Stay off the lead there, you might be proving your own theory.

Quote from: Will;793542Dragoner, are you ever going to acknowledge all the examples of real world belief systems with 'good' necromancy?

I just consulted the Magic 8-Ball and it told me:

QuoteOutlook not so good

Magic eight ball rocks.

Just got an idea for a 5e trinket.

And hey, d20!

Looking at wikipedia, amusingly, Magic 8-Ball originates from a spirit medium device... so it's on topic!

Talking D&D here...

I think there's a definite difference between "animated corpse" and "Undead".  A cleric of a good deity can't turn a sword animated with Animate Object, or a Golem, or an Elemental.  They can, however, Turn or Destroy Undead.

So when you say you animate something, what are you animating it with?  Talking to spirits of the dead isn't necessarily evil, nor is animating an object through some form of telekinesis or force that just happens to be bone.  However, creating Undead, is imparting some form of anti-life energy or evil spirit into a skeleton or body that, without direct control, will seek out and destroy life.  That's Evil.  Learning spells to undo or destroy Undead or prevent Undeath is not Evil, even if the spells are necromantic in nature.

YD&DMV

Quote from: dragoner;793541You could make a case for evil being used for good, or whatever; however rigid absolutes, I don't know. There is absolution, as well as neutrality, it is sort of playing with a hand grenade, eventually something bad is going to happen. However, in my idea for Kochi, 1503; the Portuguese conquerors are lawful evil, and they would utterly hate necromancers. One would hope there isn't good vs good, but evil has no onus not to be against itself.

Well, it is setting specific.  
One can create a setting where, as I said, only those who can affect the spirits of the dead can aid their journey.  So it is a good act in that one liberates the souls and lets them go where their god waits for them.

If Necromancy is evil, someone better inform the Pope. There are a number of passages in the Old and New Testament which speaks to God and Jesus resurrecting corpses from their tombs.

http://proecclesia.net/2013/10/30/zombies-bible/

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;793636If Necromancy is evil, someone better inform the Pope. There are a number of passages in the Old and New Testament which speaks to God and Jesus resurrecting corpses from their tombs.

   This is why defining terms and premises can be so important. From my point of view, there's a radical difference between raising the dead and animating corpses, related to the nature of the energizing power, the relationship between body and soul, and the proper treatment of the human body even after the soul has departed. But if you're a modern, 'it's all just meat' materialist, or a postmodern 'it's all what I say it is' relativist, those differences become trivial.

Armchair Gamer:
I agree, but would also add the method and position those involved have are important factors, too.

A priest enjoining the souls of village warriors to arise and defend their descendents is rather different than someone knifing an orphan and zapping it back to life so he can have cheap labor for his mine.

Quote from: LordVreeg;793625Well, it is setting specific.  
One can create a setting where, as I said, only those who can affect the spirits of the dead can aid their journey.  So it is a good act in that one liberates the souls and lets them go where their god waits for them.

You could create a setting where evil is good or whatever, ultimately that's fine, beyond all the reductio ad absurdum arguments about bringing things like the Pope into it or something. The reality check isn't a Ouija board, it is the idea of desecrating graves to perform "magic", which is an agreed upon "evil" according to society, to raising undead monsters, fantasy-wise; which would still fall under "evil".

Or you treat it like other actions, whereas 'create water' is good if you are giving an orphan drinking water and evil if you are using it to drown one.

Additional source for a good necromancer: Garth Nix's Sabriel (and several related books); the Abhorsen is a necromancer opposing various evil necromancers and undead.  (But, aside from the Abhorsen's heir/apprentice/successor, all the other necromancers are indeed evil.)

Undertakers in the real world do lots of things I would be too squeamish to watch, let alone do, but the net result is to help people deal with death, which is by itself good.  Fighters and thieves aren't always evil, despite their tendency to resort to violence and theft.

Quote from: Will;793542Dragoner, are you ever going to acknowledge all the examples of real world belief systems with 'good' necromancy?

In case you missed it by now. Dragoner is tolling. Rather pathetically too.

A discusses Necromancy in a game world.
D: Real world necromancy is EVIL! Fantasy necromancy cannot be good.
A: We arent talking about real world necromancy.
D: Real world necromancy is EVIL! Fantasy necromancy cannot be good.
A: Ok but theres examples of real world good necromancy.
D: That example doesnt count.
A: Heres another example.
D: That example doesnt count.
A resumes talking about fantasy necromancy.
D: Real world necromancy is EVIL! Fantasy necromancy cannot be good.

etc ad stupidium.

Quote from: Will;793655Or you treat it like other actions, whereas 'create water' is good if you are giving an orphan drinking water and evil if you are using it to drown one.

puts on Dragoner mask.

"Real world create water is good! Fantasy create water cannot be evil!"

See what I said about moral relativism, dumb asses. "Tolling", ha! exact change please.

Quote from: Omega;793729etc ad stupidium.

You called yourselves this not I, however; it is fitting. It is descriptive of what you are asking, eg for me to repeat myself.