Good "evil" magic

Solomonologist (AKA Demon Jailer)
>demon summoner who carefully binds demons they command and force them to do good deeds everyday until they like it

Necromanager (AKA Ectoplasmic Employer)
>only uses corpses of people who signed a waiver willingly to let their corpses be used as such, makes consensual pacts with ghosts and other spirits often with quid pro quo "payments" done by the necromanager in return for spirits doing shit. Doesn't do anything particularly negarious with the undead

Bloodhealer (AKA The Bleedwagon)
>mostly uses own blood, only manipulates the blood of others in emergencies, in self defense or during medical procedures that call for it

What's the catch?

I like it. Has potential to be very useful but also be a disaster waiting to happen. All it takes is one person to become corrupt or be negatively influenced to ruin it for everyone else.

The catch is you have more anti-paladins, couch-potatos (or whatever an inverted ranger is) and evil druids as standard enemies

High risk play for cool powers, I always felt like the more snowflake potential an option has the more risks should be inherent to it

>evil druids
AKA Druids

I always thought a magic user that wields a Necronomicon-like tome is an underused idea for a hero/player character, but I don't know how you'd go about balancing the inherent madness.

I always loved the heroic necromancers of the Abhorsens in the Old Kingdom series.

They're explicitly the good guys, but they still dabble in some really dark stuff, and it can hurt them, endanger them or risk corrupting them at times. Even when they're on top of it, their abilities with necromancy and free magic are still seen as pretty scary things that they have to always treat with respect, lest they lose control and be destroyed by them.

I like that thinking

For example, an old pathfinder game I played as a lizard man, people rated accordingly as they were not familiar with my kind, most people were terrified of me, contacted further by my character generally being very polite as he was a diplomat from his tribe, albeit only by their standards.

>Solomonologist
That's domb. Solomonist at most. Maybe Solomist. Solomonologist is too many syllables.

I can approve of the idea, but again the key phrase is:
>depends on the setting

Binding Demons has the usual caveat of them backfiring on you, the necromanager (AKA Normal Not looking for immortality and just want a peaceful life necromancers) might get a spirit that tricks the user with their pacts and the blood one is self-explanitory.

OP is clearly looking for extra examples, but I can't think of one right now outside of consensual fleshgrafting, which isn't necessarily magic.

But user, with more syllabes comes more power, that's the rule.

hence the rule of The Great & Wise Supercalifragulisticispialidociousantideestablishmentariancer

Beneficial use of curses. Plague of rats on a town? Lay a curse upon those rats. Plague? Someone ravaged by cancerous tumors? Curse the tumors. Having trouble enforcing the law? Curses are laws that enforce themselves!

Is this based on that thread yesterday asking about which was the most evil out of blood,magic, demon summoning, and necromancy?

I honestly don't understand why this obsession is brought up over and over again of good ways to use bad magic.

>Curses are laws that enforce themselves!
I understood that reference

That's something I think should be in more campaign or something that more DM's should include. If let's say a Dragonborn is adventuring with a party and they go to a small human town most people are going to freak out in some way when they see the Dragonborn because 99% of people have never seen one or have only heard about them.

Addition

Also if you're playing in a "standard" setting then other stuff like different types of magic or races or weapons etc.. That aren't normalized in the setting are going to stand out big time and should have the risk involved as you said.

Why the fuck do people always feel compelled to argue for "positive" dark arts in fantasy. There is evil stuff and good stuff, and shilling for shit like necromancy just sounds contrarian and edgy as hell.

Warkey: exposes loopholes in demonic contracts in order to free the undersigned from terms

Because DnD's entire moralty system comes down to "thats how it is, because it is", and DnD is taken as the norm.

That being said, I wouldn't expect a frogposter to have played anything other than pathfinder.

>the clayr saw me
>the wallmaker made me
>the king quenched me
>Abhorsen wields me so that no dead may walk in life, for this is not their path

Except you'd be hard pressed to find any stories or settings where summoning a plague of zombies wouldn't be malevolent. As far as more modern cultural examples go, zombie movies have been around for longer than D&D, and them alongside vampires has shaped this commonality that undeath is very unnatural and dangerous to the living.

But of course, you get all of these people who A) assume D&D when they're talking about necromancy in the first place, and B) assume the Necromancy school consists of Animate Dead and nothing else

But we have to go through this song and dance over and over, with people suggesting a world where skeletons are just harmless bone golems, but are also easier to make than other sorts of golems because reasons.

If you're going to walk around with an army of the same, fucking own it.

Easy. He thinks he's doing evil shit while he heroes it up because the book is warping his perception. He was evil and got the book so he could do more evil but...

Good shit. I'm actually playing an Abhorsen in a game, although it's not set in the Old Kingdom. It's a Dungeons the Dragoning game where the GM has gone out of his way to add more stuff to the setting, including the Bright Shiners and most of the mythology side of the Old Kingdom. It all works weirdly well.

>contrarians

Because there are plenty of people who like the idea of using "evil" powers and abilities to do good, and it stands to reason that many of those people would do exactly that if it were possible irl. It stands to reason that there would be similarly-minded people in the game world too

In general, the more benevolent examples are things like undead guardians or fallen heroes and ancestors fighting on in defense of a noble cause. They don't get called zombies then, of course.

I like the bloodhealer. Hemomancers kick ass.

I want to use genocide for the greater good, senpai! Gas the gnomes, racewar now!

Yeah, you get more benevolent depictions of undeath occasionally, usually involving spirits of ancestors or the like that persist in the world due to strong convictions.

However, being a 'necromancer' of those is simply a matter of being able to communicate with them and convincing them of your cause. Of course, Necromancy no longer means just speaking to the dead anymore, and such a character would likely be called a Shaman or an Animist or the like, someone who communicates with the spirits of the dead and more natural ones as well.

And of course, any necromancer trying to forcibly enlist good undead through magical means towards good ends is still being evil, just in a more roundabout way

The protagonists in Lord of the Rings used a hoarde of undead oathbreakers to save a city and destroy and evil army.

It's about being a special snowflake.

And bargaining with an army of evil ghosts is still different from creating that army yourself

No. Fuck you. You need to work harder than that to make your setting interesting. Try again.

Necromancers bargain with the dead as much as, if not more than, create them in fantasy.