Necromancy

[Wensleydale]

...the best way to become a better Necromancer ...

Basic Necromancy,
Chapter One: Correct Use of Shovel. :D

Go T.P.!

[Malagigi]

To me necromancy is the magic of life, death, and undeath. While the stereotypical necromancer would spend his or her time animating the dead either for perverse pleasure or as the first step for building an unholy army of the living and the dead. This need not be true for all practitioners of the necromantic sciences. A necromancer could for instance use his or her knowledge and talents to heal or perform genetic mutations, while a more classical necromancer could use his or her gift to contact spirits of the dead through their corpses.

[Malagigi]

Does every one else think my ideas about necromancy are stupid? If so, please say it. I at least want to know if it's in any way a bad idea.

[the_taken]

Does every one else think my ideas about necromancy are stupid? If so, please say it. I at least want to know if it's in any way a bad idea.

It's not that your idea is bad. It's that somebody won't agree with it. Obviously, WotC thinks life magic should be conjuration.

In my world view, necromancers can heal wounds, create wounds without injury, raise the dead back to life, animate corpses as mindless minions, create vampires, cause plagues, and push your soul right across the viel with a touch.

[Velox]

To me necromancy is the magic of life, death, and undeath. While the stereotypical necromancer would spend his or her time animating the dead either for perverse pleasure or as the first step for building an unholy army of the living and the dead. This need not be true for all practitioners of the necromantic sciences. A necromancer could for instance use his or her knowledge and talents to heal or perform genetic mutations, while a more classical necromancer could use his or her gift to contact spirits of the dead through their corpses.

I think those are effing awesome ideas of necromancy. I thought it was a crime when they delegated healing to "conjuration" in 3.5, and made necromancy the catch-all "evil" school of magic.

I've always loved the idea of necromancy as simply being the supernatural mastery of anatomy, physiology, biology, those unknown and mysterious life-forces (that "divine spark") and the general control over life; including the shaping, changing, creation, destruction, and reanimation thereof.

Technically, the term means "dead divination" (The word derives from the Greek necros "dead" and manteia "divination" -Wikipedia). Talking to dead people is very cool, but I'm sure it gets old after awhile. Those dead guys have got to be some real whiners, or a real bore, depending on whether they accept the whole "being dead" thing or not.

I really like the idea of creepy necromantic pseudo-science genetic manipulation. Opens up a whole new can of worms to make an unholy army out of. I'm sure there are alot of other cool applications for it, but that's the first that comes to mind.

@ the_Taken_CreepyWeird_Avatar
I generally go with the vaunted and vaulted Pinnacle Deadlands mindset (which was inspired by other cool sources, I'm sure), in that dead things generally have some vague recollection of what they knew in life. It makes the raising of your own little Marine Corpse a greater challenge and more fun. If you want good zombies, gotta start with good humans. Garbage in, slackjaw romero-reject rotten apple out. Badass in, Doom-style chaingun-blazin kommando-korpse out.

[Stargate525]

Never really been impressed with dnd necros. I've had a lot of fun with them in other games, though. Especially the core spells--they're just kinda "blah" to me. Touch some one and hurt them? Man, i expect whirling cages of possessed bone to entrap and demoralize enemies from my necromancy. And screaming. lots of screaming.

hey, everything that doesn't tell you how the spell operates mechanically is pure flavor, and open to changing. Hell, I remember a character (an evoker) that made his fireballs purple and look like a flamethrower hiccup.

[Wensleydale]

Meh. I think that, personally, necromancy should be a lot less evil than it is. Healing should be a necromantic spell subschool, and we should have some more beneficial spells... and less evil names, too.

[Velox]

Certainly so. Necromancy and magic and such is like a tool, and tools can be used for good, evil, gain, whatever. It's up to the weilder to determine the morals.

[Wensleydale]

Mmm. I personally would like the name 'False Life' to be replaced by something slightly less evil. Necromancy isn't necessarily evil anyway - it's just creating constructs using bodies. If creating a flesh golem ain't evil, neither is creating skeletons or zombies.

[Stargate525]

Mmm. I personally would like the name 'False Life' to be replaced by something slightly less evil. Necromancy isn't necessarily evil anyway - it's just creating constructs using bodies. If creating a flesh golem ain't evil, neither is creating skeletons or zombies.

Depends on what you're using to power them. If you're binding the former owner's soul into the thing, I'd have to call that evil.

[Polycarp]

I would guess the golem-undead distinction would have more to do with negative energy than anything else.  Apparently negative energy = bad.

I'm not really sure how the present edition deals with the morality of golems; in my own campaign they're almost as reprehensible as undead because of the aforementioned soul binding, keeping someone from passing on to the next life.

I like the name of False Life.  I don't think "false" has evil connotations, it's just a semblance of life that isn't life in the way that a cleric's positive energy healing is.  It can sound a little creepy and still not be evil.

[the_taken]

Random link to necromancy
A good read for those with the time. It explains the why the rules of Dnd are a little messed up and how to correct them.