Necromancers can literally raise the dead but only if they died in a way that wasn't due to old age...

Maybe they reclassified it for 5e but in my pbh it reads
True Ressurcetion
9th level necromancy
And as far as i can tell clerics can't learn it

Veeky Forums uses this line a lot but it really applies all the god damned time: It depends on the setting.

Some settings raising the dead damns their souls, even if what you raise is a mindless zombie.
Some settings the act of using negative energy itself is evil and corrupting, no matter what you use it for..
Some the undead creature is itself evil no matter what you do. Even if you control it and force it to perform labor the thing is evil and once you're not controlling it it'll at the very least attack anything that comes near it.

Also in pretty much any setting you're disturbing the dead, something a lot of folks would have a lot of superstitions and misgivings about, even if there's nothing itself evil about necromancy. This is even more the case when you raise non-consensually or from a graveyard, since that person didn't exactly volunteer their bones and meat to be your private butler until the end of time.

Suck it the fuck up, you have a rotting corpse slave, take with it the fact that people might give you sideways glances every now and then or that some countries might outlaw it.

For a similar experience go around mind controlling everyone openly and see how long it takes for a group of adventurers to smite your dick off.

Some guy fireballs orcs. You don't give a fuck, because fuck orcs. If he fireballs schoolchildren, then people will flip their shit. But so long as the fireballing is happening a long way away to people you don't care about, NBD. Fire wizards have generally had a pretty good record of keeping the pyromania in the dungeon.

Necromancers are creepy. They mess around with dead bodies, which is fucked-up. I don't want someone messing around with the bodies of my loved ones or my body after I die. I'm not a big fan of rotting monster carcasses walking around my town either.

Sure, some necromancers might only reanimate dead orcs and never bring them near civilisation, but there are always some who forget how disgusting it is to normies and start using their magic in town. People get pissed off with necromancers in general and declare the whole thing to be taboo.

Morality is pretty arbitrary. We jail people for file-sharing and smoking weed, but most people are fine with eating animals and abortion which can easily be classed as horrific acts in fairly reasonable ethical systems.

Sure, but why would anyone be against the idea of raising the dead as they were before their death? it's not even like your artificially extending their lifespan because they'll die of old age anyway, i understand being against thralling, but being against the whole system of necromancy is as retarded as being anti evocation because a dude could set your house on fire.

Lolwut? It's Conjuration (Healing) dipshit, and clerics are one of the only classes that can learn it.

>tfw going on Herbert West style romps through a mortuary late at night playing an alchemist playing God in the low magic setting I'm a part of.

Honestly I'm glad it's considered controversial(though not evil per say) insetting, it wouldn't be nearly as fun.

What edition are you running?

I run Savage Worlds because I like good games ;^)

It was like that in 3.5, but holy shit I guess they did change it to Necromancy for 5th.

Fucking why though?

I think it was like that in older editions, to do with necromancy being supposedly the magic of both life AND death.

And I mean bringing someone back to life, even in a super duper no strings attached way, sounds necromantic to me.

Still clerics can cast it fine in 5e, so that's not weird at least.

Have you never read any of the inspirations behind D&D on necromancy?

Necromancers are morally radioactive soul-rapists, not innocent gray neutral materialists making amoral meat golems.

A good necromancer is one in a hundred.

Hilariously enough I'm playing a morally grey materialist planning on making a flesh golem in the near future as a part of his research on death and life/restoration of vial processes.

Abet in a low magic setting as an alchemist, but you can turn it that way easily if you have a gm who loved H.P. Lovecraft, and other grim writings.

Because death is sacred.
Things kill and die for a variety of reasons, be it hunting, facemelting or end of the world, but once you're dead you're done; you pass on from here, you will be missed, you get to hang out with the deity of your choice for the rest of times. It's such a huge deal a lot of people dedicate their lives to be worthy of an afterlife.

Then some guy has your great-great-grandfather do the macarena and you think "No. This is wrong. This goes against everything about how life is."

but m-muh feelings is what I'm getting at.

Resurrection from unnatural death is justified because they, in a way, hadn't crossed the finishing line yet.

But who's to say his death was "unnatural"? Hell maybe he was SUPPOSED to die that day and now your messing with fate?

Spellcasters in general are morally radioactive soul rapists in most early fantasy. Merlin and Gandalf were pretty much the only friendly wizards before D&D.

And even Merlin was a huge dick at times.

Fate and the "genetic" limits of the body are two different things, but in settings where fate is an actual powerful concept, yeah you're right.

Genetically sure ok, but yeah, if magic is involved, 9/10 times fates gonna be a real thing in setting and then things get hazy because most authors never really think of what if fate is fucked if you revive that guy, because it's just easier to say necromancy is evul.

...

which is ironic because his dick was canonically small

No, care to give me a few books to read?

>eating animals is a horrific act under reasonable ethical system

yea, the ethical systems of /r/vegan maybe.

If we as beings can disrupt fate then surely it is not fate at all? The whole point of fate is that no human act could prevent it.

>genuinely wonder if you're joking or not because the authorian legends were that nuts.
Hue

You'd be surprise how often details with consider irrelevant or indecent are explicited in old legends.

As far as i can tell the ressurection can only revive people who didn't die of old age

I love that kinda stuff, which is probably why I have a deep love for Authorian legend.

Given that you can't seem to grasp the difference between legality and morality, I don't think you're really qualified to comment on the topic.

But this is Veeky Forums so he will anyway

>Savage Worlds
>Good

I'm still salty that my BBEG was destroyed with a single punch by the party face.

>but most people are fine with eating animals
That's because that's what we are built to need for optimal survival and health. If we didn't, we'd have a hindgut instead.

Or are you saying leopards and dogs are evil too?

Also, legality and morality, while often related, are not always mutual.

So necromancy is kick starting the apocalypse

Depends on the nature of the necromancy. To use an example from my setting: guards trying to solve crimes involving murder or assassination are legally permitted to question the dead by raising them up. This is due to souls retaining all memories but being unable to communicate without a vessel. What better way to identify a killer than to ask the person who was killed? On the flip-side, raising the dead to commit crime or otherwise interfere with normal life is punishable by imprisonment or having your rights to magic revoked.

Back in the day, all healing spells were necromancy, too

>legally permitted to question the dead by raising them up
Why not just perform a seance?

>but being unable to communicate without a vessel
Even if you can use a medium, that carries all kinds of risks.

What if instead of a raise the dead necromancer it's one who communes with the dead through seances and requests their aid? Nothing intrusive and all done purely through the willing participation of the spirits.

Then their a fucking faggot.

More risks than raising the victim back in their rotting, grievously wounded body? If you're absolutely certain that being wrenched back to life in a body that would send children to the mental ward isn't going to have any adverse effects on anyone's mental stability and credibility, so be it.

Then they're either best relegated to being an NPC class (i.e. totally boring) or they're refluffed Clerics or Druids (i.e. totally redundant).

This is why MTG is the best. Necromancers, and Black in general, don't necessarily have to be evil, just amoral and pragmatic

>RPG = Combat Efficiency

Do people actually roleplay anymore, rather than just play MMORPG with dice?

>but dipshit mc murder face can literally immolate a dude slowly melting his flesh of as he cries in desperate agony and that's cool beans
If we're talking D&D, no it isn't. Torture at any time for any reason is an Evil act.
Good folk perform their executions as quickly and painlessly as possible. Neutral folk just kill as is most expedient. Only Evil may "immolate a dude slowly as he cries in agony", unless by some twisted contrivance that was the only or fastest way to kill them.

Unless you're running a campaign exclusively about political intrigue, there's good reason to have your player characters at least [i]capable[/i] of surviving in combat. In a campaign exclusively about political intrigue, a classical necromancer would still be discouraged, because they'd be able to snap the campaign's premise right in half by just summoning up the soul of the recently deceased king/diplomat/guardsman/baker to point his ghostly finger at the man who killed him.

Man, do people suck at coming up with campaigns this much?

If you have a divine patron and have lived in general accordance with this patron's laws, Kelemvor shuffles you off to their realm for your reward.
If you have a divine patron and have lived in violation of this patron's laws, Kelemvor judges you False, and depending on how False they get a punishment ranging from being made a lackey for the City of Judgment (Kelemvor's realm) to eternal torment laden with irony suiting their falsehood (think Tartarus).
If one does not have a divine patron, one gets shoved into the Wall of the Faithless, regardless of deeds, heedless of one's good or evil works. It hurts a lot to begin with, but eventually their consciousness fades to nothing.
If one sold their soul to a dark power (e.g. Devils or Far Realm beings) this process is bypassed wholesale and their soul goes straight to the dark power's realm.

>they'd be able to snap the campaign's premise right in half by just summoning up the soul of the recently deceased king/diplomat/guardsman/baker to point his ghostly finger at the man who killed him.

In setting a soul possessing anything other than its body opens it up to being more easily corrupted/turning malevonent. This is due to the nature of a soul's identity being tied to the body. While spirits have been channeled through other vessels, they are not preferable by any means because they can trigger an identity crisis that does more harm than good. This is actually the origin story of one of the demons in the setting.

Fair enough, then.

>but most people are fine with eating animals and abortion which can easily be classed as horrific acts in fairly reasonable ethical systems.

Yeah, I was fifteen once too.

Not if ghosts are 3/5ths a person in the eyes of the law. Or alt. the ghost is treated the way Hamlet's father is.

>I do not know how fire works: the post

Rarely is average nonmagical fire the only means to kill someone, so using nonmagical fire to kill somebody is neither Good nor Neutral.

>"Your honour, I totes saw the king's adviser stab me in the chest with his dagger. I swear in me mum, I saw it with mine own eyes."

As we all know, you just need someone who saw the crime happen and the accused goes to jail forever. No trial is needed.

Well duh, this is fantasy America.

~*~ I T D E P E N D S O N T H E S E T T I N G ~*~

>wife/friend/cat.

Just bury them over the deadfall in a Miqmac semetery.

Why is Magic art so based?

I don't even play the game, but damn do I love browsing the artwork.

I thought the whole problem with Necromancers is that they don't really raise the dead - that's divine magic - they create the undead and spirits instead.

It's one thing for your father to be brought back to life, it's another thing for his rotting corpse to shamble in through the front door.

you could try playing someone who only raises corpses poeple wont miss, goblins brigands etc., and showing a good deal of restraint, not raising bodies if friends or family object.

he could be aware that if he chokes on a bagel his skeletons would go insane, so he never brings his skeletons without the rest of his party, who could dispatch his skeletons easily before they harm anyone.

He only uses his skeletons for aid, combat or manual labour, he is under no illusion that skeletons are dangerous, and treats them like loaded guns.

He never raises bodies as zombies, since they retain recognizable faces, and their rotting flesh is a health hazard, he makes sure that his skeletons are always free of bad smell or disturbing visages.

He actively engages in combat with necromancers who use their knowledge to hurt people, while pursuing other necromancy skills, such as astral projection and clone, he recognizes that necromancy is more than just control of skeletons, it is the study of the cycle of life and death, and pursues research regarding that, such as human anatomy and forensics.

Any time I let my players roleplay they whip out the marinade bath and attempt to go Hannibal on the NPC's.

>hey dude, why do you always slink away every three hours?
>oh well I've got these skeletons I need to check on to make sure they don't murder anybody, I also have these zombies with blank masks sewed on and I gotta clean them so they don't stink
>oh ok I'm going to murder you freak

Clark Ashton Smith, short story, The Empire of the Necromancers, available online.

Among the best in Veeky Forums, yes.

Unless this is treated like an ACTUAL case, in which case the ghost's testimony will be only as reliable as any eyewitness testimony. They can be used to provide key leads in investigations, map the crime scene and timeline, and act as witnesses, but actual evidence will still be necessary.

I for one think you're right; you aren't necessarily saying abortion and animal-eating is wrong, you're just accepting that some frames of morality would find them repugnant, which I respect.

Bouncing off of what you say, some people think that reanimating the dead is anathema, but it's just a corpse. Klingons on TNG refer to dead bodies as "empty shells," valuing an individual's life but not their body. It all comes down to a society's culture.

If it can get up and walk around, it's NOT just a corpse, necessarily.

>"sir are you threatening me?"
>readies the finger of death

>tfw I always claim that I am a "Reverse Necromancer" when playing D&D with my friends, because they claim that Necromancy is evil
>if Necromancy, the act of bringing dead bodies to life, is evil, I will strive to do nothing but good
>As a Reverse-Necromancer, I fully promise to commit myself to the act of making alive bodies dead

>if Necromancy, the act of bringing dead bodies to life
That's not necromancy. That's Conjuration (Healing).
Bringing dead bodies to unlife, and that's different, and everybody knows it.
A reverse necromancer would be bringing unliving bodies to death, which is considered a holy and sacred task.

The opposite of making dead things move is making living things not move.

That's like saying the opposite of brown is apricot, you're just using the word "opposite" incorrectly because they're not on the same axis.

It's honestly just that its western fantasy and played straight

Yu gi oh has a goofy aesthetic with too many absurd suits of armor with barbs as tall as the robo-gundam man wearing them

Force of will is weeb fapbait garbage

Net runner has good art but it's not the same

>Then some guy has your great-great-grandfather do the macarena and you think "No. This is wrong. This goes against everything about how life is."
What if it's the dab?

So a reverse necromancer is a vampire, since they bring live bodies to undeath?

>Force of will is weeb fapbait garbage
DIIOOOOOOO!

I really dislike necromancers as of late, this topic is one of the reasons but just in general I am starting to find generic zombies and skeletons boring.

Instead I plan on doing a sort of monster/folklore sort of thing for undead; monsters are typically people who died of bad shit, or were mistreated in some way, or their rights weren't properly said over them before they passed on. Undead are not puppets of a mage, but forces of darkness that want revenge on the living for the harm that the land of the living caused on them.

The closest thing to a necromancer is a mage using speak with dead, which only allows them to speak with the body of the dead, who can only speak with things the body knows or has seen. While it has the same voice as the dead person, it has none of their personality or memories unless those memories were innately physical and sensory. ie; It can remember who it saw last before it was slain, but it can't remember the emotions the person felt or what they were thinking before they died because it's not that person, it's their body.

TL;DR Dead alcoholics turn into Kidney ghouls. They like to eviscerate people and use their organs to distill into fine wines.

>because they claim that Necromancy is evil
>claim
Necromancy /is/ evil.

DEPENDS
ON
THE
SETTING

>mfw people that say "depends on the setting" really mean "depends on my setting" where Necromancers are the cool and edgy but pragmatic and cunning folks everybody misunderstands

The Lies of Locke Lamora is a fantasy story set in the fictional city-state of Camorr. Camorr is a major trading hub situated on the coast of the Iron Sea, and has many, many canals. As such, sea-life is very important to the city's culture, especially predators like sharks. Once a month, the city holds a public festival called the Shifting Revel, which includes, among other spectacles, a public execution of condemned criminals, in which they are fed to some horrible sea monster.

In the same universe, there is a material called Wraithstone, which when burnt, produces fumes that will scour any living thing of all personality and initiative, leaving them a listless, aimless husk. Such a husk is described as "Gentled". Camorr used to Gentle condemned criminals, but the nobility found the results so disquieting that most of the major states mentioned in the book agreed some time ago to never inflict it on any human, ever again. This from a people that happily feeds criminals to beasts with such charming names as "Jereshti Devilfish".

My point is, people can be massive hypocrites, especially when it comes to the subject of death and justice.

Alternatively, necromancers might not even exist in their setting. They might not have any pyromancers, either.

Doesn't seem hypocritical at all, why do you think so many people with Alzheimer's choose assisted suicide?

>A magic-heavy setting where a major city is governed by a wizard. To ease the burdens of his people, he raises dozens of corpses as zombies, clothes them in thick cloaks, and uses them as a labor force. The zombies work tirelessly, without need for food or water, and in conditions that would be unsafe or outright lethal for the living. Much suffering and death is spared for the living.
>A setting in which Dwarves take oaths even more seriously than normal. The warriors of a certain clan swear oaths, before Moradin and all, to defend their home until the mountain becomes the sea. Upon death these warriors are ritually prepared and laid to rest in the outer defenses of the keep. When a threat arises they rise from their sleep to once again honor their oath and fight for their people.

t. underdeveloped settings based on greentext and highschool wishful thinking

Exactly. And like all eyewitness cases, even the testimony of the victim can be faulty.

Just because the party "knows" that guy there did it, doesn't mean it's case closed. It might cut on the investigation time, but you're still left with a ton of elements to work with as the party tries to uncover motives, etc.