Mummy Dust!

[*Embersworn]

Spell is qualified as "evil" only if it has "evil" in its descriptor. Casting such spell is then considered an evil act and might contribute to the alignment shift towards the evil end of the spectrum.

If a spell has no such descriptor then it being a necromancy spell is just a taxonomical division for the sake of the game mechanics like school bonuses.

Especially important for most of debiliating spells like curses and inflicts who are also on general divine spell lists because they're used for simulating effects like divine curses called upon someone. Which is an action available also for followers of the non-evil deities.

A Deva cleric can smash a sinner with an inflict or a curse as a means of a divine punishment for their wrongdoings without it being counted as an evil act.

[*Artifice]

From the Player's Handbook:

"A cleric casts divine spells (the same type of spells available
to the druid, paladin, and ranger), which are drawn from the
cleric spell list (page 183). However, his alignment may restrict him
from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs;
see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells, below."

" A cleric canÂ’t cast spells
of an alignment opposed to his own or his deityÂ’s (if he has one). For
example, a good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) cannot cast
evil spells. Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated
by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell
descriptions (see Chapter 11: Spells). "

... To chapter 11 to look up random examples of what I listed...

Contagion
Necromancy [Evil]

Create Undead
Necromancy [Evil]

Create Greater Undead
Necromancy [Evil]

Curse Water
Necromancy [Evil]

Death Knell
Necromancy [Death, Evil]

Deathwatch
Necromancy [Evil]

Eyebite
Necromancy [Evil]

Hmm... Well I'm not going to go through hundreds of pages. Suffice to say, the book recommends you only cast spells your deity would actually support you invoking. Of course, DMs are free to interpret the rules however they want. But this is what the book says.

[*Embersworn]

From the Player's Handbook:

"A cleric casts divine spells (the same type of spells available
to the druid, paladin, and ranger), which are drawn from the
cleric spell list (page 183). However, his alignment may restrict him
from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs;
see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells, below."

" A cleric canÂ’t cast spells
of an alignment opposed to his own or his deityÂ’s (if he has one). For
example, a good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) cannot cast
evil spells. Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated
by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell
descriptions (see Chapter 11: Spells). "

... To chapter 11 to look up random examples of what I listed...

Contagion
Necromancy [Evil]

Create Undead
Necromancy [Evil]

Create Greater Undead
Necromancy [Evil]

Curse Water
Necromancy [Evil]

Death Knell
Necromancy [Death, Evil]

Deathwatch
Necromancy [Evil]

Eyebite
Necromancy [Evil]

Hmm... Well I'm not going to go through hundreds of pages. Suffice to say, the book recommends you only cast spells your deity would actually support you invoking. Of course, DMs are free to interpret the rules however they want. But this is what the book says.

And now show me the "evil" descriptor on the Bestow Curse, Poison or Blindness/Deafness or Inflict Wounds.

My point still stands - not all spells classified as the Necromancy school are considered "evil" acts.

The ones who explicitly are considered such are also clearly labeled. And only those.

[*Artifice]

... I'm not arguing with you. I'm posting what the book says. Jeez, calm thy tits.

[*Tomekk]

Using negative energy that causes living tissue to spontaneously decay and rot is fairly malevolent compared to smiting them with divine energy that punishes them for their sins... least that's what I told our PnP cleric when he tried to pull that reasoning. :P

There's a reason why Inflict spells are on the Anti-Paladin/Blackguard spell list, but not on the Paladin list.

[*Artifice]

(But I will say removed from my previous post that it's pretty funny that you'd argue that cursing people, poisoning people or killing people could ever not be evil acts.)

[*Embersworn]

(But I will say removed from my previous post that it's pretty funny that you'd argue that cursing people, poisoning people or killing people could ever not be evil acts.)

D&D is NOT based on a cozy modern liberal mentality.

In this multiverse is perfectly A-ok for the people like angels, priests or paladins to wage a crusade against the evildoers calling all kind of divine punishment upon them in the best Old Testament style.

And it'd be counted as a good act because they're thinning down ranks of the Evil...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3dbd2YyeN0

[*Tomekk]

D&D is NOT based on a cozy modern liberal mentality.

Bringing politics into a Dungeons and Dragons debate is a great way of making your opinion valid. /s

Causing unnecessary suffering is evil, no matter how much you twist the definition. There's nothing heroic, valiant or moral in poisoning, cursing, or permanently crippling your opponents; which is why almost all Good abilities boil down to pure damage that can end a confrontation quickly or painless effects like losing a sense or two.

The whole point of Good is that you're trying to be better than Evil, and sinking down to your enemy's level by employing their vile methods is not something any character you just listed would do.

[*Embersworn]

D&D is NOT based on a cozy modern liberal mentality.

Bringing politics into a Dungeons and Dragons debate is a great way of making your opinion valid. /s

You're the one doing it right now.

Curses and inflicts are on spell lists and not marked as "evil" so followers of Powers have mechanical means of raising holy symbols of their faith and shocking the heathens with might of their deities without having to always resort to outright kill which is causing by far less suffering than driving a good length of steel through the someone's chest.

That a priest is calling Blindness/Deafness upon someone doesn't even mean that they're using actual necromancy or drawing upon the Negative Plane because the school descriptor doesn't even apply to Divine spells.
It's there only because all spell descriptions are made to work with more than one class or spell list without having to print the same spell for two classes but the second time without the spell school listed.

And it's a perfectly valid point that D&D cosmology wasn't written with any relativism in mind and instead with ideas like "good" and "evil" being tangible absolutes there.


This was once linked on this forum but I think it might need being repeated that the way the alignments system was created didn't even include any notion of Good being merciful:

http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.nl/2013 ... gygax.html

...merely being the opposite of the Evil.


And with this kind of mindset making someone temporarily sickened and unable to do anything but to recoil in fear is actually a show of mercy, because the alternative is to smite them for the smallest transgression until there's left nothing but their corpse.

[*Mezzy]

I find divination more potential for creepy evil than most necromancer has ever maniged.