Are all necromancers evil?
Is there a way to have a good-aligned necromancer?
>>46772038
no, it's literally impossible and has never been done in the history of known fiction, regardless of the function or form of necromancy in the setting, in any circumstance, under any system of ethics.
>>46772065
/thread
necromancers btfo
>>46772038
No, and yes. Necromancy only goes into evil when you start fucking with people's souls or living bodies which falls squarely into evil alignment.
A bigger issue is that most undead exist only to kill anything that moves. If you raise the dead, you are responsible for their actions.
What about ancient egyptians? What about mediums and ghost whisperers? People who deal with dead bodies? Voodoo priests? They can be at the very least, neutral-aligned necromancers.
Discussed to hell and back.
Better question: can you have a good-aligned enchanter?
>>46772093
Yeah, why not?
Enchant baddies to turn themselves in.
>>46772077
I mean, Liliana started out good. What threshold can someone stay behind before turning twirly-mustached?
>>46772080
I once played a Jackalfolk necromancer who did more undead hunting than necromancing. She was a cleric of Anubis so it made sense.
>>46772038
Fuck off.
>>46772176
liliana started out with good intentions, but slid down the slope of "what a bitch" pretty quick
>>46772038
I know this is considered to be a conversation killer...but it really does depend on the setting.
For my part, I view necromancy as being just another school of magic, and it's what you do with it that matters. Having said that, necrotic energy is inherently anti-life. A skeleton bereft of orders will proceed to start killing anything living nearby.
Wait, this sounds familiar, I think I've posted in a thread like this within the past week.
>>46772038
Why wouldn't there be a good aligned necromancer? If you're not using your corpse, let someone else. Imagine the state of living for country who's fields are worked by their ancestor's skeletons.
DOTS PLEASE STOP MAKING THIS THREAD
>>46772222
>>46772038
She's called Sabriel
>>46772038
>Acceptable good necromancers
- Someone who communes with spirits of the dead and focuses on the divination aspects of it. Standard D&D spell: Speak with Dead.
- Someone who focuses on the healing aspects of messing with life force. A surgeon archetype maybe. Worked in 2E AD&D because Healing was almost universally necromancy.
- Priest of a psychopomp, focuses on the rebirth and preparing the dead for their travel to the otherworld aspects of messing with the dead
>Is not good
Anything to do with raising undead. No, fuck off. No your sacrificing a whole town for lichdom is not the greater good. You are the BBEG.
>>46772038
Depends on the setting. But you're just a shitposter spamming the same shitty bait day after day, so you already know that, you pitiful son of a whore.
>>46772038
I guess you have to ask yourself what your definition of evil is.
Gonna repeat what other folks said, but if your ethics and moral values do not share any similarities to it and/or if you can't justly define a circumstance where a necromancer could be seen as doing good, then it just plain won't work.
>>46772222
>>46772243
>Anything to do with raising undead
If they died of natural causes then there's no harm.
>>46772243
>Anything to do with raising undead. No, fuck off.
What about giving villains a second chance to do good by using their corpse to protect people? Or kill other baddies?
Why risk the life of a good soldier when you can use the body of a murderer against other murderers?
The only way I would consider this evil is if you are raising the dead by somehow trapping their soul and tormenting the dead by doing so. If you are simply animating their corpse without torturing a soul, why not use it for good reasons. You're not sacrificing a town, you're using the body of a dead guy who was previous trying to kill you until your barbarian friend wacked him in the chest with a great axe.
>>46772243
>Anything to do with raising undead
What if it's done with the consent of the dead guy in question?
>>46772243
>Anything to do with raising undead
>Animate Dead on a corpse
>Animate Object on a corpse
Both achieve the same effect. Why is one evil and one not?
For that matter the creation of a golem is considered morally neutral even though it explicitly requires slaving a bound elemental to the golem, while animating a corpse with necromantic energy to create an unthinking zombie or skeleton is evil?
>>46772297
>>46772326
>>46772328
>>46772345
I give powers checks for both in Ravenloft.
>>46772326
>>46772328
>>46772297
>still trying to defend muh hard decisions edginess
You're neutral at best
>>46772038
Not at all. The Lich Kings of Abadon, rulers of the abdead and marshalls of the skeletal hordes, are some of the region's most pious and devout sovereigns. This is largely by necessity, as three of the past four lich kings were deposed by direct divine intervention, so the two most recent Lich Kings have been effusive in their support of the clergy, constructing massive temples to the glory of the gods and heavily subsidizing their ministries.
Really it depends on the setting, heck "good" depends on the culture too. If you look at it from a more basic view raising the dead isn't necessarily evil. Heck you're just pumping magic into skeletons to animate them, it's not like I go to the afterworld to tell their souls
"No, just hold up in Heaven, gonna pull you back into the waiting room for a bit so you can save my ass!"
Heck, even if it were like that I wouldn't see it as evil. But then morality is all in retrospective and I fell for the bait-thread and am just repeating what some other guy discussed a week ago ain't I?
>>46772368
>You're neutral at best
Helping people is good. Using a walking corpse to help people is neutral. Good to know friendo.
>>46772408
>Desecrating a corpse and using unholy magic to help people is neutral.
FTFY
>>46772266
>>46772247
>>46772077
Aside from asking the undead for knowledge and information, I was thinking of having contracts, asking a spirit to fight alongside you rather than abruptly summoning them against their will. More of a dark priestess, if you will.
>>46772368
so the action of using a corpse for good is neutral?
that's fair enough.
you can still be good aligned then.
sum of your actions :^)
>>46772368
>I give powers checks for both in Ravenloft.
Why? In both cases you're creating a nonsentient servant, no different from a robot except in terms of construction material. Souls are not involved in either case: you're not ruining anyone's afterlife.
If I built a nonsapient robot in Ravenloft (completely possible in some domains), would I have to make a powers check?
>>46772438
>and using unholy magic
Animate Objects isn't unholy magic. Indeed I'm pretty sure it's fluffed to use energy from the Positive Energy Plane, particularly since ravids (non-sapient creatures native to that plane) use it subconsciously all the time.
>>46772448
I was thinking of you sucking dicks. Easy to imagine, but unfortunately not arousing.
>>46772483
>Animate Objects isn't unholy magic.
And Animate Undead is unholy magic, end of discussion. We've had this conversation literally a thousand times before on /tg/. Do we really need to discuss this again?
>>46772452
Nope, evil. Thus you are neutral at best.
>>46772464
Building a nonsapient robot doesn't require magic fueled by literal death, and doesn't trap someone's mind in a decaying, dead corpse.
>>46772222
Perpetually getting diseases?
>itt people who literally think Rorshach is the hero
>>46772528
Skellingtons would probably have a hard time transferring diseases.
>>46772517
>And Animate Undead is unholy magic
Chaotic Good
>>46772521
>Nope, evil. Thus you are neutral at best.
What a massive faggot.
"It's always evil because reasons."
Using a non-sentient body is so evil and unholy in all circumstances. ...
But decapitating a small time thug with your great axe because he took a swing at you is okay.
Binding an elemental against their will to create a golem is okay.
Enchanting and charming people to do things against their will is okay.
You're a faggot. Everything is circumstantial.
>>46772569
With that logic, you might as well start rounding up members of a minority and putting them into Cloudkill chambers so that you have more corpses to make into undead, which, I might add, you are using to put all the peasants out of work.
>>46772517
>And Animate Undead is unholy magic, end of discussion.
Yes, but as per at least 3.X D&D rules, a corpse is an object, not a creature. Therefore it can be targeted by Animate Object.
But this leads to the weird situation that a corpse animated by Animate Object lacks any real moral component, while a corpse animated by Animate Dead is innately evil, even though the end result is the same: an animate corpse.
It seems rather like splitting hairs.
>>46772521
>and doesn't trap someone's mind in a decaying, dead corpse.
Neither does animating a skeleton or zombie. And for the record we are JUST talking about skeletons and zombies here, not wights or ghouls or liches or vampires.
>>46772591
>Everything is circumstantial.
Not in universes where good and evil are objective laws of reality.
>>46772599
>using corpses that died of natural causes
>killing people for corpses
Thats a nice jump Hitler
>>46772599
Why do you keep making up these scenarios that don't exist to prove a point?
I don't think anyone is arguing that its bad to take innocents and turn them into slave zombies. Not everyone is an innocent.
>>46772619
And yet if we're going off default 3.5 D&D, Wee Jas grants her clerics access to the Death domain but is a Neutral deity who allows Good, Neutral, and Evil followers.
>>46772639
>Why do you keep making up these scenarios that don't exist to prove a point?
Because your scenarios don't exist either.
>>46772038
Better question: Is there anyway to portray a Necromancer who is -convinced- what he's doing is moral without it being contrived/edgy?
There is nothing alignment-affecting about spells that neither harm nor affect the free will of others. Picking up some bones isn't evil even if you don't use your hands. Bonking demons over the head with those bones is probably good, whether you controlled it with your arms or mind (literally no difference in effect and consequence for all involved). Using charm person to remove a person's right to dislike you for bringing horrifying skeletons into their church is probably evil.
>putting the peasants out of honest work is a good thing
Seriously guys, you're all overlooking the greatest flaw in the good necromancer argument.
>>46772651
Which scenario?
The one where the body died of natural causes? Because that's just it. The scenario fucking matters. And that's the basis of the argument. You fucking mongoloid. If you decide that the corpse is a corpse of an innocent that you murdered in order to receive, then of course it's fucking evil.
>>46772038
The answer, OP, is it is possible, yes. Usually though, they're evil. That is all.
>>46772686
Would being good at your job, making people want to come to you instead of people who aren't good at it, also be evil? Your good stone-carvings put someone out of work!
>>46772686
Doing something that doesn't need to be done isn't honest work, it's just wasteful.
>>46772715
>Which scenario?
All of them. They're all fucking bullshit. If you want to help people, there are plenty of ways to do it without necromancy. People don't go into necromancy because they want to help people, it's because they want an army of skeletons to serve their every whim.
>>46772038
Pretty much all cultures with an ancestor cult would have need of somebody who is confirmed to be able to talk with the dead.
Next.
>>46772686
>indentured servitude
>honest work
I'm sure there are other, non backbreaking jobs they could do. Aside from working fields, because they couldn't do that year round. Question for anyone who knows, what would the peasantry do during the winter?
>>46772747
I'm beginning to suspect this anon is a skeleton that used to serve a lich and now he's pretty fucking bitter about it.
Years ago I played in someone else's homebrew where Necromancer was a core class, which I thought was pretty cool. Like, listed there alongside Paladin, Mage, Rogue, etc. No hoops to jump through. You want to be a Necromancer? You can do it from DAY FUCKING ONE.
First campaign I played in, I played a lawful evil necromancer who would clash with the party's chaotic good necromancer over our differences in the discipline. At the end of the campaign, she was killed in an extremely brutal way and my character softened up to become True Neutral because of her influence on him.
It was a really fun campaign.
>>46772779
Think about it anon. If you wanted to help people farm, why not just animate the plow? Undead are just an unnecessary middleman.
>>46772747
There are plenty of ways to move a wagon without resorting to installing wheels, but that doesn't have any influence whatsoever on whether using wheels is evil or not.
>>46772747
There are also ways to help people without chopping their head off with a greataxe.
>All of them. They're all fucking bullshit.
:^) k
>People don't go into necromancy because they want to help people, it's because they want an army of skeletons to serve their every whim.
Oh, I see now. Thanks for telling me about every necromancer's intention. Even those who want to do good. It's all a ruse
>>46772759
>What would peasants do in winter?
Depends on when you're asking, but often times very little.
The rise of capitalism was provoked when someone thought to visit all the farm wives not doing anything during winter and offer to sell them them materials to sew into shit while they had so much downtime. Then they would come around in spring and buy the finished product. This was called "cottage industry" and resulted in the destruction of the guilds.
>>46772814
What if you don't know how to animate a plow. But you read about how to bring back dead people to help farm. Why do you have such a shitty imagination.
You literally are a shining example of "your fun is wrong."
>>46772828
There are no necromancers who want to do good, anon. You don't study guns so that you can learn how to built better locomotives.
>>46772860
You might study rocketry so you can get into space though.
Gather round while I sing you, of Werner von Braun
A man whose allegiance, was ruled by expedience...
>>46772855
>What if you don't know how to animate a plow.
Then you learn how, because an animated plow makes life easier for farmers and doesn't put them out of a job.
>>46772860
Guns can't be used to haul goods unless you're a slave driver though.
>>46772860
By this logic, there are no Paladins who can do evil, except wait, what's a fallen Paladin?
>>46772882
It would put most of them out of a job, since it's basically the exact same thing as the invention of the tractor IRL. If one farmer can do the work of a hundred, then most of them don't need to be farmers.
I played a necromancer that only used monsters and clones of himself to make undead. Where does that fall in your moral spectrum and why?
>>46772902
Oh, they can if you build them big enough.
>>46772860
>You don't study guns so that you can learn how to built better locomotives.
You might learn a thing or two about air resistance as you'll probably need to study ammunition as well. That can apply to locomotives. Bullet train would've been my snarky response, but I felt like you wouldn't have made the connection.
Anyway, necromancy isn't JUST about raising undead. It deals with all sorts of things relating to death and undeath. You can use it to preserve a body to be resurrected at a later time by a cleric. Seems pretty good to me.
>>46772860
How is it any different from employing weapons in any other manner? Is anyone that uses a weapon against a life form evil to you?
>>46772912
Using evil monsters to battle other evil monsters is okay and a good act in my book.
Keeps the still living good guys out of harms way.
>>46772877
>Once the rockets are up, who cares vere zey come down
>That's not my department, says Werner von Braun
>>46772909
>1 farmer can do the work of 100 now
>this means that 99% of farmers are now unemployed.
You small-minded simpleton. Even if there's no more land that can be plowed and no more farming work to be done, the freed up labor can make a decent living offering luxuries and services to the farmers that do keep their jobs.
In MY setting, all gods consider necromancy evil, but not all cultures do. All the gods follow the same rules of alignment, because they're all lawful-something, but the peoples do not know or follow their rules.
>>46772912
>Where does that fall in your moral spectrum and why?
If I had to pick an alignment I'd say you're Elder from Powers & Perils.
>>46772038
You just write down their Alignment as "Something Good" in D&D and if the DM allows it then it's done.
The power of imagination is that since none of it is fucking real it can do whatever you want. Play a nice charitable Necromancer who only helps people and tells funny jokes all the time.
What's the DM gonna do, beat you up?
Tell him to grow a pair of balls that he might go fuck himself and play anyway, he can't stop you and neither will the other players either.
>>46772946
>Anyway, necromancy isn't JUST about raising undead. It deals with all sorts of things relating to death and undeath. You can use it to preserve a body to be resurrected at a later time by a cleric. Seems pretty good to me.
But that's never the sort of necromancy discussed in these threads, is it?
>>46772221
>I know this is considered to be a conversation killer...but it really does depend on the setting.
This board has had this conversation over two dozen times in the last three months.
Kill away anon, kill away.
>>46773005
I like this. It also implies that people have issues communicating with the gods so it is harder to just say " the gods said so". Even better if they are proven to exist but can not be reliably spoken with.
>>46773017
Fuck DMs that don't like necromancers. Some of the funniest shit that ever happened in campaigns I've been a part of had to do with the necromancer and his uses of seeming.
>>46773033
Move the goal posts more you massive faggot.
It's fine if you don't like necromancers and won't allow a good aligned one if you're a DM. However, "your fun is wrong" is just shit flinging and it's time you decided to fuck off.
>>46773033
Whenever people bring that up, or healing in systems where it's considered necromancy, it always ends up being edgetards whining that your good necromancy post says nothing about desecrating corpses and becoming a lich for the greater good.
>>46773046
I just hate fucknuggets who start these threads, since there's an eighty percent chance neither they nor anyone they actually actually WANT to play a Good Necromancer in the first place.
They're starting shit just to start shit.
>>46773069
The goalposts haven't moved a bit friendo. I challenge you to find me just one person who hears "necromancer" and thinks anything other than "guy who animates corpses and skeletons".
>>46773103
I guess I don't count :^)
>these necromancers don't count because they aren't the necromancers THAT EVERYONE AGREES ARE EVIL
I'm not your friend, faggot.
Just be neutral evil and help out the good guys because it's "convenient to you"
>>46773103
Me, my character speaks with the dead mostly and make clones. Having minions is not very time efficient when you are playing with a team of 5.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2FyLt0aUT6I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
>>46773133
And I'm not your faggot, fuckwit.
>>46773103
Have you never read the original Aladdin?
>>46773138
FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUCK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FyLt0aUT6I
>>46773145
I didn't say you were. Wishful thinking?
That's cute.
>>46773103
>guy who animates corpses and skeletons
Which is what they do. Animating a corpse isn't evil, just as animating a golem isn't evil. You can have Skellingtons carry books for you and have an army of murdergolems as easily as those roles could be reversed.
>>46773157
>not recognizing one of the oldest memes on 4chan and responding in kind
>>46773166
Yes it is, explicitly so.
>>46773187
I don't reanimate memes
>>46773192
>explicitly so
Impossible to say unless you restrict this to d&d. Which admittedly, most people are talking about. But that's why the universal answer is "depends on the setting."
Can we all go now?
>>46773213
"Good aligned necromancers" is a meme that has dragged on long after it was dead. So, yes, you do.
>>46773192
So, take a lawful good fighter, turn him into a vampire against his will. It doesn't matter his intentions, he's undead so he's evil now. I understand, thanks.
I remember there being a greentext story talking about a small town that had a Neutral or Good-aligned Necromancer in it.
It was a family of necromancers, he was the latest member. Older (and dead) family members were turned to spirits to teach the newest living one how to do it and not corrupt/disrupt the natural order. He operated as town mortician and gravekeeper, helping set people's affairs in order and asking them if they want to donate their dead body to town defense in the case of emergencies.
Eventually a large band of orcs roam down from the mountains and start raiding the countryside, aiming to loot, rape, pillage, and kill in the town. Necromancer hits the "in case of emergency" spell/ritual button and a large burial mound of skeletal, deceased former town residents armed with shoddy, old, but still functional blades, axes, and spears go up against the horde and fight them off. He repairs the bodies he can, lays to rest those who are too badly damaged.
The story ends with the necromancer, old and on his death bed, telling his daughter that it's her turn to keep watch, and that he'll help her get ready for it, passes, and soon thereafter returns as a spirit to finish teaching his daughter.
What about deathless? What are the common views on using deathless instead of undead? They are positive energy based.
>>46772038
A necromancer who only communes with ghosts and predicts the future has a chance of being good.
When they start raising corpses, they are much more likely to go evil.
>>46775074
This goes well with the "power corrupts" mindset.
>>46772513
>>46772133
Isn't removing free will mind rape?
>>46775385
Which would you rather be,Mind controlled temporarily or killed permanently?
>>46773157
>Falling for the obvious
>>46775385
No, since there is no such thing as mind rape outside of fiction. In fiction itdepends on the setting.
>>46775116
So the better someone is at using a sword, the more evil they get?
>not wanting to go down the slippery slope
Faggots, all of you. I bet you wouldn't even try to achieve apotheosis.
>>46773482
See? This is a prime example. Prove me wrong, please.
>>46776049
This story is dumb since people were clearly displeased with the Necromancer's regime and had no intention to take part in higher education since they circulated false rumors about him and had adventurers put his undead down so they could go back to working the land. How does a single necromancer take down multiple monarchies in 60 years and how the fuck did he replace them with democracy when the previous feudal society likely left only an educated upper class nobles who would have hated his guts. How is overthrowing the governing body saving a civilization?
The only people who could romanticize the violence this shift in governing structure would require are other Necromancers.
>>46772038
In Guild Wars there are good necromancers. There's a novel Ghosts of Ascalon and one of the main character is a sylvari (plant-people) necromancer. Also in Guild Wars 2 one of the main NPCs is a sylvari necromancers, he fights against an ancient dragon and his undead minions.
>>46772759
In many cultures, go raiding.
Raiding, in turn, was mostly a way to kill time in a profitable fashion. Other cultures used public works projects for similar purposes (looking at you, pyramids).
What people always forget is that between the introduction of a labor-saving invention and the fruits of increased manpower in the arts and sciences is a generation of angry unemployed career laborers who simply aren't useful outside their field. You can't go up to a lifetime farmer and say "You're done! You never need to touch a plow again. Go think great things!" and expect him to turn into a philosopher. He hasn't had to think much about things other than farming in years, and he's sunk deep into that rut. Best case, he comes up with a lot of analogies for how life is like farming. More likely case, he spends a few months happily engrossed in a hobby or two before he begins to get bored and looks for work to fill his time, just like retirees in reality. If there isn't any work to be found, that's when social movements start forming and you should consider emigrating.
>>46772860
Fuck you, I'm going to make the orbital railgun work somehow, even if I need skeletons to do it.
>>46776049
fake as shit
I had a necromancer who raised the dead just to be servants because he just wanted to live on his own. They did farming, cleaned, everything.
>>46772038
play a cleric in 2e
cast healing spells
>>46775599
Possibly. If they believe "the weak should fear the strong".
>>46775453
That's a fair point. In light of that, I think it might still be preferable to use it only as a last resort.
>>46772038
pic very much related
>>46772038
More videogame related, but the ones in Diablo are true neutral dudes that are also priests and are all about balance.
They hate being puppets of greater forces and are capable of pulling off the same heroics others are capable off. Also the whole thing with the above also helped them avoid corruption as the other mage clans suffered.
>>46778539
>uses D&D alignments outside of a D&D context
cringe
>>46778811
That's literally in the manual you dolt.
>>46778843
>"the manual" says that diablo is d&d xD
Okay. Show me this manual.
>>46779061
>>46779061
It is said that they are neutral in the manual.
You can very well as a alternative go and read about them. Type Necromancer and Diablo II.
>>46779166
Show me where it says true neutral.
>>46772038
Oh look, it's this thread again. Must be time to do the dishes.
>>46772038
Necromancy is evil on its face.
Subverting the natural order of things, enslaving souls, etc
>>46772038
No, necromancers have always been evil and I don't like things that are different.
>>46775599
>So the better someone is at using a sword, the more evil they get?
It's a statistical maxim, just like entropy always increases. One swordsman, even in settings where great skill intrinsically unlocks supernatural potential, will never reach the level where it's arbitrarily likely.
I'm sure someone has said this before, but necromancy's original definition was divination magic gained by communing with spirits of the dead, rather than magic of reanimation or soul-enslavement.
>>46772038
d-o-t-s
DEPENDS ON THE SYSTEM
>>46779574setting
>>46772038
Necromancy is a tool more so than anything.
Good aligned is... possible but more difficult to learn since most people wanting to use necromancy turn to it for selfish and/or generally evil purposes. Few people become necromancers to save the world so theres not much written on it that isn't evil as fuck.
Itd be like trying to become a Jedi using mainly Sith writings and a rough idea of Jedi ideals.
>>46779542
Unforunately, in any setting with seperate Divination magic, old school necromancy becomes seemingly ignorant at best.
That being said, it could be an interesting way to fluff a primitive diviner.
>>46772038
It depends on the nature of the soul in the setting. If the soul is something that animates a body to make then necromancers could be anything in the spectrum. If the body of a soul is an intrinsic part of it then it is probably evil.
In most D&D settings the body is a vessel specific to a soul, hence why raise undead can't work on bodies of people who died of old age and a few other conditions. By raising undead in D&D you are blocking a soul from returning to its body (resurrecting an undead allows a soul to re-inhabit a body and break the undead state). This is why it is considered evil in D&D to raise undead.
>>46772038
Just focus more on the stuff to do with dealing with ghosts and wielding death-related energies and avoid animating corpses more than you have to. And then don't do anything obviously fucked up like eating peoples' souls or whatever.
>>46772038
Are you using your magic to talk to dead people, and help both them and the living?
Then no, not all are.
Are you raising armies of undead monsters and fucking up the bodies of the deceased?
Then yes, they all are.
>but muh industrial necromancer
No. Just no. That shit is cringey enough as it is.
It most settings, particularly many D&D settings, necromancy is intrinsically evil because it disturbs the natural course of the soul, or sometimes lets supernatural evil leak between the border of life and death.
Outside of those settings, it may only be taboo, disrespectful to bodies, etc, with it being perfectly possible (but perhaps unlikely for cultural reasons) to have necromancers that create a kind of industrial revolution with skeleton powered looms, or an undead fire brigade that feels no pain and risks no lives to attempt to save children from orphanage fires. Or more appropriately for the theme, somebody that interacts with the dead primarily to let them go to the afterlife more peacefully.
>>46780108
No, it's evil because it fills the body with a force that is inimical to life and wants to destroy it. Which is why even mindless undead are hostile to random adventurers.
Heres a setting: Country believes the afterlife is shit, good bad, whatever the afrerlife is just a huge pot where everyone is thrown in together to wander meaninglessly.
Necromancers save the souls of people from a pointless afterlife and are revered as great people in the community. I that not good?
>>46780310
Depends on what ya use them for, frankly.
That said, a society where the afterlife is purely shite is highly unlikely. I cant think of any human society that didn't have at least a ''if you're really wealthy/good/brave you get to go to this great place instead'' clause.
>>46779166
They are only neutral in the heaven vs hell war. They know that either side winning kills humanity.
>>46772038
perhaps one that resurrects for medical purposes
>>46772654
I had a setting where a group of warrior priests would raise the dead to protect towns and villages from attack by corrupted nature spirits. It was part of the culture and those who died knew their bodies and skeletons could be used to protect their descendents.
>>46780168
>>but muh industrial necromancer
what
>>46772222
QUINTS!
>>46772438
What if my religion is necromancy? Wouldn't it be holy to raise dead?
Speaking from a Boneknights perspective from Karrnath in eberron. Not a blood of vol bit ancestor worshiping cleric.
Why you labeling me evil? I just want to murder the citizens and sack the cities of every other nation...
>>46772599
You mean redeployment of resources away from labour intensive services for the state to intellectual pursuits and pleasures. The less plebs in the fields the more inventors and skilled craftsmen I can now afford.
>>46780365
Have you heard the Terrible News of Sithrak, The Blind Gibberer?
>>46772038
>>46772618
>animate dead evil
>animate object depends on task
So, that would make the Necromancy the evil part. Whoever would have thought... It seems that D&D is of the general opinion that when alignment matters, necromancy is evil... Then again, Genocide is Chaotic Good so who cares about alignment faggotry? Y'all are aware the system (or rather, lack of internally consistent system) is fundamentally flawed, right?
>>46782127
>Muh religion says being a Cackle fiend is good.
Mohammedan confirmed, can we get a double dose of Deus Vult to handle the infestation?
>>46772297
I'd be very pissed off if you rose my body from the dead, no matter how I died. Same if you did it to my family. Or pretty much anyone.
>>46784288
Well morality should be judge from the view of the individual and their society, not your own that's just ego centric otherwise, you don't no the societal pressures that have occurred on those people to create a society where murder is good while turning the other cheek is bad.
>>46785645
I'm just saying this in the sense that how are societies defined as evil? As different societies judge one on being good or bad in differing shades of morality, hence why a smite good sword for a daemon would be powerful as any creature it perceives as good necessarily now is in stark contrast or does the scale depend on the person facing it; where do we judge a neutral character o the scale when we start saying certain actions are suddenlyevil? The narrative off role play is the development of a character and the repeated same actions within the society, with I guess society being the true judge of what defines you as good or evil.
>>46772038
All fictional worlds are subservient to our own OP. That is to say, all fictional worlds must be judged by our own morality.
Consider the most recent use of necromancy in our world: A fag named OP brought a dead topic back to life knowing it had no merit, and was easily dismissed with a simple "depends on the setting". Instead of creating something new and interesting, OP decided to recycle trash through necromancy. Because this has widely been considered a move that took enjoyment from the world, instead of putting enjoyment in the world, we can call it evil. As the only example of necromancy in the world, it seems reasonable to assume that necromancy is bad in our world. Therefore, all other subservient worlds must follow suit: necromancy is bad.
And so are you. seriously, try discussing something interesting and not vacuous.
>>46781938
Some time ago, there were two big discussions, both created a strain of the mental disease known as "I want a speshul snowflake good necromancer".
One led to the birth of the caretaker, or something to that effect, the one were this guy raises only members of his family.
The other was the industrial necromancer, who raised corpses and made them work, because nothing says I'm a good person like keep enslaving people even after they're dead, apparently.
Keep in mind that according to the gospels Jesus would be considered a Lawful Good necromancer devouted to a Good deity who only allows Good followers. Not to mention he becomes a blatant lich at one point, but his lichdom is straight up GIVEN to him by sid Deity.
>>46772038
Well, Jesus allegedly raised the dead...
>>46786945
You aren't clever
>>46772242
Honestly, although that's technically true within its own universe, the Abhorsen isn't really a necromancer in the generally-understood fantasy sense. All you need to count as one in the Old Kingdom is to have the bells and to be able to enter Death, but in any other universe they're pretty much just undead hunters.
>>46772038
No. neutral, sure, but not good. Enslaving the souls of the dead is inherently evil
>>46786945
>all fictional worlds must be judged by our own morality
Wrong. Some of the most interesting ones, like Glorantha for example, make zero fucking sense and will only confuse you if you try to apply modern morality to them.
>>46790540
And what about the necromancers that don't enslave souls of the dead? In other words, most of them?
>>46775624
Eh? Source?
>>46790540
Plenty of settings enslave dead corpses animated by magic, hence why zombies lack personality or feelings. If a necromancer in those settings gets permission, like a high fantasy organ donor card, then it's 100% fine.
>>46789476
I think you're confusing necromancers and paladins here.
>>46772038
Necromancers are evil because a single one can uproot meaningless human politics.
Necromancy ends human slavery, can end hunger and dissuade war. Now people like the necromancer more than the fucking king and that cannot be.
>>46772618
Could it be that alignment is a retarded notion?
>>46794490
>Necromancy ends human slavery, can end hunger and dissuade war
That'd be a cool setting idea. Like a high necromancy society that reborns the dead to add to the workforce - laborers mostly. Maybe if the undead can talk and stuff they'd fill in other positions. Obviously, they would all have to be dressed up to hide their deadness.A holiday called "Day of the Dead" to celebrate the workers
>>46772654
In my setting a necromancer is the sole agricultural mogul of an entire region. everything from breaking the soil to transportation and delivery is done by skelletons.
He believes, and is right, that humans would be completely incapable to generate, distribute and protect that ammount of food, and magnitudes more people would die of hunger (from the current zero) if he were to stop.
He gives food for millions, in return he takes books and lamp oil, ink, clothes and animal products for one. Plus maintenance to the delivery carts and roads.
Three times murderhobos have tried to fight him, three times the whole country got in arms against them.
>>46773285
Vampirism actually changes your alignment, but you can change it while vamped.
>>46772814
Because a fucking living plow can't do anything a farmer can.
And animating a huge, heavy, unsuspect contraption full of blades seems more dangerous in the worst case scenario than animating a 40 pounds skeleton.
>>46778539
They might hate it, but they sure as hell accept being puppets. Their diety is a fucking dragon that encircles the world.
>>46772038
>warhammer fantasy
>lore of undeath
>>46772326
Fucking a baddie eternal soul isn't moral, this isn't justice.
>>46775599
>So the better someone is at using a sword, the more evil they get?
Yes, ultimatedly evil means you can take out the king and might want to do so if he's enough of a little shit.
Good people are powerless, obedient and victimized. Powerful people either make the law or are evil.
>>46780365
When you die you cease to exist.
