
>Not possible, I hate this meme. The very fact that I am physically able to do so means it's part of the universe.

Dude, in most D&D settings there is an actual god of nature who gets to decide what is and is not part of the natural order. Often there's more than one. Just because you can do it, does not mean it's part of the natural order.

You're that kind of player who roles up an atheist in campaigns where the gods actually physically come down to the world and interact with mortals, aren't you?

>>53904418
>>53904528
Well damn, how do the dustmen do it then?

>>53909480
>Just because you can do it, does not mean it's part of the natural order.
No, the God of nature decides what is and is not "Nature". The Natural Order, is, by definition, anything that is actually possible in nature. Undead exist without people coming in.

>You're that kind of player who roles up an atheist in campaigns where the gods actually physically come down to the world and interact with mortals, aren't you?
I haven't ever done this, although I can see it being justified as "they're just really strong aliens, not Gods" at which point I kind of shrug and say what's the difference but
No I don't. I've made ones that don't particularly interact with the gods because it doesn't advance his interests or ones who just can't be bothered to, but not atheists.

>>53906176
I don't know man. From what I've read on the elemental planes, all of them, even positive energy, can still kill you in horrific ways, mutilate the soul, and create abominations in the right amounts. Everything in moderation I say.

>>53909642
The elemental planes are just
Not a good place to be. Energy, Elemental, Quasielemental, whatever it doesn't matter they're just
Not where mortals like to be. Mortals are about mixture, those places are pure as fuck.

>>53901805
Have you ever tried roleplaying a necromancer as an 80s-90s cartoon villain who knows he's evil and enjoys doing evil deeds?
It makes for a more entertaining campaign than simply treating necromancy spells as [standardized magical effect B26] on [standardized ability template G14] when [standardized usage requirement C18] with [standardized creature type exception F09] and [standardized synergy category descriptor K30].

File: Paint It Black.png (1MB, 1531x917px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1531x917px

>>53909723
80s-90s cartoon villains are the best.

I'm sick of pathos and backstory and tragedy and greater good. I want villains to be EVIL again.

>>53909723
You mean Skeletor? The thing about Skeletor is that you need to play in a geniunely Evil campaign, which are rare.

>>53903534
I mean yea, you literally just agreed that while things can be related they are not the same. Like a fire is just a thing while arson is usually a bad action. I mean fire isn't evel but it can have relation to an "evil" thing

File: 1473185631902.jpg (48KB, 224x257px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 224x257px

>>53903912

>>53909600
>>53909139
"The natural order" isn't the same as "nature" in the scientific sense. It's a much older concept that fantasy settings often borrow from. It's the basic idea that everything in the universe has a proper order that encompasses both the world and human society and disrupting that order brings chaos on everyone. In monotheistic religions this order comes from God, but in other cultures the gods themselves are just part of the order on a different level to humans. For example, the Egyptian concept of maat and the Indian concept of dharma. It's also the basis of druids as a class, and why they have such a fetish for "balance".

Question: Do naturally occuring skeletons draw upon the soul of the individual to animate? When negative energy effects cause undead to spontaneously animate, what happens to the soul?

>>53909150
Then why doesn't EVERY SINGLE PLACE EVER use skeletons as workforce? Everybody would surely get used to it. So there has to be another reason built-in that makes undead raising so reviled. Unique snowflake good zookeeper necromancers make no sense because if it was doable, they'd be widespread. So there has to be some reason for necromancy to be always evil, such as seeping negative energy into the world or opening 'windows' through which evil deities can influence the world.

>>53901805
Have you tried playing something other than D&D?

>>53908781
Did you read what I posted, like at all?
Knowledge about how a baby looks from the inside out is not evil. Opening a living baby and pulling out the insides out just to see what it looks like is.
You can't learn how to properly cast enervation without casting it on someone, you can't learn how to properly cast finger of death without practicing on living things first. Killing and torturing living things because you want to get better a magic is evil. Unless you consider high level magic to be the kind of thing that you can read on a book and do it perfectly on the first try without any practice.

>>53910303
D&D settings never take the effects that magic would have on society into account.

>>53910303
>Unique snowflake good zookeeper necromancers make no sense because if it was doable, they'd be widespread.

Seriously, I feel like these "hurr durr watch my special snowflake off-type character" have some form of autism or brain damage.

>>53910303
The same reason why Adepts who can cast Create Water are one in twenty but somehow people still have problems with drought.

>>53910303
Not everywhere has magic. There are Dead Magic and Wild Magic areas.
Not everyone uses magic. Not every place in the world has people who are willing and capable of casting.
Not everyone regards magic in general as a good thing. Some places see any kind of spellcasting as abhorrent.
Not everyone would get used to the concept, or the smell, or the appearance. I could never work as a mortician, for instance, because dead bodies unnerve me.
Some people think the way that you do and would abandon such a society, and if that happened in large enough numbers such a society would collapse.

There are a number of reasons why such societies would not spring up everywhere.
Certainly they're efficient, they have cheap labor and the people might live easier, but that doesn't mean that they're automatically going to spread like wildfire.

>>53903909
>>53903898
>>53903889
>>53903880
You do know that in Basic/2e, almost all healing spells were necromancy because of the definition change of evocation from 2e to 3e, right?
Priests had necromancy as schools because most healing spells were necromancy, but only evil casters would make undead.
>>53904361
Except for how aligned classes can't cast diametrically opposed spells at all?
Or how repeatedly using evil/good spells is one of the call ups for a DM to make an alignment change?

I think we're all forgetting Rule 0

>>53910430
>Not everyone regards magic in general as a good thing. Some places see any kind of spellcasting as abhorrent.
Then just make that someone, who finds undead abhorrent, the head LG deity representing the good side of alignment. He says "really fuck undead" and makes it so the reality inherently recognizes undead raising as evil (which is more or less the case in 3.5). Necromancers can then be good by whathever the fuck moral system they want to subscribe to, but when it comes to alignment, they're evil, if anything then because it says so in the Bible.

>>53909326
If we are talking Solars like exalted they could ping ad evil to the paladins big time then it's a clusterfuck

>>53909503

By being in Sigil instead of someones shitty homebrew setting.

>>53910586
That... wasn't really the point of my post. There are towns, cities, even entire civilizations that see magic as a foul thing, meddling with the nature of the universe for fun and profit. Taverns that won't serve wizards for fear of inviting trouble through their doors.

I get where you're coming from regarding the whole make a deity that hates undead thing, but I was talking more specifically about societies that run on undead labor or rely on them in some way. Heck, regarding deities that are opposed to undead, I'm all for it. There are anti-orc deities, anti-elf deities, I'm sure there are bound to be gods and goddesses who loathe the undead when they aren't pulling the sun across the sky or helping inspire works of art.

I don't get it, if I eat a baby and then use that protein to go do good deeds then what's the problem? The baby flesh in my stomach is just a means to a good end. I should still be heralded as a doer of good and my actions fit perfectly within the scope of a heroic adventure or good-aligned party's quest. There's no reason that the tool (dead baby flesh) I use to achieve good should factor in whatsoever.

>>53908221

I've always liked this sort of explanation for Necromancers. Wizards gonna wizard, they should care at least equally for research as they do power. Having bodies rise is actually fairly inefficient when wizardsa can do the same with inanimate objects.

I get annoyed Necromancers dont have more healing-type spells really. Even if it was something fucked up like 'transfer life from that guy to this guy'. Though id prefer a more straight heal. Its silly to keep clerics as the only ones who have the ability to heal. What, wizards can bring the dead back to life into a whole new body with dark magic but cant even manage a shitty heal with magic standard?

But i guess that might just be gameplay/story segregation to keep cleric players happy (and fair enough really).

I'm less fine with Necromancers being full-on good. But I'm certainly happy for a necromancer to be more on the friendly neutral side. The kind of person who isnt about to go banging down the gates of Mordor to kill the Overlord - he's got his own shit to take care of - but still has enough of a moral code to refuse to hurt innocents or leave people in danger when they could have helped.

File: 1446336211013.jpg (168KB, 885x1300px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 885x1300px

>>53910298
>naturally occuring skeletons
They have a symbiotic relationship with various other organs.

>>53910789
I get it

>>53910663
I'm getting a bit lost in this argument honestly. I'm defending the point that raising dead is universally evil, even if you have a very good reason (think nuking/firebombing the fuck out of japs). Then I followed with the point that if such necromancy is evil, undead societies wouldn't spread. So basically:
>even entire civilizations that see magic as a foul thing, meddling with the nature of the universe
except I apply it to necromancy specifically, and make it a fact rather than opinion. (because heaven/hell existing makes subjective morals a bitch to handle)

File: 1495111399878.jpg (13KB, 360x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 360x300px

>>53910784
You are a gentleman and a scholar.

>>53910784
>Even if it was something fucked up like 'transfer life from that guy to this guy'.

Only semi-related, but the Vitalist 3rd party class from Pathfinder is probably one of my favorite "healer" classes in any D&D game, aside from the Warlord.

>>53904014

Why single necromancy out for having a cost?

>>53910811

Well, >>53910430 was my first post in the thread, so I can see where the confusion might arise. Mainly I just wanted to point out that, outside of necromancy having some sort of repercussions in the wider world, there are other reasons why such a society wouldn't catch on everywhere. One of my friends ran a game where someone tried that and the number of undead in the area burned out the magic of the region, and they all spontaneously collapsed once it hit "critical mass".

I'm not saying that you're wrong to make a deity to oppose it, or provide backlash of some form. I just wanted to point out that there are other reasons that would justify the lack of necromantic citadels.

>>53910663

What setting are you talking about?

>>53910965
Dark Sun and Demonwars spring immediately to mind, along with various homebrew settings I've played in.

If you knew or suspected someone next door could tear your house down in six seconds, or send you to the void, or steal your wife for the night, you'd probably not feel particularly comfortable if you didn't have a means of protecting yourself or your loved ones.

>>53910784
In 5E, Vampiric Touch deals necrotic damage and returns a number of hit points to the caster equal to half the damage dealt. Funnily enough, vampires aren't immune to necrotic damage, so necromancers vampire vampires.

>>53911042
Now if only you could store those hitpoints and give them to someone else with a touch, unable to cast other spells without losing the charge.

>>53911062

Same for the Grim Harvest ability necromancers get. Compared to a lot of the other specialization's first ability, its pretty trash especially since you ideally dont want your necromancer to ever get hurt, and wizards traditionally do better damage indirectly than directly.

But if Grim Harvest let you siphon HP to your allies when you caused damage with necromantic abilities it would be a lot more usable.

D&D magic schools are some of the dumbest, most arbitrary shit.

>>53911113
Pretty much, yeah. There's too much of a gray area with some spells. Now, if some spells were multi-school we could skirt around some of these issues, but alas.

>>53910482
Totally wrong.
http://people.wku.edu/charles.plemons/ad&d/priests/healing.html

Healing is the sphere for that.

http://people.wku.edu/charles.plemons/ad&d/priests/necromancy.html

Necromancy is the sphere for doing spooky skeleton shit. All those good gods are letting their specialty priests do it.

>>53910888
You either be evil necromancer or it has a deep personal cost to you. You don't get to just defile the dead for free you fucking snowflake.

>>53911335

I mean, everyone else gets to murder people largely for free. Rogues get to steal shit for free. Warlocks make literal deals with the devil for free (in-game anyway).

I prefer my Necromancers neutral, because muh science! bitches, but 'you dont get to do this actually rather minor thing for free' isn't a great reason.

>>53910888
Some evocation and illusion are power over breaking things and cheating senses.
Necromancy is power over the BBEG of reality - Death. No monarch, no emperor has power over whether he lives or dies when arrow hits his heart, and has to plead gods for mercy. Necromancer wields the great power himself.

>>53911362
>Rogues get to steal shit for free
>And risk getting caught by the guards and getting raped in jail

>Warlocks make deals with the devil for free
>And have to deal with the demands and whims of a powerful otherwordly creature that may be acting against his best interests

>But I want to bind the souls of innocent people, raise their corpses, and defile the dead
>For literally no downside

You would be thrown out of my games so fast your head would be spinning holy shit.

File: 1489700307104.png (98KB, 530x542px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 530x542px

Where is everyone getting the idea that necromancy binds the souls of people?

>>53911407

> You would be thrown out of my games so fast your head would be spinning holy shit.

I mean... I really can't see that as a major downside. If you're even half as autistic as i think you are you're probably the sort of person who makes everyone track how many meals they've had that day, how many arrows the archer has left and doesn't want anyone to play Psions because it triggers you.

>>53911474
>how many meals they've had that day, how many arrows the archer has left and doesn't want anyone to play Psions because it triggers you.

That sounds retarded. What the fuck does any of that have to with you wanting a fucking snowflake character?

File: spurdigger.jpg (8KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 240x240px

>>53911362
>literal deals with the devil for free
you have bepis for brain

>>53901805
I want to hug Orin.

>>53911521

When was the last time a warlock in your game actually paid any price for being a warlock? Sure, it's a fun plotline, but it isn't mechanically mandated by the game.

>>53911502

I don't want to play a good necromancer. I even stated that my preferred one is neutral. Good necromancer doesnt make a lot of sense to me.

Was just pointing out that there's way worse things players do than 'defile the dead' for their characters, and the way you jumped on me like i'd masterminded the Cuban Missile Crisis gave me the impression that you take all of this WAY too seriously. Like, you end real life friendships because someone plays characters you dont like seriously.

Autistic seriously.

>>53911579
>you jumped on me like I'd masterminded the Cuban Missile Crisis
Boy you have a high opinion of yourself.

Necromancers are evil. If you want to play a non-evil one, you're getting laughed at and told no. Keep it up and you're getting replaced. You're not the special snowflake you think you are.

Yes, other classes have things. No, they do not JUST get them for no downside. Rogues can't just walk in and grab the crown off the king's head without getting pulverized by the royal guard. A Warlock can't just teabag his patron and expect to keep his powers afterwards. As such, you do not get to parade your army of zombies in the middle of town and throw a tantrum when Paladins start attacking you.

File: SmugAnimeWhores.gif (2MB, 1920x1070px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1070px

>>53911652

> Boy you have a high opinion of yourself.

You started that sentence with 'boy'. Pot. Kettle. Black?

Anyway, yeah. Remember this?

> jumped on me like I'd masterminded the Cuban Missile Crisis

This is what you're doing. Mountain out of a molehill. Because you're full on autistic, and the idea that a character existing who is fine with raising the dead but doesnt want to go full on Ming The Merciless on the world triggers the fuck out of you.

>>53911759
>You started that sentence with 'boy'
Please tell me you're just pretending to be an idiot.

You seem awfully triggered about not getting to play your snowflake character. Worringly so.

>>53911652

I know paladins could fall and barbarians can lose their rage powers if they become non-chaotic, but I don't think there was any mechanical backing for warlocks losing their powers in and edition of D&D. I actually prefer it that way as it means devils and eldritch entities have to try and focus on people they think will toe the line since they can't just swipe the powers back.

File: AtLeastYouTried.jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

>>53911905

God you're retarded.

My "Snowflake character" - which i've never played, because i've never played a necromancer - is in your opinion, literally any Necromancer who isn't specifically of the Evil alignment. So any Neutral Necromancer (like say, this guys: >>53908221 - which is probably the style of Necromancer i'd play if i was going to make one) is not okay, no matter how well characterised or made, for no other reason than you and you're particular brand of headcanon.

Who sounds more triggered here?

It's you buddy. You're the most autistic person on /tg/ right now. And that's an achievement.

I especially love how you keep talking about kicking people out of your games for not toeing the party line. It's weirdly sad, in an 'I want to be an authoritarian dick' sort of way.

How about this? D&D is a game. Games are fun.

File: hatefun.png (153KB, 377x283px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 377x283px

>>53912112
>fun

File: rpfrp.jpg (175KB, 640x828px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 640x828px

>>53912013
>no entry about this in rules
>therefore it can't happen

>>53912112
>o any Neutral Necromancer (like say, this guys: >>53908221 # - which is probably the style of Necromancer i'd play if i was going to make one) is not okay
I'm glad it only took me repeating out 5 or 6 times for you to finally understand. Good job.

>no matter how well played
From experience and reading here, non evil necromancer are invariably shit or just an excuse to play am evil character but not have to write evil on their alignment

>who sounds more triggered
Probably the guy holding up the game for everyone else because he demands to play a character I've already turned down.

If it's any consolation with the group thing, if you're this much of a whiny bitch irl, I wouldn't have to worry about kicking you out, if only because the rest of the group is sick of your bitching and threwe you out of the house already.

>>53912340
>>53912112
kiss already

>>53912340
Savage

File: AutisticScreeching.jpg (195KB, 1621x1666px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1621x1666px

>>53912340

>I'm glad it only took me repeating out 5 or 6 times for you to finally understand. Good job.

Well in fairness, what you were saying was so unbelievably retarded it did take me a moment to catch on. If someone told me they thought they could breath custard instead of air i might hear them perfectly fine, but i'd still ask for clarification.

> From experience and reading here, non evil necromancer are invariably shit or just an excuse to play am evil character but not have to write evil on their alignment

Well I'm glad that you're around to make everyone's decisions for them. Can you roll my dice for me too? Then I dont have to actually show up for the game.

>If it's any consolation with the group thing, if you're this much of a whiny bitch irl, I wouldn't have to worry about kicking you out, if only because the rest of the group is sick of your bitching and threwe you out of the house already.

If all it takes for you to throw someone out is "Hey, I want to play Necromancer. Do i have to murder literally everyone i meet, or can i just keep it to people who directly get in my character's way?" I'm amazed you have people left who want to play with you.

I feel torn between respect for them for giving up their fun to contain you, or contempt that they're enabling your madness.

Again, i don't even *play* necromancers. Im almost exclusively melee tanky types because i enjoy being a meatshield. But everything youve been saying has been completely retarded.

>>53912394

I dont kiss people i fuck.

>>53912215

Yeah, i don't know what the heck i was thinking. /tg/ putting fun before ridiculously minor differences in opinion on character alignment? The madness!

>>53912506
>Hey, I want to play Necromancer. Do i have to murder literally everyone i meet,
You have a very strange idea of whatthe evil alignment entails

>>53912506
I take out back. My group wouldn't have to drag you out because a shrieking autist like you wouldn't have even made it past screening. Christ.

>>53912506
Your image is incredibly appropriate for your reply anon, but likely not in the way you were hoping.

>>53912543

Well apparently Neutral isn't an alignment we can use. And Evil is, in my mind, active manevolence against innocents. So I guess if I want a necromancer its not enough for him to just want to explore the forbidden secrets of life and death and maybe rob a grave, he has to start slaughtering the unclean to fulfill the prerequisites.

>>53912589

I like to imagine you don't actually play with people. You just roleplay everyone at the table too.

>>53912662

I know right. Games should be fun is the most autistic viewpoint.

>>53912506
Nice autism bro. How many teeth do you have left from having them bashed in when trying out your tough-guy-attitude IRL?

>>53912589
>>53912662
>>53912704

My samefag detector is just going fucking nuts.

>>53912694
>. So I guess if I want a necromancer its not enough for him to just want to explore the forbidden secrets of life and death and maybe rob a grave, he has to start slaughtering the unclean to fulfill the prerequisites.
Thank you for further proving my point of why I don't allow non evil necromancers.

>>53912730
>more than one person can't possibly disagree with my perfect opinion

>>53911407
>>53911502
>>53911652
>>53911905

The fuck am I even reading.

It's like someone let That Guy DM.

>>53912856
>the desperate samefag

Kek

>"Neutral" 'Cromancers
>muh magical mad scientists

Inb4 the Neutral alignment makes their actions less evil, somehow

Amorality isn't a thing, you twat, at least not in D&D

>>53912985
Ssssh, your anti-fun-roleplaying-fascism makes the special snowflakes sad

>>53912985

I always just used Neutral for anyone who was amoral but not particularly dickish to people. What do you use it for?

>>53912856
What's the problem with >>53911407, except for the last line?

>>53901805
Look. In 3.5 and 3.PF, undead are not actually inert when not being commanded even if mindless. Like oozes, plants and vermin, which are mindless for the most part, they have a charisma score and a wisdom score. The main difference is that while oozes, vermin, and the plants (as only carnivorous and deadly plants get writeups in the bestiaries) all use "hunger" as a basis of their activity, the mindless undead use "evil" as the basis of their activities. And being mindless, all they can do is go around killing anything that is alive, because being alive is good for them, and the undead are evil.

There are no good undead that can be created by the Animate Undead spells. they are evil because they are always an abonination against life, and the only thing they can do is kill; life when they are uncontrolled.

Why is castign these spells evil? Well, undead don't die of any natural cause. Humans do. So you are creating eternal, unliving, deadly monsters that will go around and kill things when you lose/relinquish/or give up control of them.

>but mindless means they do nothign when not commanded!
Vermin, oozes, and plants are also mindless. They possesses charisma and wisdom scores. They go around eatign things because they are motivated by hunger. Undead have charisma and wisdom scores, and it does not state in their descriptions that they sit there and do absolutely nothing when they are not under commands. Therefore, like other mindless creatures they do things. Since the only motivatign force they actually have is 'evil' then they do evil. And being mindless, the only evil they can do is kill anything alive, because it's the simplest, most basic evil of all.

Q.E.D.

>>53913088

Anyone who is willing to put, ultimately, their own self-interests before others. The Chaos/Law part of the Neutrality spectrum also defines how what the best way to protect those interests is.

Amorality is a meme, anyways.

>>53913137
>how what

Whew. I guess I couldn't decide what to say there, so I said both.

File: Bodily Autonomy.png (1016KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1016KB, 1080x1920px

>>53905706
>>53905807
>>53905879
Here's why.

>>53913218

You know, this wouldn't be an issue if people didn't have a fetus forming in their body in the first place

>>53913137

So whats the difference between neutral and evil then?

I personally don't really touch alignments in-game beyond the people who are basically card-carrying their good/evil (because otherwise you get all this nonsense above). But for people who do i imagine it must be pretty fucking hard to figure out the difference between a dickish neutral and an unmotivated evil character.

> Amorality is a meme

I'm not sure i'd for for that. People exist like sociopaths who have no empathy for others whatsoever, and basically have to build their own set of rules for interacting with people from scratch.

And there's the whole 'what happens when people go into totally blue and orange morality' thing.

>>53913288
Nevertheless, this is how it works.

>>53913300

Evil is basically acting against all other's interests for your own, not just protecting them. It implies a lot more malicious intent than simply being Neutral, as most LN/TN/CN characters don't generally go out of their way to be vile to others. Neutral is more about using any means necessary to defend your own, while Evil is taking from others to add to your own.

>sociopaths

Well sure they exist, but that's not found in a normal human being, and I've met several people who claim to be "amoral" and aren't sociopaths.

Also, evil scientists claim to be amoral all the time. Mengele never thought of himself as Evil.

>>53913218

The problem for me with applying this to necromancy is that the people i'd be raising from the dead were people my party members just filled full of swords. I mean, if ive just killed them. The worst thing i can really do. Turning around and making their corpses keep my buddies from being killed for the next few rounds of combat seems tame in comparison and mostly relies on more in-depth interpretations of how spells work and shit.

It's like cannibalism.

People talk it up like it's a great evil. But really, killing people for food is the big evil. Eating them afterwards is definitely not a good thing, but it kinda pales in comparison to the murder part.

>>53913300
>So whats the difference between neutral and evil then?

Good people routinely put the rights and welfare of almost all other people above their own and will take risks to ensure this happens.
Neutral people will protect their friends and family, but will generally not take risks for strangers.
Evil people place their own wants and needs above almost all other people, and will take risks to further their own ends.

>>53913393

Y'know I wouldn't be shocked with Mengele.

Also, he wasn't really a scientist. Most of the shit he did he did primarily for a laugh. Even his own assistants thought he was completely nuts.

Anyway, while i'm personally fine with forcing Necromancer's to register as evil for in-universe purposes (the gods fucking hate undead, so you're on a shitlist now mofo, paladins gonna be all up in your ass whether you've killed innocents or not) this:

> Neutral is more about using any means necessary to defend your own, while Evil is taking from others to add to your own.

Really sounds like Necromancers should be fine to be of the neutral alignment if you're not taking that in-universe justification into account.

>>53913504
Desecration of bodies still fits with my definition of Evil, unless you're a weirdo who thinks the body stops having spiritual or emotional significance as soon as the brain-lightning flickers out.

>>53913218
People also have the right not to be stabbed, but they void that right when they decide to become murdering bandits.

If there are bandits killing innocents and burning down towns, than you better believe I'm going to use necromancy to stop them. And in that context it'll be a good act, just like in that context killing would be a good act, because I'm defending innocents and saving lives.

Magic is a tool.

>>53913218
I seriously don't know what's worse:
Killing your own child just because you were too drunk ( or too damn retarded ) to use a condom, or any other of the dozens of contraceptives available at any drug store.
Or letting the child be raised and educated by these stupid insanely fucking irresponsible people.

>>53913645
So is using necromancy on animals okay then? Because we desecrate the bodies of animals all the time.

And what if the person donates their body to a necromancer?

>>53913645

Eh, I am exactly that kind of weirdo. My body is set to go to science when I die.

I mean, its not that I dont get that desecration is bad. But if I'm already dealing with people who are trying to kill me, i think most of my characters would have a hard time caring (I have actually played religious characters who would care about that sort of thing, but its also a bit of a pain to try to roleplay that without getting in the way of your party members who maybe justifiably want to loot the corpses).

>>53913660

Condoms don't have a 100% success rate. Contraceptives fail. Even the implanted ones sometimes.

>>53913747
Animals would be fine if they didn't leak magical asshole radiation everywhere like other undead constructs.

Negative energy is a bitch to deal with.

>donation

Still desecration, and see the corollary of Negative Energy

>>53913747
My world had the government use limited amounts of necromancy to put a criminal to work after they're dead, and the occasional person selling the rights to use their body after death. Easy payout for a service that doesn't cone up until after you're dead for a lot of people.

>>53913846

Very well then. I guess if that's your viewpoint there's no real reason to REE at you about it.

File: frog knight ho!.jpg (328KB, 858x1669px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 858x1669px

I've played a good dwarven necromancer before and it was easily the most enjoyable character I've done in a dozen years.

The dwarves in the setting were ancestor worshippers and created majestic tombs for their dead. My dwarf was one of the few who maintained these tombs, and spent much of his childhood reading about dwarven history and the lore of the dead. Of course, necromancy was taboo in most of the setting, and forbidden in others, so he had to do it all in the guise of other things.

As is often the case, they've been on the losing end of a long war and many of the dwarven strongholds had fallen. When the last dwarven kingdom was under attack, it was my necromancer using a lengthy ritual which brought back a countless number of these dwarven dead in defense of their home and their family lines which turned the tide of that battle and broke the enemy's spirit. It was the first time in nearly a century that this kingdom has tasted peace.

Having the dwarven king actually change the laws concerning necromancy and name them after Barnabas was the highlight of the campaign.

>>53913647
It is a tool acquired by evil means.
You need to do horrible shit to learn and practice your necromancy spells. It's not the kind of thing that you can master by simply reading a book. You need to practice on someone or something that is alive.
Its like you could be making a hammer using a stick and a stone but instead you chose to kill a guy and make a hammer with his femur and his skull.
You could regret doing that and then decide on using your dark arcane knowledge to save lives. I would consider you a neutral guy that is working his way into good, but I wouldn't consider you actually good until you've atoned for those shit.

>>53913955
This, exactly. Exactly like Lichdom, and why "good" Liches are so rare/nonexistent.

>>53913955
What if you only practice on evil people?

>>53913992
Oh hi Dexter, didn't see you there, unfortunately, you're still morally in the wrong, if less so than the ones you murder

>>53913846
The chances of getting pregnant while using a condom is low, even if breaks, there are pills you can take to prevent it and pills that you can take to remedy it. And many other methods to prevent it.
There is no excuse.

>>53913936

>game where fun takes priority over autism
nice

>>53913992
Even if they're evil, you're torturing someone for your own benefit.
Raping a rapist doesn't make you a good guy.

>>53914075
>Raping a rapist doesn't make you a good guy.
That's bullshit.

>>53913905

Thanks. That seems to be the exception if this thread is any judge of it all.

I'm not talking about this from a position of not experiencing it either. When my girlfriend died and I accepted she was gone (which was a few hours, ill admit) I didn't have any special affection for her body. I just felt she'd gone and what was left was just what was left.

Basically let her family do whatever they wanted with it and have a big funeral with it (which i've always felt ashamed of, because I knew she would have hated that, but i honestly didnt have the energy at the time to dispute it and she hadn't made her wishes clear in anything but conversations to me and at that point the funeral was more for them than me or her).

...

That said. If someone had come up to me and asked me if he could use her to make a fucking zombie i doubt somehow i would have said yes. So maybe i'm a massive hypocrite and im talking out of my ass.

>>53914022

Look, I can tell you aren't a woman. Maybe don't talk about shit you don't understand.

Just trust me when I say that people can take all the precautions they like and still end up pregnant.

No one is using fucking abortions as a contraceptive measure.

>>53914198
>woman
>4chin

Pick one

>>53914198
Still doesn't justify killing your own child.

>itt /tg/ tries ethics

File: 1489559156567.png (655KB, 1912x2832px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 1912x2832px

>>53914260

Its estimated up to 65% of fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterus and are passed out of the body. Thats not even getting into later miscarriages.

In other words, if fertilized eggs count as children then killing them is arguably natural - and isnt that a weird fucking sentence.

Pic attached is a little bit massive, but it does a good job of explaining to people how hostile the uterus is to implantation in the first place.

>>53914215

Would it help if my name was Bridget?

>>53914574
Nope, still not doin' it for me. Maybe if your name was Alexandria and you were a 5'9" landwhale, I MIGHT accept it.

>>53914574
If it doesn't have a brain so I personally believe that it's ok.
But people have still not agreed on when do we start considering that fetus a person.
However, a fertilized egg that failed to attach to the womb is very different from a healthy developing fetus that would most certainly grow up to become a functional person in the future.
To me that fetus is a person. It's someone who could contribute to our society, or someone who could make a scientific discovery, or simply be some anonymous person that would live a quiet life but it simply had that life taken away from it without having been given a chance to be anything.
That's what doesn't sit well with me.

How come "I think necromancy is neato and want to play a character who uses it" is seen by so many people as inherently 'special snowflake' as if controlling a necromancer was somehow not an entire fucking character archetype and has been for decades?

I played undead in every HOMM game I could, incorporated necromancy into half of my UO characters, and played a necromancer in diablo 2. Why does anyone give enough of a fuck about this difference in taste to kick people before even fucking playing with them? Because 3.5 just said it's bad and then literally never explained HOW bad and never actually brought it up in any book or plot point ever?

>>53914198

>>Fat lazy pig woman that wants to get fucked but not deal with the consequences

File: 2017-01-02 20_00_10-D20 - WotC - D&D4E - Wizards Presents Worlds and Monsters.pdf - SumatraPDF.png (1MB, 742x926px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 742x926px

>>53901805
>Why is necromancy evil
LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT FAT FUCK ORCUS
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/53698417/
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/52509766/#q52515939
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/52235523/#q52240756
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/51810082/#q51825394

>>53913936
I usually run roguish types, but you're making me want to go secret necro for the next one.

>>53915237

Because autism my friend. Because autism.

I mean, hell. 5E presents it in the book same as everything else when the EVIL Paladin and EVIL Cleric are Dungeon Master's guide only with a sticky note telling you the Oathbreaker is Evil only (I think, i cant remember. I recall only one of them actually says Evil only).

Necromancy is evil only in 5e is based on one throwaway line of fluff of no consequence to anything.

Still gets the autistics up and about.

>>53915316

...Do the majority of guys want to fuck and totally deal with the consequences? Answer is no my friend.

>>53915237
>How come "I think necromancy is neato and want to play a character who uses it" is seen by so many people as inherently 'special snowflake'
From my experience, it almost always is. Every non evil necromancer I've allowed acted completely identical to am evil one, which generally included torture, soul trapping, and all that jazz. They also went ballistic when I changed their alignment to evil.

I've found they just want to play an evil necromancer, but just don't want to put evil on their character sheet.

It caused enough problems they they're blanket banned from my games.

>>53916223

> Torture
> Soul Trapping.

The heck does torture have to do with being a necromancer?

I don't believe you had a player that sat down and tortured a guy and got pissy because you told him that made him evil. Call me an optimist, I don't believe that someone could be that stupid and still find the building you were playing D&D in.

I can totally believe that some innocent player used a necromancy spell that happens to be fluffed as a painful evil spell to kill some guy, and you marked him as evil for that.

And yeah, on the one hand, i can kind of see the logic of that, but on the other hand normal wizards throw fireballs and flamethrowers arent exactly considered a humane weapon for a reason.

As for soul trapping, what, Magic Jar? Does that spell really come up enough in your games that you need to ban everyone from playing necromancer?

Are there other spells that trap souls?

On the whole, I'm *pretty* sure you're just putting autism over enjoyment.

>>53916223
>>53916341

Oh, and forgot. But if you really are applying alignments based on spell fluff you better be marking Bards and other spellcasters as Evil when they use something like dominate to completely mindcontrol and steal the will out of another sapient being.

>>53916341
>I can totally believe that some innocent player used a necromancy spell that happens to be fluffed as a painful evil spell to kill some guy

To be fair, I warned him multiple times he's committing evil acts and I well change his alignment of it keeps up. Not as a threat, because I don't care that much about what alignment someone is as long as they're still cooperating with the party. They apparently don't believe me and keep going, then act offended when I tell them they're now evil ad if I just sprung it on them.

File: 6ad.jpg (57KB, 600x692px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x692px

>playing a necromancer in current campaign with mixed alignment party
>everyone in group having a good time because we're not autistic
>mfw reading this thread

>>53916341
>http://www.eldritchdark.com/writings/short-stories/61/the-empire-of-the-necromancers

Read something from the original fluff. Torture, murder, desecration, etc go hand-in-hand with necromancy because 99% of necromancy is defined as absolute (surpassing even ordinary life-and-death) and immoral power.

>>53916401

Well that's more understandable. Sorry if i came across as a bit of a dick, as a skelebro this thread has been rustling my jimmies a little.

And fair enough really, if you've told him this is an evil act and you aren't going to actually kick him out of the party for being evil id be more inclined to call it fair. Id just tell him 'look, it doesnt matter if you don't agree. Youve drawn the attention of the forces of good and they have marked you as Evil because X'.

I like doing that more because it reminds players that Good and Evil are more literal in the D&D verse, but flat out telling someone 'you are evil now' doesn't quite work as well.

What was the guy actually doing anyways?

>>53915683
OH YES THAT FUCKING GUY

>>53916223
>Soul trapping

On humans? I can't imagine anyone trying to justify that. I even question Elder Scroll's "animals are totally k" thoughts on it.

Torture, depends on the reason. Necromancy makes torture easier but it's not like you can't torture with fire magic or ice or just a knife. Actually it's probably easier to kill them and make the corpse talk anyway. Decide for yourself if that's more or less ethical.

Sounds like just one dipshit though.

>>53901805
If necromancy wasn't chock full of soul rape, eternities of torture, and spells boobytrapped by demon lords, it would be called meat golem manufacture.

But then materialists wouldn't get to feel edgy by eating and keeping the cake of objective moral standards.

>>53916452
Of course, if we go back to the origin of the term necromancy, it's just another form of divination that involves talking to the spirits of the dead.

In fact, Odysseus engages in necromancy himself while with Circe in order to learn more about his voyage home

>>53916452
>original fluff

Wouldn't that be greek? People who literally just speak to the dead?

>>53916452

I think this is a little bit *too* original. I mean, you can go too far back.

What was happening in the origins of horror aren't *totally* relevant to say, the average player who thumbs through the 5E PHB and decides to pick the wizard who can suck someone's life force out through their urethra.

File: SkeletalDoomsayer.png (176KB, 550x512px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 550x512px

>>53916341
>The heck does torture have to do with being a necromancer?
>Doesn't know about the consequences of summoning evil extraplanar beings, doesn't know about some undead being core to having trapped souls
>Doesn't know that some necromancy spells with the evil descriptor literally kill the lifeforce, meaning the soul also because this word is synonymous with the subject
>Doesn't know that some evil spells are left vague because their intent when published is that to corrupt

This- Is infact the reason why Shadow dancers are bad people, because they summon soul sucking shadows. This is all context you can find in official material to boot.

Want good undead? The positive energy planar/upper planes like have 3 designated to use, but the way to go was the deathless type, because it is exempt from the enigmatic "will" of the plane of negative energy.

>>53916466
>What was the guy actually doing anyways?
A number of things, but this guy in particular, ill just speak of the event that i announced he was now evil.

>party is investigating grave robberies in town, need a key to into the graveyard from the local clergy man to get in
>They speak to him, he's reluctant, but willing to help out since it's for a good cause, though he's a but wary of letting the necromancer in for obvious reasons
>party agrees to keep an eye on him, and clergy man goes to the gate with them to unlock it
>necromancer slashes his throat open the instant he opens it for them, traps his soul, then shoves the body into one of his bags of holding he used to store bodies to raise later
>I announce he's evil for that, and many other similar stuff he's done
>game grinds to a halt as he tries to insist he's still good aligned despite me dropping him to neutral weeks ago.
>after whining for 3 hours, we call it a night, and agree to stop inviting him

I still have no idea why he was so bent out of shape since half the party were evil.

>>53904528
*you're

>>53914574
>Bridget
You're a Guilty Gear meme

>>53916709

That doesnt sound like much of a reason to ban non-evil Necromancers. In any way.

Your party member murdered an innocent guy. That made him read as evil.

I can conceive, weirdly enough, of a necromancer who didnt pointlessly murder random NPCs for easy summons.

I mean, fuck. That's like insisting any class that has one of those 'when you kill an enemy with your ability you get Y' things always play as Evil, because one of your players once killed an innocent person to recharge theirs.

>>53913218

Sounds more like an ethical issue than a moral one.

>>53913393
>Well sure they exist, but that's not found in a normal human being

No True Scotsman

>>53904567
No, you could also, you know, stop using necromancy like someone not trying to be as edgy as possible.

>>53916709
That guy's fucking insane. It sounds like he might have some problems unrelated to his choice of character.

>>53916960

It's a game. Fun before autism.

If someone wants to play a Necromancer as presented in the damn PHB and thats literally their only crime, then they get to do that without you telling them what they can or cannot do with their fucking character.

>>53916792
>>53916962
I would think this, but we had 4 people do stuff like that, though the one I mentioned above was the most extreme example, before I decided on the blanket ban.

The very few times someone's had a hissy fit about I'd, they end up being kicked out for other reasons, so I'm understandably skeptical whenever I get told "no really, I can play an actually good Good necromancer, honest."

>>53904567
Animating the dead at all is a very bad action, that's all they need to judge you.

File: tmp_8775-seelah_by_windmaker-d8pxfm9699477956.jpg (98KB, 1063x752px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1063x752px

I love these threads. They're about as bad as pic relates threads.

File: horde_of_undead_dwarves.jpg (228KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1024x1024px

>>53913936
>climactic final battle
>Dwarves on verge of extinction
>you came to the wrong neighborhood starts playing

Is there anything more terrifying than all the dwarves coming back to kick ass a second time?

>>53901805
>What was the reason for D&D 3.5 turning necromancy into an "almost always evil" affair? No, not the in-universe reason involving mumbo-jumbo like "negative energy is inherently evil... but only when placed into undead," but the out-of-game reason.
Just following convention.

That's what D&D does.

File: comedy gold.gif (561KB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 240x180px

>>53912506
>I dont kiss people i fuck.

>>53917014
Then GM your own damn game, don't think you can tell the guy running it what to do.

>>53903686
Except that THE major western religion is centered around resurrection.

>>53917627
Yeah, but don't you know that Jesus is as edgy as possible because he's trying to cheat death and also be good at the same time :^)

>>53914198
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWE_M0CX9So

I always thought people didn't use zombies because 200gp of onyx is fucking expensive, compared to hiring some schmuck from down the lane for 1 silver a month.

>>53923333
In 3.5 a skeleton is just like 25 gp.

What if I want to be an evil necromancer?