Yup agreed. I have houseruled resurrection to be a skill challenge, getting more difficult every time you try it but revivify is fully exempt from that.
Love these “in dark fantasy” videos! Would love to see one on mummies/ desserts it’s a personal favorite genre. But whatever topic you do in the I’m sure I’ll love it too!
In my homebrew system/world, one thing I did with Necromancy, specificially in reanimating the dead and similar spells, was to not only require a Mana cost but also a hit point cost, whether your own or another person. You literally have to pull life from the living to animate the dead. Of course how that could work in 5e is up to 5e DMs.
See that's a setup I like. Yes, you could pay this cost yourself. Which makes those who foist that cost off on others more vile, while opening up the possibility of non-abusive use of the art in question. But then, I subscribe to the 'Necromancy is a tool.' line of thought for settings I put together that aren't hinging on it working some other way.
Honestly, I find Enchantment (which is basically magical gaslighting, manipulation, and control via the removal of another person's agency) to be the School of Evil (TM) over Necromancy. Flavor or no, Enchanters are far, far worse in my opinion than Necromancers. Necromancers just show their ugly up front, while Enchanters have a killer PR team.
Please don't stop making these videos, they're fantastic inspiration and also clearly word what is so dramatic and moody about dark fantasy without waxing lyrical. Quality stuff
I still run the basic healing spells as necromancy in my games, its not just death magic, it can also be life. It is the power to influence life, death and the space in between
Currently running a homebrew setting where Necromancy is actually a vetted and managed school of magic (the campaign is based in a graveyard the size of a small city), and even the act of casting one necromancy spell is punishable by hanging unless the proper procedures are in place. Think FMAB State Alchemist if your an anime fan. It's helping to really emphasize the 'wrongness' of necromancy and has opened up some amazing rp scenarios. Just thought I'd share it as an example of what you can do with Necromancy in a more grounded setting!
That legalistic approach is an intresting one. Like how 'destructive devices' are limited to licenced holders in the USA, or firearms in many nations around the world. Just, you can't put this gun down (Not fully.) because it's something you learned. So by picking it up, you had better be willing to accept that everyone will view you diffrently.
That's the beauty of D&D, you can flavor literally any spell how you want. I still think Enchantment, and charms are FAR harder to justify than reviving a corpse. Unless one could actually show a soul being forced into it. Then they're merely equal.
I would sya that depends on what you use them for. I fyou use them to take advantage of people yes then it's problematic but if you use them to not have to kill someone then it's a very diffrent story.
I love both ideas of necromancy being evil and not being evil. I make a separate category in my games called forbidden magic. These spells are more powerful than traditional magic but have consequences unlike normal spells which I think is better than having any one school being evil... Except maybe enchantment
To keep it interesting, the first thing one must remember is stigma. It doesn't matter if your PC raises corpses every other day, regular people will not get used to that. Their reactions can at least remind the players that what they're doing is not usual and probably not technically even ok.
Also, you have to figure that after a few deaths and revivification/Raises, it would start to impact a person in some way, likely behaviorally and psychologically. Each death is another brush with trauma that might stick.
Hey Ben if things go wrong in my game Gormadraug is going to return, and i am thinking on the best way to roleplay him. Like a dragon of immesurable power that could say words understandable to mortals. Or like a being that goes beyond that, that mere mortals can't even comprehend, such as the great old ones or the aether kindred. Really like the videos and the one on the beast helped a lot, sooner or later we will be back on the burach empire and i will be able to use what i learned.
Great question! Gormadraug should certainly be an existential threat beyond a mere dragon! Gormadraug may even be the living world! It's up to you to decide what of the Valikan myths are strictly true in your Etharis, but if half their tales bear fruit, an awakening Gormadraug may cause mountains to collapse by merely stirring.
I would say it depends how it's used when it comes to necromancy. In my campaign that I'm working on, there's only a handful of good witch doctors who do the light side of necromancy which is rare. That is when they asked the spirits if they can come back to help them for a small period of time or if they want to come back to the living if they just died and their body is healed. But the one that's more known and more evil by every sense of the word is the dark side of necromancy where you bend break and warp the soul or a soul to the rise back from the dead or placed into a vessel to be used as seen fit until the necromancer is killed or he releases the soul. But there's a cost to doing necromancer depending how far down the pit you go and if your amateur. If you don't use the right incantations or blood markings on the bodies you use, if the necromancer loses control or the talisman they use to assist them is broken. This bound spirits can turn against their master and kill them before coming reefs who are stuck and bound to the physical plane due to the fact that souls are forced into the body's and cannot pass on properly until the exercise or the bodies destroyed.
You started to touch on the concepts of black, white and grey necromancy. With white necromancy being the one that is more closely akin to the "divine necromancy" that was talked about focusing on healing, bolstering, and only using willing spirits to aid them. While black necromancy is the atypical uber evil necromancy that uses the darkest of magics and forcing/twisting spirits and souls into doing their bidding. Then with grey blends the two ideals, using magics that aren't entirely evil or entirely good and the uses of undead is more varied.
I feel like they should be separate schools entirely. Like have the "Restoration" school, which is all about healing and relieving ailments. Especially since the definition of "Necromancy" has to do with death and decay, not life and growth.
I get that, I also think it's weird that most healing magic also falls under evocation. To me, those would fit better under necromancy/transmutation, or like you suggested, it's own school dedicated.
@@fallenphoenixiv Yeah. I noticed there seem to be a decent number of spells that either, descriptatorily, are in the wrong school, or don't fit in any "pre-constructed" schools. Maybe there needs to be a "Magic Schools Rework" of sorts.
@@fallenphoenixiv Only because they moved healing OUT of Necromancy. (at least in D&D) since at least 3ed, Necromancy was the spell type for healing spells. Then they tried to make it Conjuration, now they're putting it under Evocation, but if Necromancy is best described as 'the manipulation of positive and negative energy' in reference to the planes thereof then healing should be Necromancy.
I find the idea of a culture that views necromancy not just as acceptable but as a sacred way of honoring their dead really fun to think about. Taboos against unmarked graves and leaving a zombie's wounds uncovered. Generations of ancestors performing physical labor and community service for the living. archives not of books, but of venerable dead and guardian spirits waiting to serve as advisors and historians... And then some other culture that views all these practices as evil barbarism slaughtering and oppressing those of this peaceful shamanic culture, leading to delicious conflict and philosophical struggle.
Life Transference is in the necromancy school, and it's the most sacrificial, selfless healing spell in 5e and I think that's beautiful also showing video of Ben Affleck in Dogma after his character had just gone on a killing spree while referencing Paladins and Clerics being seen as prophets is very funny
I played a magical professor in a recent campaign, and ended up writing a few... essays... in their character journal. One of them was a paper on Necromantic Apologetics. It's too long to put in one post so it will continue in comments. If anyone enjoys, fantastic. I don't know what else I'd do with it: "I propose a more nuanced view of the practice and mechanics of the necromantic arts. Frankly, most countries recognize it as little more than a novel diversion from other more established schools of magic. My peers see it as an interesting talking point when discussing metaphysical theory, but shun its practical applications as too dangerous or inappropriate to bother with. This myopic attitude exasperates me to no end, and must be done away with. Tradition dictates that necromancy is inherently immoral because its use supposedly necessitates several sins, which I will now briefly list and refute: 1. Necromancy draws upon malevolent and destructive energies 2. Necromancy is disrespectful of the dead. 3. Necromancy produces dangerous creatures 4. Necromancy enslaves the soul Counterpoint 1: while negative and necrotic energies can indeed be dangerous, they also have many practical and beneficial uses. Fire is also an inherently destructive force, but we do not call it evil, and its proper management is required for civilization as we know it to exist. Counterpoint 2: I do not advocate for the use of necromancy on subjects that would not consent to such treatment in life, excepting in rare cases of great need or threat. That said, why do we view necromancy as disrespectful in the first place? In many cases it can actually preserve a body longer than it would last otherwise, and with the soul vacated, utilizing an ancestor’s body should be seen as a great honor to both the subject who gets to provide useful service after passing on, and to their progeny who benefit from a visible and impactful reminder of the past continuing to shape and improve the present. Counterpoint 3: Conjuration and transmutation pose much greater risks when it comes to producing threatening creatures both inadvertently and intentionally. (I will not even touch upon the sickening ethical violations of the school of enchantment.) Strangely, these schools of magic are practically devoid of stigma, whilst necromancy is lambasted. In addition, failure to teach necromancy properly leaves society ill-equipped to deal with naturally occurring undead as well as self-taught students of the necromantic arts. If it were taught without stigma, it would become common knowledge that properly restraining undead servants is both a prudent and easy way of making them harmless should the necromancer’s control ever temporarily lapse due to any unforeseen problems. Instead, most young hedge-wizards who experiment with necromancy do not even know that such control requires upkeep in the first place, leading to more problems in the long run. Counterpoint 4: I am convinced that our model of the soul is woefully imprecise for this particular subject. My research on the abilities and behavior of undead both created and naturally occurring lead me to believe that different necromantic practices utilize different parts of the soul and it is thus possible to separate the spells and rituals that do violate the soul from those that do not. Allow me to expound...
The Rell Model of the Soul: The soul can be visualized, much like a kernel of grain or an onion, as a core surrounded by many layers. Each layer has distinct properties and purposes, and are used in different kinds of necromancy. Mementos: The outermost layer of the soul, your mementos is your legacy and impact on the world. As long as your memory resides in someone’s heart, your bones are found in the earth, and your name is written in the world, your mementos survives. This part of the soul flakes off and spreads out naturally over time, and is entirely safe to manipulate through magic. Undead fueled by mementos are completely thoughtless and are often found repeating certain actions endlessly regardless of any and all circumstances. Pathos: Your pathos is your echoing emotionality. Any powerful desires you have resonate back and forth through this layer. It is usually shed into the astral sea upon death. Pathos is generally safe to manipulate through magic. Undead fueled by pathos are the most common type of naturally occurring undead. Incorporeal undead usually fall into this category as well. They are typically more powerful and intelligent than mementos-based undead, though their thoughts tend to be simple, instinctual, and anchored to the soul’s emotional state at the moment of death. Logos: Your logos is your echoing knowledge and reason. Your personal memories and thoughts are stored in this layer. It is usually shed into the astral sea upon death. Logos can be safely manipulated through magic, though it does present some challenges in using both safely and ethically. Rummaging through the minds of the dead can undermine privacy rather quickly, after all. Undead fueled by Logos are rare and powerful, and require care to properly control. Logos-based undead often exhibit a startling amount of self-awareness and decision making, though they tend to stagnate when it comes to developing skills they did not acquire in life. Ethos: Your ethos contains both your personality and your personal agency. This is the core of your soul, and what goes on to form experiences in an afterlife. Without the other pieces, your ethos has a difficult time remembering its mortal life, but for nearly all intents and purposes, the ethos is the truest essence of the self. Necromancy that utilizes the ethos includes all forms of resurrection magic. Undead fueled utilizing the ethos are incredibly rare, and may or may not retain a sense of self from life into undeath. Intentionally creating such an undead is an absolutely vile act, as it generally requires generating a large amount of negative energy by inflicting suffering, and it does indeed ensnare the very self and essence of a person to create a conscious and malevolent creature. Ethos-based undead include true vampires, death knights, and all varieties of lich.
..I have also heard of necromantic practitioners that differentiate themselves based on the amount of consent they require from the dead that they use, with Pneumamancy being the practice of beseeching the dead for cooperation and aid, Osseomancy being the use of the body without the soul, and Thanaturgy being the forcing of your own will upon a soul living or dead, which would mean that it also includes magics that we normally categorize as enchantment. I suppose infernal contracts have both an element of consent and force, muddying the waters, but I digress. Regardless of how we classify necromancy going forward, the emotional stigma and standing dismissal of it in the present have no place in worthwhile academia.
I really like the priest of Rathma from Diablo universe, A religious sect of the profane art such as Necromancy to protect the forces of life and death. Probably something in my world i would have and is shrouded in mystery by many.
If death and decay is always frightening to someone, I'd say that's something to work on outside of the game. And I don't buy "necromancy is evil beccause it goes against nature!" By that logic, Fly is an affront to gravity and should be condemned. Necromancy is just about shifting the boundary between life and death, just like enchantment shifts the boundry between minds. "Ressurection and healing is too easy" feels like a completely unrelated question related to prevalence, not means.
I disagree. For each of your descriptions about the risen undead being unwilling I could very easily rewrite it so those souls are willing and eager to cooperate. For every soul you say was dragged out of Paradise, I say there are countless others spared from Perdition. Next, you say necromancy is a perversion of divine order or "playing god", but that's the same rhetoric people said about science and medicine in the dark ages. In fact, I could argue that necromancy is the next evolution of medicine because people have "cured" death itself. I doubt anyone would argue that antibiotics spit in the face of Apollo because "Only the gods should affect life". But let's find a middle ground. I would say that necromancy is unrefined or irresponsible (but not outright evil) because it raises chaotic evil undead. However, I could homebrew that as a tragic side effect that spellcasters haven't figured out a way to prevent because Necromancy is the newest school of magic. Hey, if you're gonna homebrew, so can I. It creates an opportunity for roleplay. For example, the Necromancer feels guilty over knowing that these willing souls will eventually corrupt if he doesn't maintain Animate Dead (R.A.W., when the spell ends, the undead run rampant).
Not necessarily. At lest some people knows what happens after death especially with characters that knows about other plains. Such as Elysium fields, The nine layers of hell etc. Maybe for the common folk they might not know but PCs will. Plus it really depends on how a big apart the gods play in all of this as well? Are they like the Greek gods and always meddling in mortals lives? Or are they like the Christian God that doesn't do shit? What is the culture like do they pass on stories about the past, myths and legends? How well known do they know about the afterlife? And in a game like D&D unless you created your own world that works differently. Gods are known to be real a lot of the time they take an active role in a lot of the hero's story. Odysseus and Athena, Persius and the gods. Etc.
sorry cant call my beloved necromacy evil when enchantment spells Are right over there but my main dnd char Oc is drow who life goal is proving necoamcy can be used for good soo my have bias right here
I too see revivify as more of a defibrillator when the heart stops
Yup agreed. I have houseruled resurrection to be a skill challenge, getting more difficult every time you try it but revivify is fully exempt from that.
I once played a good aligned necromancer who would only raise the evil to allow there soul some form of redemption
Love these “in dark fantasy” videos! Would love to see one on mummies/ desserts it’s a personal favorite genre. But whatever topic you do in the I’m sure I’ll love it too!
Creme Brulee in dark fantasy would indeed be interesting.
In my homebrew system/world, one thing I did with Necromancy, specificially in reanimating the dead and similar spells, was to not only require a Mana cost but also a hit point cost, whether your own or another person. You literally have to pull life from the living to animate the dead. Of course how that could work in 5e is up to 5e DMs.
See that's a setup I like. Yes, you could pay this cost yourself. Which makes those who foist that cost off on others more vile, while opening up the possibility of non-abusive use of the art in question.
But then, I subscribe to the 'Necromancy is a tool.' line of thought for settings I put together that aren't hinging on it working some other way.
Honestly, I find Enchantment (which is basically magical gaslighting, manipulation, and control via the removal of another person's agency) to be the School of Evil (TM) over Necromancy. Flavor or no, Enchanters are far, far worse in my opinion than Necromancers. Necromancers just show their ugly up front, while Enchanters have a killer PR team.
Revivify is for when the patient is only mostly dead
Please don't stop making these videos, they're fantastic inspiration and also clearly word what is so dramatic and moody about dark fantasy without waxing lyrical. Quality stuff
Yes! Thank you for giving me more to use in my dark fantasy game of not d&d. Your descriptions of some of the spell affects are great btw.
One of my players flavored their cleric revivify spell akin to defibrillation, their hands channeling electricity to jumpstart a body back to life
I still run the basic healing spells as necromancy in my games, its not just death magic, it can also be life. It is the power to influence life, death and the space in between
I love these videos. I've been making my own TTRPG and these have been a great inspiration.
Currently running a homebrew setting where Necromancy is actually a vetted and managed school of magic (the campaign is based in a graveyard the size of a small city), and even the act of casting one necromancy spell is punishable by hanging unless the proper procedures are in place. Think FMAB State Alchemist if your an anime fan. It's helping to really emphasize the 'wrongness' of necromancy and has opened up some amazing rp scenarios. Just thought I'd share it as an example of what you can do with Necromancy in a more grounded setting!
That legalistic approach is an intresting one. Like how 'destructive devices' are limited to licenced holders in the USA, or firearms in many nations around the world. Just, you can't put this gun down (Not fully.) because it's something you learned. So by picking it up, you had better be willing to accept that everyone will view you diffrently.
That's the beauty of D&D, you can flavor literally any spell how you want. I still think Enchantment, and charms are FAR harder to justify than reviving a corpse. Unless one could actually show a soul being forced into it. Then they're merely equal.
I would sya that depends on what you use them for. I fyou use them to take advantage of people yes then it's problematic but if you use them to not have to kill someone then it's a very diffrent story.
I love both ideas of necromancy being evil and not being evil. I make a separate category in my games called forbidden magic. These spells are more powerful than traditional magic but have consequences unlike normal spells which I think is better than having any one school being evil... Except maybe enchantment
To keep it interesting, the first thing one must remember is stigma. It doesn't matter if your PC raises corpses every other day, regular people will not get used to that. Their reactions can at least remind the players that what they're doing is not usual and probably not technically even ok.
Also, you have to figure that after a few deaths and revivification/Raises, it would start to impact a person in some way, likely behaviorally and psychologically.
Each death is another brush with trauma that might stick.
Hey Ben if things go wrong in my game Gormadraug is going to return, and i am thinking on the best way to roleplay him.
Like a dragon of immesurable power that could say words understandable to mortals.
Or like a being that goes beyond that, that mere mortals can't even comprehend, such as the great old ones or the aether kindred.
Really like the videos and the one on the beast helped a lot, sooner or later we will be back on the burach empire and i will be able to use what i learned.
Great question! Gormadraug should certainly be an existential threat beyond a mere dragon! Gormadraug may even be the living world! It's up to you to decide what of the Valikan myths are strictly true in your Etharis, but if half their tales bear fruit, an awakening Gormadraug may cause mountains to collapse by merely stirring.
I love these videos thank you, definitely helps me get stuff going on
I would say it depends how it's used when it comes to necromancy. In my campaign that I'm working on, there's only a handful of good witch doctors who do the light side of necromancy which is rare. That is when they asked the spirits if they can come back to help them for a small period of time or if they want to come back to the living if they just died and their body is healed. But the one that's more known and more evil by every sense of the word is the dark side of necromancy where you bend break and warp the soul or a soul to the rise back from the dead or placed into a vessel to be used as seen fit until the necromancer is killed or he releases the soul. But there's a cost to doing necromancer depending how far down the pit you go and if your amateur. If you don't use the right incantations or blood markings on the bodies you use, if the necromancer loses control or the talisman they use to assist them is broken. This bound spirits can turn against their master and kill them before coming reefs who are stuck and bound to the physical plane due to the fact that souls are forced into the body's and cannot pass on properly until the exercise or the bodies destroyed.
You started to touch on the concepts of black, white and grey necromancy. With white necromancy being the one that is more closely akin to the "divine necromancy" that was talked about focusing on healing, bolstering, and only using willing spirits to aid them. While black necromancy is the atypical uber evil necromancy that uses the darkest of magics and forcing/twisting spirits and souls into doing their bidding. Then with grey blends the two ideals, using magics that aren't entirely evil or entirely good and the uses of undead is more varied.
I feel like they should be separate schools entirely. Like have the "Restoration" school, which is all about healing and relieving ailments. Especially since the definition of "Necromancy" has to do with death and decay, not life and growth.
I get that, I also think it's weird that most healing magic also falls under evocation. To me, those would fit better under necromancy/transmutation, or like you suggested, it's own school dedicated.
@@fallenphoenixiv Yeah. I noticed there seem to be a decent number of spells that either, descriptatorily, are in the wrong school, or don't fit in any "pre-constructed" schools. Maybe there needs to be a "Magic Schools Rework" of sorts.
@@fallenphoenixiv Only because they moved healing OUT of Necromancy. (at least in D&D) since at least 3ed, Necromancy was the spell type for healing spells. Then they tried to make it Conjuration, now they're putting it under Evocation, but if Necromancy is best described as 'the manipulation of positive and negative energy' in reference to the planes thereof then healing should be Necromancy.
Well now with the 1dnd UAs, they've been putting them as abjuration. Which I disagree with because it's not preventive magic
My favorite wizard class.
My personal build is a 14 death Cleric and 6 oathbreaker Paladin a holy necromancer and worships warhammer nagash
I find the idea of a culture that views necromancy not just as acceptable but as a sacred way of honoring their dead really fun to think about. Taboos against unmarked graves and leaving a zombie's wounds uncovered. Generations of ancestors performing physical labor and community service for the living. archives not of books, but of venerable dead and guardian spirits waiting to serve as advisors and historians... And then some other culture that views all these practices as evil barbarism slaughtering and oppressing those of this peaceful shamanic culture, leading to delicious conflict and philosophical struggle.
Life Transference is in the necromancy school, and it's the most sacrificial, selfless healing spell in 5e
and I think that's beautiful
also showing video of Ben Affleck in Dogma after his character had just gone on a killing spree while referencing Paladins and Clerics being seen as prophets is very funny
I played a magical professor in a recent campaign, and ended up writing a few... essays... in their character journal. One of them was a paper on Necromantic Apologetics. It's too long to put in one post so it will continue in comments. If anyone enjoys, fantastic. I don't know what else I'd do with it:
"I propose a more nuanced view of the practice and mechanics of the necromantic arts. Frankly, most countries recognize it as little more than a novel diversion from other more established schools of magic. My peers see it as an interesting talking point when discussing metaphysical theory, but shun its practical applications as too dangerous or inappropriate to bother with. This myopic attitude exasperates me to no end, and must be done away with. Tradition dictates that necromancy is inherently immoral because its use supposedly necessitates several sins, which I will now briefly list and refute:
1. Necromancy draws upon malevolent and destructive energies
2. Necromancy is disrespectful of the dead.
3. Necromancy produces dangerous creatures
4. Necromancy enslaves the soul
Counterpoint 1: while negative and necrotic energies can indeed be dangerous, they also have many practical and beneficial uses. Fire is also an inherently destructive force, but we do not call it evil, and its proper management is required for civilization as we know it to exist.
Counterpoint 2: I do not advocate for the use of necromancy on subjects that would not consent to such treatment in life, excepting in rare cases of great need or threat. That said, why do we view necromancy as disrespectful in the first place? In many cases it can actually preserve a body longer than it would last otherwise, and with the soul vacated, utilizing an ancestor’s body should be seen as a great honor to both the subject who gets to provide useful service after passing on, and to their progeny who benefit from a visible and impactful reminder of the past continuing to shape and improve the present.
Counterpoint 3: Conjuration and transmutation pose much greater risks when it comes to producing threatening creatures both inadvertently and intentionally. (I will not even touch upon the sickening ethical violations of the school of enchantment.) Strangely, these schools of magic are practically devoid of stigma, whilst necromancy is lambasted. In addition, failure to teach necromancy properly leaves society ill-equipped to deal with naturally occurring undead as well as self-taught students of the necromantic arts. If it were taught without stigma, it would become common knowledge that properly restraining undead servants is both a prudent and easy way of making them harmless should the necromancer’s control ever temporarily lapse due to any unforeseen problems. Instead, most young hedge-wizards who experiment with necromancy do not even know that such control requires upkeep in the first place, leading to more problems in the long run.
Counterpoint 4: I am convinced that our model of the soul is woefully imprecise for this particular subject. My research on the abilities and behavior of undead both created and naturally occurring lead me to believe that different necromantic practices utilize different parts of the soul and it is thus possible to separate the spells and rituals that do violate the soul from those that do not. Allow me to expound...
The Rell Model of the Soul:
The soul can be visualized, much like a kernel of grain or an onion, as a core surrounded by many layers. Each layer has distinct properties and purposes, and are used in different kinds of necromancy.
Mementos: The outermost layer of the soul, your mementos is your legacy and impact on the world. As long as your memory resides in someone’s heart, your bones are found in the earth, and your name is written in the world, your mementos survives.
This part of the soul flakes off and spreads out naturally over time, and is entirely safe to manipulate through magic.
Undead fueled by mementos are completely thoughtless and are often found repeating certain actions endlessly regardless of any and all circumstances.
Pathos: Your pathos is your echoing emotionality. Any powerful desires you have resonate back and forth through this layer. It is usually shed into the astral sea upon death. Pathos is generally safe to manipulate through magic.
Undead fueled by pathos are the most common type of naturally occurring undead. Incorporeal undead usually fall into this category as well. They are typically more powerful and intelligent than mementos-based undead, though their thoughts tend to be simple, instinctual, and anchored to the soul’s emotional state at the moment of death.
Logos: Your logos is your echoing knowledge and reason. Your personal memories and thoughts are stored in this layer. It is usually shed into the astral sea upon death. Logos can be safely manipulated through magic, though it does present some challenges in using both safely and ethically. Rummaging through the minds of the dead can undermine privacy rather quickly, after all.
Undead fueled by Logos are rare and powerful, and require care to properly control. Logos-based undead often exhibit a startling amount of self-awareness and decision making, though they tend to stagnate when it comes to developing skills they did not acquire in life.
Ethos: Your ethos contains both your personality and your personal agency. This is the core of your soul, and what goes on to form experiences in an afterlife. Without the other pieces, your ethos has a difficult time remembering its mortal life, but for nearly all intents and purposes, the ethos is the truest essence of the self. Necromancy that utilizes the ethos includes all forms of resurrection magic.
Undead fueled utilizing the ethos are incredibly rare, and may or may not retain a sense of self from life into undeath. Intentionally creating such an undead is an absolutely vile act, as it generally requires generating a large amount of negative energy by inflicting suffering, and it does indeed ensnare the very self and essence of a person to create a conscious and malevolent creature. Ethos-based undead include true vampires, death knights, and all varieties of lich.
..I have also heard of necromantic practitioners that differentiate themselves based on the amount of consent they require from the dead that they use, with Pneumamancy being the practice of beseeching the dead for cooperation and aid, Osseomancy being the use of the body without the soul, and Thanaturgy being the forcing of your own will upon a soul living or dead, which would mean that it also includes magics that we normally categorize as enchantment. I suppose infernal contracts have both an element of consent and force, muddying the waters, but I digress. Regardless of how we classify necromancy going forward, the emotional stigma and standing dismissal of it in the present have no place in worthwhile academia.
I really like the priest of Rathma from Diablo universe, A religious sect of the profane art such as Necromancy to protect the forces of life and death.
Probably something in my world i would have and is shrouded in mystery by many.
Great video as always ❤
If death and decay is always frightening to someone, I'd say that's something to work on outside of the game. And I don't buy "necromancy is evil beccause it goes against nature!" By that logic, Fly is an affront to gravity and should be condemned. Necromancy is just about shifting the boundary between life and death, just like enchantment shifts the boundry between minds.
"Ressurection and healing is too easy" feels like a completely unrelated question related to prevalence, not means.
I just make long rests 72 hrs instead of 8. Oh, you brought a zombie along? Into town? It's not going to take orders from you forever.
Personally I like a more lawful netural necromancer fighting good or evil to keep them both in check
I disagree. For each of your descriptions about the risen undead being unwilling I could very easily rewrite it so those souls are willing and eager to cooperate. For every soul you say was dragged out of Paradise, I say there are countless others spared from Perdition.
Next, you say necromancy is a perversion of divine order or "playing god", but that's the same rhetoric people said about science and medicine in the dark ages. In fact, I could argue that necromancy is the next evolution of medicine because people have "cured" death itself. I doubt anyone would argue that antibiotics spit in the face of Apollo because "Only the gods should affect life".
But let's find a middle ground. I would say that necromancy is unrefined or irresponsible (but not outright evil) because it raises chaotic evil undead. However, I could homebrew that as a tragic side effect that spellcasters haven't figured out a way to prevent because Necromancy is the newest school of magic. Hey, if you're gonna homebrew, so can I. It creates an opportunity for roleplay. For example, the Necromancer feels guilty over knowing that these willing souls will eventually corrupt if he doesn't maintain Animate Dead (R.A.W., when the spell ends, the undead run rampant).
IS it me or does he look like like lord gortash from bg3
Not necessarily. At lest some people knows what happens after death especially with characters that knows about other plains. Such as Elysium fields, The nine layers of hell etc.
Maybe for the common folk they might not know but PCs will. Plus it really depends on how a big apart the gods play in all of this as well? Are they like the Greek gods and always meddling in mortals lives? Or are they like the Christian God that doesn't do shit?
What is the culture like do they pass on stories about the past, myths and legends? How well known do they know about the afterlife? And in a game like D&D unless you created your own world that works differently. Gods are known to be real a lot of the time they take an active role in a lot of the hero's story.
Odysseus and Athena, Persius and the gods. Etc.
sorry cant call my beloved necromacy evil when enchantment spells Are right over there
but my main dnd char Oc is drow who life goal is proving necoamcy can be used for good soo my have bias right here
no offense but maybe don't forget necromancy as a school in 5e is all about the control of life force in general
Yet they moved all the healing spells from Necromancy to Evocation