Required alignments and classes

[Ectoplasmic Bidet]

I don't see why a Necromancer absolutely has to be of an evil or selfish alignment. They certainly aren't the most wholesome of magic classes and their powers are gruesome and open to villain-esque exploitation, but they can be played without making evil or self-serving choices.

They're not like, let's say Harvesters from the Psyscape WB, who ritually consume the souls of their victims with the specific end goal of allowing a monstrously powerful alien intelligence to return to Earth. That's unquestionably evil. As you pointed out, however, a Necromancer is only as evil as the choices he makes.

There is a cultural component to this, though. In the vast majority of societies, someone simply isn't going to go the route of the Necromancer if they aren't inherently evil. There are too many taboos attached to death, dying, and the corpses of the dead. It would certainly make for an interesting character background and roleplaying experience to start from the ground up with a good Necromancer.

EDIT: Wow, I've gotta stop making posts right after I wake up...

Various corrections made.

[Icefalcon]

While I believe it is possible to make a good necromancer there are restrictions to this. First of all, if the character started out evil and using all of the "evil" spells or at least the ones of questionable morality, the best he could become later in life is selfish. Here is why. He already has experience using what is termed "black magic". It has stained his soul. It takes a very long time to remove this taint of darkness. Also, using dark magic is like a drug. Once you have used it, you are going to want to use it again when a situation gets difficult (like in the example of raising the brute to walk to the Priest or having the dead dig their own graves).

Second, you can only remain good if you refuse to use those spells of questionable morality. Incedently, the selfish necromancer can become good by refusing to touch those spells again. A good necromancer would use their spells in such a way as to help those around them. Imagine the horror of a good necromancer happening upon the scene of a huge battle and he tries to help out by having the dead dig their own graves. The townspeople are going to be horrified at this disrespect of their loved ones. A truly good character will not willingly do things like that.

To keep things simple, I would say that they can either never again touch their necromancer powers or they can be of no higher than a selfish alignment.

[Ectoplasmic Bidet]

While I believe it is possible to make a good necromancer there are restrictions to this. First of all, if the character started out evil and using all of the "evil" spells or at least the ones of questionable morality, the best he could become later in life is selfish. Here is why. He already has experience using what is termed "black magic". It has stained his soul. It takes a very long time to remove this taint of darkness. Also, using dark magic is like a drug. Once you have used it, you are going to want to use it again when a situation gets difficult (like in the example of raising the brute to walk to the Priest or having the dead dig their own graves).

If any of this has ever been said in any Palladium product, I don't own that book.

[Snow Hawk]

I say go ahead. Most magic is like any weapon it is all in how you use it that makes it "good" or "evil ".

[Icefalcon]

While I believe it is possible to make a good necromancer there are restrictions to this. First of all, if the character started out evil and using all of the "evil" spells or at least the ones of questionable morality, the best he could become later in life is selfish. Here is why. He already has experience using what is termed "black magic". It has stained his soul. It takes a very long time to remove this taint of darkness. Also, using dark magic is like a drug. Once you have used it, you are going to want to use it again when a situation gets difficult (like in the example of raising the brute to walk to the Priest or having the dead dig their own graves).

If any of this has ever been said in any Palladium product, I don't own that book.

It has not been said in any book. It is extrapolated from multiple game systems, thousands of novels and a working knowledge of social acceptability.

[Icefalcon]

I say go ahead. Most magic is like any weapon it is all in how you use it that makes it "good" or "evil ".

There is no "good" use of turning a corpse into an undead.

[Nightmask]

I say go ahead. Most magic is like any weapon it is all in how you use it that makes it "good" or "evil ".

There is no "good" use of turning a corpse into an undead.

Not even when you're using the animated skeleton or zombie as decoys and weapons so that the people who are still alive have a better chance of staying that way? Given we have a thing about harvesting corpses for parts to use to help other people it's hardly a big stretch to consider animating it and letting it 'die' so still living people can live to be acceptable.

Sorry but I just don't buy the 'it must be evil and can't ever be a good use' argument you're tossing out against the neutral or good possibilities. Especially if the deceased was someone who was okay with his body being used to help others after he was dead (by causes other than them intentionally killing him of course). You get to do one last good thing for the people you cared about.

[Killer Cyborg]

Okay, take a necromancer. Required evil character. Let's say he get's to level 7 and something big changes in his life. He reforms. He's now a good character.

So two questions:

Can he continue to gain necromancer levels?

No. He no longer fulfills the requirements of the class.

Can he continue to use necromancy?

Possibly... but he'd have to pick and choose which spells/powers he used, and how he used them.
This would be subject to the GM's interpretation of in-game morality.

[Icefalcon]

I say go ahead. Most magic is like any weapon it is all in how you use it that makes it "good" or "evil ".

There is no "good" use of turning a corpse into an undead.

Not even when you're using the animated skeleton or zombie as decoys and weapons so that the people who are still alive have a better chance of staying that way? Given we have a thing about harvesting corpses for parts to use to help other people it's hardly a big stretch to consider animating it and letting it 'die' so still living people can live to be acceptable.

Sorry but I just don't buy the 'it must be evil and can't ever be a good use' argument you're tossing out against the neutral or good possibilities. Especially if the deceased was someone who was okay with his body being used to help others after he was dead (by causes other than them intentionally killing him of course). You get to do one last good thing for the people you cared about.

This is seriously flawed logic. Are you going to be happy if I raise your mother from her grave to use as I wish, no matter that I am using her for a "noble" purpose such as fighting for me to keep my friends alive?

[Nightmask]

I say go ahead. Most magic is like any weapon it is all in how you use it that makes it "good" or "evil ".

There is no "good" use of turning a corpse into an undead.

Not even when you're using the animated skeleton or zombie as decoys and weapons so that the people who are still alive have a better chance of staying that way? Given we have a thing about harvesting corpses for parts to use to help other people it's hardly a big stretch to consider animating it and letting it 'die' so still living people can live to be acceptable.

Sorry but I just don't buy the 'it must be evil and can't ever be a good use' argument you're tossing out against the neutral or good possibilities. Especially if the deceased was someone who was okay with his body being used to help others after he was dead (by causes other than them intentionally killing him of course). You get to do one last good thing for the people you cared about.

This is seriously flawed logic. Are you going to be happy if I raise your mother from her grave to use as I wish, no matter that I am using her for a "noble" purpose such as fighting for me to keep my friends alive?

What does happy or sad or outraged over it have to do with whether or not it constitutes a use of necromancy for good? The seriously flawed logic is on your end as you're mixing issues up. Whether or not a loved one or friend has problems with it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it's a good thing you've done, motivations and intent are. You animate (not raise because raising means brought back to life) my mother's corpse to torment me you're engaging in an evil act, you animate her to hold off monsters so lives are saved that's a good act. She's not going to care either way because her soul's long gone and all you're messing with is the discarded house.

[Killer Cyborg]

Whether or not a loved one or friend has problems with it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it's a good thing you've done, motivations and intent are.

How do you figure?

[Nightmask]

Whether or not a loved one or friend has problems with it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it's a good thing you've done, motivations and intent are.

How do you figure?

Because as I already stated why you're doing it determines the good or evil nature of the animation. 'Oh hey I'd much rather you die than use the animated corpse of my mother which is just going to lay in the ground rotting away to dust anyway' hardly sounds like a 'good' attitude to be having. Sorry but I really don't see 'yeah it's much better you die than her already dead body be used to save you' as a good attitude to have, wanting to sacrifice living people to keep a dead one intact a while longer.

[camk4evr]

Okay, take a necromancer. Required evil character. Let's say he get's to level 7 and something big changes in his life. He reforms. He's now a good character.

So two questions:

Can he continue to gain necromancer levels?

Can he continue to use necromancy?

-Pax

I'm going to say yes to both questions. It'll be a rare necromancer that reforms and it'd be very easy to revert to old ways (the GM should determine what actions and spells the necromancer shouldn't do) but I think it'd make for an interesting idea and character concept.

BTW. The AD&D 2nd ed. Complete Necromancer handbook had at least one good Necromancer Kit, which, if you can find the book, should give some ideas that can be adapted to Rifts.

[Killer Cyborg]

Whether or not a loved one or friend has problems with it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it's a good thing you've done, motivations and intent are.

How do you figure?

Because as I already stated why you're doing it determines the good or evil nature of the animation.

That's the part I was asking about.
Restating the claim is not an explanation for the claim, nor support for the claim.

'Oh hey I'd much rather you die than use the animated corpse of my mother which is just going to lay in the ground rotting away to dust anyway' hardly sounds like a 'good' attitude to be having.

Sounds like an implausible either/or scenario.
Even going with that scenario, that doesn't mean that there is a non-evil solution.

[Snow Hawk]

I would just like to say that the people's likes and dislikes do not determine what is "good" or "evil"
Is a gun "evil" just because a bunch of people don't like them and think that guns kill?

[Icefalcon]

Is is against the social mores of a society to do anything with the dead than to dispose of them (cremation, burial, whatever). When you start breaking social taboos, such as raising the dead from their grave, it is evil. You are animating a corpse through dark magic. No matter how much you try to rationalize it, you are still doing an evil thing, no matter why you are doing. It does not make it right. You raise a corpse, no matter the corpse or where, and people are going to kill you. End of story.

Trying to explain why it is a good thing just proves that you shouldn't be doing it.

As for the soul of the departed being gone and at peace, what makes you so sure that that is the case? Part of the soul may be called back as the animating force that drives the undead. Yes, the corpse is controlled by the necromancer as a puppet but what is to say the soul of the person is not harmed in the process.

And before you say it is not dark magic, EVERY game I have ever played, EVERY book I have ever read, EVERY movie I have ever watched says that is an evil thing to raise the dead.

[Nightmask]

Is is against the social mores of a society to do anything with the dead than to dispose of them (cremation, burial, whatever). When you start breaking social taboos, such as raising the dead from their grave, it is evil. You are animating a corpse through dark magic. No matter how much you try to rationalize it, you are still doing an evil thing, no matter why you are doing. It does not make it right. You raise a corpse, no matter the corpse or where, and people are going to kill you. End of story.

Trying to explain why it is a good thing just proves that you shouldn't be doing it.

As for the soul of the departed being gone and at peace, what makes you so sure that that is the case? Part of the soul may be called back as the animating force that drives the undead. Yes, the corpse is controlled by the necromancer as a puppet but what is to say the soul of the person is not harmed in the process.

And before you say it is not dark magic, EVERY game I have ever played, EVERY book I have ever read, EVERY movie I have ever watched says that is an evil thing to raise the dead.

Sorry but no, explaining why it isn't inherently evil is not proof that it is. By that logic your efforts to prove it inherently evil actually proves it not to be. It's inherently fallacious logic based on the notion that your position (and that's a generic use of that) is beyond reproach and needs no defense and anyone saying otherwise must be wrong and proves you right. No position is inherently beyond reproach, every position requires someone on its side to defend it (or try to) if someone decides to question it.

You've also clearly not read the Xanth novels by Piers Anthony, there's a character whose sole power is Zombie Animation. Not only is he not evil but he's actually a good guy who's just misunderstood and at least once used his powers to raise up a zombie army to help fight off a murderous horde that was invading the land.

No matter how much you rationalize and insist it to be inherently evil it just isn't. Insisting that breaking taboos means you're evil is also just silly. Were all those mixed race couples in the 50s and 60s evil then? By your statement they were evil because they broke social taboos against the races mixing (unless the minority was a rape victim, rape was just fine). Obviously that's just silly to make such a claim.

You're also a bit off there regarding social taboos regarding corpses as we consider it acceptable to harvest them for materials to help living people as I already pointed out. During WWII a corpse was dressed up, packed with fake documents regarding the war effort, and tossed into the ocean so it would be found by the Germans and help derail their war effort (it worked too). Obviously it was considered acceptable to use his corpse picked at random in order to help save lives and there's no difference between that and animating a corpse to test for land mines or draw enemy fire while civilians evacuate.

EDIT:
Left off Dominic Deegan, the webcomic makes it clear that there are good Necromancers. The mage who came up with the field of Necromancy is shown being someone who loves life (although the weight of centuries has left him unable to show it much anymore) and spends his time in part preventing the abuse of Necromancy by evil Necromancers and preserving life not taking it. He's clearly using Necromancy for the good of the living, because 'Dark is not Evil'. Necromancy is most often depicted that way because of humanity's fear of death and it makes for an easy strawman villain showing the evil mage raising up zombies to harm the living rather than showing an heroic Necromancer going around bravely defending the living.

[wakiza]

Some serious rationalization going on here! If I was his GM, good luck on staying good if you continue to use a majority of the character's necromatic abilities and spells. Using these abilities to fight evil does not make what he is doing good. He is fighting evil with evil! I'm not saying he couldn't stay good and use some of his necromancy, but it would likely lead him back down the evil path (Cue the random insanity rolls).

-Using bodies for medical research without prior permission of the deceased or the next of kin - jail time and lawsuits
-screwing up body handling procedures prior to burial or cremation - lawsuits and potential jailtime
-harvesting organs from the dead to save lives without prior permission of the deceased or the next of kin - jail time and lawsuits

Hmm, what would happen if you raise the dead and use that zombie for your own purpose without prior permission of the deceased or the next of kin?

Please don't compare necromancy to race mixing. That situation included two consenting adults, so who cares what others thought, there is no consent involved in raising the dead! (Couldn't even write that with a straight face)

[Nightmask]

Some serious rationalization going on here! If I was his GM, good luck on staying good if you continue to use a majority of the character's necromatic abilities and spells. Using these abilities to fight evil does not make what he is doing good. He is fighting evil with evil! I'm not saying he couldn't stay good and use some of his necromancy, but it would likely lead him back down the evil path (Cue the random insanity rolls).

-Using bodies for medical research without prior permission of the deceased or the next of kin - jail time and lawsuits
-screwing up body handling procedures prior to burial or cremation - lawsuits and potential jailtime
-harvesting organs from the dead to save lives without prior permission of the deceased or the next of kin - jail time and lawsuits

Hmm, what would happen if you raise the dead and use that zombie for your own purpose without prior permission of the deceased or the next of kin?

Please don't compare necromancy to race mixing. That situation included two consenting adults, so who cares what others thought, there is no consent involved in raising the dead! (Couldn't even write that with a straight face)

There isn't any rationalizing going on, well other than to cling to the 'Necromancy is inherently evil' position. You also seem to be suggesting that current US views on dealing with corpses is somehow still the only way people see things centuries later which really isn't supported by the game material. Especially the 'gee I'm gonna sue you and send you to jail for that'. There are no central bodies enforcing any kind of views on anything except the idea of Credits (not surprising that, if people are going to make sure of anything it's their money).

I'm not comparing Necromancy to Race Mixing, I'm pointing out that the claim that breaking social taboos is evil is simply without merit. Interracial marriage was a major taboo, considerably larger than how you deal with corpses (remember it wasn't that many decades ago that the authorities would parade the corpses of criminals around for the amusement of the public and many people ran around making money off the corpses of dead people in various shows), yet most decidedly not evil like was blanket claimed. Exposing an ankle in Victorian days was a shockingly taboo thing yet a lady was hardly evil if she showed her ankle, and so on.

You're really just making it out that how you think corpses should be treated is the only right way and all other ways wrong/evil which just isn't so. We consider cannibalism sick/evil yet some societies had it as something socially acceptable, where you gained the strengths of someone you admired by consuming them and it an insult to be buried because you were found of no value and worthless.

So you can rationalize all you want but Necromancy isn't the inherently evil thing you want to insist it is because of your views regarding death, because again evil is based in actions and intent not some spell. Again, there is nothing inherently evil about animating a corpse, WHY you animated it determines if it was evil or not. If you want to insist that better hundreds die than one corpse be animated, raising the value of a DEAD person to be worth any number of LIVING people, you're free to do so but you're rationalizing a far more evil act as somehow being a-okay as long as a dead body is treated with what you think is the respect it's due. Corpses aren't due respect, living breathing people are. You don't go out of your way to abuse one out of respect to those who cared about it when it was alive but dead it's due nothing. Certainly a corpse should never be treated as more important than actual living people, especially when it could be used to save lives.

[Johnathan]

Is is against the social mores of a society to do anything with the dead than to dispose of them (cremation, burial, whatever). When you start breaking social taboos, such as raising the dead from their grave, it is evil. You are animating a corpse through dark magic. No matter how much you try to rationalize it, you are still doing an evil thing, no matter why you are doing. It does not make it right. You raise a corpse, no matter the corpse or where, and people are going to kill you. End of story.

Trying to explain why it is a good thing just proves that you shouldn't be doing it.

As for the soul of the departed being gone and at peace, what makes you so sure that that is the case? Part of the soul may be called back as the animating force that drives the undead. Yes, the corpse is controlled by the necromancer as a puppet but what is to say the soul of the person is not harmed in the process.

And before you say it is not dark magic, EVERY game I have ever played, EVERY book I have ever read, EVERY movie I have ever watched says that is an evil thing to raise the dead.

Sorry but no, explaining why it isn't inherently evil is not proof that it is. By that logic your efforts to prove it inherently evil actually proves it not to be. It's inherently fallacious logic based on the notion that your position (and that's a generic use of that) is beyond reproach and needs no defense and anyone saying otherwise must be wrong and proves you right. No position is inherently beyond reproach, every position requires someone on its side to defend it (or try to) if someone decides to question it.

You've also clearly not read the Xanth novels by Piers Anthony, there's a character whose sole power is Zombie Animation. Not only is he not evil but he's actually a good guy who's just misunderstood and at least once used his powers to raise up a zombie army to help fight off a murderous horde that was invading the land.

No matter how much you rationalize and insist it to be inherently evil it just isn't. Insisting that breaking taboos means you're evil is also just silly. Were all those mixed race couples in the 50s and 60s evil then? By your statement they were evil because they broke social taboos against the races mixing (unless the minority was a rape victim, rape was just fine). Obviously that's just silly to make such a claim.

You're also a bit off there regarding social taboos regarding corpses as we consider it acceptable to harvest them for materials to help living people as I already pointed out. During WWII a corpse was dressed up, packed with fake documents regarding the war effort, and tossed into the ocean so it would be found by the Germans and help derail their war effort (it worked too). Obviously it was considered acceptable to use his corpse picked at random in order to help save lives and there's no difference between that and animating a corpse to test for land mines or draw enemy fire while civilians evacuate.

EDIT:
Left off Dominic Deegan, the webcomic makes it clear that there are good Necromancers. The mage who came up with the field of Necromancy is shown being someone who loves life (although the weight of centuries has left him unable to show it much anymore) and spends his time in part preventing the abuse of Necromancy by evil Necromancers and preserving life not taking it. He's clearly using Necromancy for the good of the living, because 'Dark is not Evil'. Necromancy is most often depicted that way because of humanity's fear of death and it makes for an easy strawman villain showing the evil mage raising up zombies to harm the living rather than showing an heroic Necromancer going around bravely defending the living.

I'd like to add a small nugget of information onto this. The Necroscope series is another interesting series to read in regards to Necromancy, The Dead and The Undead.

[flatline]

Some cultures eat their loved ones when they die to show their love and respect.

No act is inherently evil.

--flatline

[Nightmask]

Is is against the social mores of a society to do anything with the dead than to dispose of them (cremation, burial, whatever). When you start breaking social taboos, such as raising the dead from their grave, it is evil. You are animating a corpse through dark magic. No matter how much you try to rationalize it, you are still doing an evil thing, no matter why you are doing. It does not make it right. You raise a corpse, no matter the corpse or where, and people are going to kill you. End of story.

Trying to explain why it is a good thing just proves that you shouldn't be doing it.

As for the soul of the departed being gone and at peace, what makes you so sure that that is the case? Part of the soul may be called back as the animating force that drives the undead. Yes, the corpse is controlled by the necromancer as a puppet but what is to say the soul of the person is not harmed in the process.

And before you say it is not dark magic, EVERY game I have ever played, EVERY book I have ever read, EVERY movie I have ever watched says that is an evil thing to raise the dead.

Sorry but no, explaining why it isn't inherently evil is not proof that it is. By that logic your efforts to prove it inherently evil actually proves it not to be. It's inherently fallacious logic based on the notion that your position (and that's a generic use of that) is beyond reproach and needs no defense and anyone saying otherwise must be wrong and proves you right. No position is inherently beyond reproach, every position requires someone on its side to defend it (or try to) if someone decides to question it.

You've also clearly not read the Xanth novels by Piers Anthony, there's a character whose sole power is Zombie Animation. Not only is he not evil but he's actually a good guy who's just misunderstood and at least once used his powers to raise up a zombie army to help fight off a murderous horde that was invading the land.

No matter how much you rationalize and insist it to be inherently evil it just isn't. Insisting that breaking taboos means you're evil is also just silly. Were all those mixed race couples in the 50s and 60s evil then? By your statement they were evil because they broke social taboos against the races mixing (unless the minority was a rape victim, rape was just fine). Obviously that's just silly to make such a claim.

You're also a bit off there regarding social taboos regarding corpses as we consider it acceptable to harvest them for materials to help living people as I already pointed out. During WWII a corpse was dressed up, packed with fake documents regarding the war effort, and tossed into the ocean so it would be found by the Germans and help derail their war effort (it worked too). Obviously it was considered acceptable to use his corpse picked at random in order to help save lives and there's no difference between that and animating a corpse to test for land mines or draw enemy fire while civilians evacuate.

EDIT:
Left off Dominic Deegan, the webcomic makes it clear that there are good Necromancers. The mage who came up with the field of Necromancy is shown being someone who loves life (although the weight of centuries has left him unable to show it much anymore) and spends his time in part preventing the abuse of Necromancy by evil Necromancers and preserving life not taking it. He's clearly using Necromancy for the good of the living, because 'Dark is not Evil'. Necromancy is most often depicted that way because of humanity's fear of death and it makes for an easy strawman villain showing the evil mage raising up zombies to harm the living rather than showing an heroic Necromancer going around bravely defending the living.

I'd like to add a small nugget of information onto this. The Necroscope series is another interesting series to read in regards to Necromancy, The Dead and The Undead.

Interesting, looking at the wiki it's a setting that apparently has the sorts who are 'good' necromancers called Necroscopes who deplore the others who engage in evil abuses of the dead such as their torture. Not too different than what Good necromancers do in Dominic Deegan, as they help the living communicate with their lost loved ones and do things like proper burials. It's only the evil ones who go around torturing, desecrating graves, and the like to gain knowledge or power.

[Icefalcon]

I guess will have to just disagree on the subject. To my mind, raising the dead for any reason is an evil act. Nothing you try to explain or try to rationalize is going to change that perception.

[nilgravity]

Assuming this is a legitimate life changing event I would allow the character to TRY and be good. Maybe come up with a Redemption skill (sort of like humanity in Vampire). That said a necromancer is an extreme example because of the forces they are playing with. It'd be like a former drug user hanging out with their addict friends. I've heard that all voodoo priest are catholic and that some of them are known to put up wards against violence in crime ridden neighborhoods.
So theoretically I could see a sect in Rifts that has a different outlook than the rests. Especially if you have something crazy like an alien voodoo priest or a mutant from Madhaven. I could see them approaching it more like a shaman or see animating remains the same way we see organ donations and such.

But there is another factor. Necromancers are connected to the Horseman Death. So a necromancer that is good is going to be attracting the wrong kind of attention (which is any) from Death.


I hope that wasn't too random

[Nightmask]

I guess will have to just disagree on the subject. To my mind, raising the dead for any reason is an evil act. Nothing you try to explain or try to rationalize is going to change that perception.

You've an odd idea of evil if that's your position. That saving lives is an evil act if you animate a corpse to do so. Sorry but the only rationalizing goes on your end to insist on that position. Because again you aren't raising the dead, you're just animating a corpse, the dead person's still dead and they aren't going to care or if anything will be glad that even dead they were able to save lives.

[Galroth]

I never liked the idea of Necromancers as inherently evil. The only inherently evil act in necromancy would involve binding a deceased's soul to it's rotting body against it's will and then enslaving it. What you do with inanimate remains after the soul has fled is only evil if you do so for an evil reason or commit an evil act with the reanimated corpses. Humans like to think their remains are special because they like to think humans are special. It's only a small minority of people who extend those same consideration to other animals.

[Killer Cyborg]

Again, there is nothing inherently evil about animating a corpse, WHY you animated it determines if it was evil or not.

That depends on the setting.
Since the Necroscope setting has been mentioned, I'll use that as an example.
The main character, the necroscope, talked to the dead. He'd communicate with them. That was his power.
The necromancer, though, commanded the dead. It wasn't just his personality, that was his power; necromancy worked through enslavement. It was in the very nature of the power.

In Rifts, they don't really delve into this angle. They don't really explain how things work, nor what the implications are.
There may well be some leeway in this, because a lot of spells such as "Animate & Control Corpses" make no mention of any kind of implications or restrictions as far as alignments go.

Then again, the books clearly state (WBr, 100), "All necromancer characters must be one of the selfish or evil alignments. Necromancers of a good alignment are NOT possible!"
Which indicates that there is something inherent in the act of necromancy that is incompatible with being a truly good person, no matter what intentions are involved.
The books also clearly state (WB4, 99), "Characters of good alignment cannot practice death magic."
Again, this indicates that there is something about the practice that is incompatible with being good, that simply using the magic at all, for anything, is a violation of some kind beyond personal or social ethics.

Corpses aren't due respect, living breathing people are.

That probably depends on what you think that corpses are.
If you think that there's no ties to the spirits of the dead, that there's no sentience attached, then what you say makes perfect sense (although some would, and do, disagree).
But if you think that there are still ties to the spirits of the dead, that doing things to the corpse affects the sentience attached to the body, that changes the picture.

[Nightmask]

Again, there is nothing inherently evil about animating a corpse, WHY you animated it determines if it was evil or not.

That depends on the setting.
Since the Necroscope setting has been mentioned, I'll use that as an example.
The main character, the necroscope, talked to the dead. He'd communicate with them. That was his power.
The necromancer, though, commanded the dead. It wasn't just his personality, that was his power; necromancy worked through enslavement. It was in the very nature of the power.

In Rifts, they don't really delve into this angle. They don't really explain how things work, nor what the implications are.
There may well be some leeway in this, because a lot of spells such as "Animate & Control Corpses" make no mention of any kind of implications or restrictions as far as alignments go.

Then again, the books clearly state (WBr, 100), "All necromancer characters must be one of the selfish or evil alignments. Necromancers of a good alignment are NOT possible!"
Which indicates that there is something inherent in the act of necromancy that is incompatible with being a truly good person, no matter what intentions are involved.
The books also clearly state (WB4, 99), "Characters of good alignment cannot practice death magic."
Again, this indicates that there is something about the practice that is incompatible with being good, that simply using the magic at all, for anything, is a violation of some kind beyond personal or social ethics..

Or it's just the writer's bias showing, having no idea due to all the 'all necromancers are evil' stereotypes floating around that it's not inherently evil. As I've pointed out there ARE places where Necromancers are shown to not be inherently evil, that its merely people's misconceptions and fears that have them painting it as always evil when it's just another neutral tool that's only as evil as you choose to use it. Just as healers aren't 'always Neutral Good' necromancers aren't 'always neutral evil'.

[Killer Cyborg]

Again, there is nothing inherently evil about animating a corpse, WHY you animated it determines if it was evil or not.

That depends on the setting.
Since the Necroscope setting has been mentioned, I'll use that as an example.
The main character, the necroscope, talked to the dead. He'd communicate with them. That was his power.
The necromancer, though, commanded the dead. It wasn't just his personality, that was his power; necromancy worked through enslavement. It was in the very nature of the power.

In Rifts, they don't really delve into this angle. They don't really explain how things work, nor what the implications are.
There may well be some leeway in this, because a lot of spells such as "Animate & Control Corpses" make no mention of any kind of implications or restrictions as far as alignments go.

Then again, the books clearly state (WBr, 100), "All necromancer characters must be one of the selfish or evil alignments. Necromancers of a good alignment are NOT possible!"
Which indicates that there is something inherent in the act of necromancy that is incompatible with being a truly good person, no matter what intentions are involved.
The books also clearly state (WB4, 99), "Characters of good alignment cannot practice death magic."
Again, this indicates that there is something about the practice that is incompatible with being good, that simply using the magic at all, for anything, is a violation of some kind beyond personal or social ethics..

Or it's just the writer's bias showing, having no idea due to all the 'all necromancers are evil' stereotypes floating around that it's not inherently evil.

Any time there's any setting created where Good and Evil are real, concrete things, the writers' biases have influence.
But that doesn't change the reality within the setting, it simply causes it.

As I've pointed out there ARE places where Necromancers are shown to not be inherently evil...

As I pointed out, that always depends on how exactly Necromancy works in the context of the setting.
In the places where necromancy is GOOD, that's because it's not an inherently soul-twisting event that violates the spirits as well as the bodies of the deceased. At least as far as I've read, anyway.
In places where necromancy IS evil, though, that's often because it IS inherently soul-twisting and violating by nature.
Since Necromancy in Palladium is restricted to evil alignments, and it can drive you insane, that kind of tells us which of the two options this particular setting is closer to.

[AzathothXy]

There was a D&D game setting called Jakandor. The human tribes of this setting would animate their dead to use as laborers and defenders. The people accepted this and wanted to be of use to their loved ones when they died. The people respected the dead and tried not to have them damged or destroyed needlessly.

[Dr. Doom III]

Why does everything have to be morally gray these days? I like my game black and white. Necromancers are evil.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Is is against the social mores of a society to do anything with the dead than to dispose of them (cremation, burial, whatever). When you start breaking social taboos, such as raising the dead from their grave, it is evil. You are animating a corpse through dark magic. No matter how much you try to rationalize it, you are still doing an evil thing, no matter why you are doing. It does not make it right. You raise a corpse, no matter the corpse or where, and people are going to kill you. End of story.

Trying to explain why it is a good thing just proves that you shouldn't be doing it.

As for the soul of the departed being gone and at peace, what makes you so sure that that is the case? Part of the soul may be called back as the animating force that drives the undead. Yes, the corpse is controlled by the necromancer as a puppet but what is to say the soul of the person is not harmed in the process.

And before you say it is not dark magic, EVERY game I have ever played, EVERY book I have ever read, EVERY movie I have ever watched says that is an evil thing to raise the dead.

Spoiler:

Dean was raised from the dead after making a deal with a demon for his immortal soul and even drug into hell. Castiel raised him from hell to fight for the good guys. That wasn't an evil act. (( though It could be argued to be a selfish one as they wanted him to stop the Apocalypse. Still, stopping the Apocalypse is an intrinsically 'good' thing, even if done selfishly through the 'use' of a mortal.... brought back from the dead.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Some cultures eat their loved ones when they die to show their love and respect.

No act is inherently evil.

--flatline

-Rape

-Infanticide ( out side of medical necessity)

-Talking at the theater. (out side of warning of psychos with guns)

There ARE inherently evil acts.

[Icefalcon]

The magical science of Necromancy is not in itself inherently evil. There are spells found in that branch can be used for good. My argument was for the raising of UNDEAD. Even with Pepsi's reference to the bible up there, that is bringing a person back from the dead, not creating undead. The Necromancer class (as presented in WB4) IS inherently evil because it uses dark powers to use necromancy (which also causes insanity). More than half the spells in the "necromancy category" (there are several versions in Palladium) can be used to good purposes.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Um... It... was actually.... a reference to ... *ahem* you know.... the show Supernatural....

[Icefalcon]

:oops: Um... It... was actually.... a reference to ... *ahem* you know.... the show Supernatural....

Never watched it. It sounded all ...... biblely and stuff.

[Pepsi Jedi]

:oops: Um... It... was actually.... a reference to ... *ahem* you know.... the show Supernatural....

Never watched it. It sounded all ...... biblely and stuff.

Um.... There's angels and demons.... but.... I wouldn't call it Bibley.

It's like... Hunter the Vigil, on tv. lol

[Icefalcon]

:oops: Um... It... was actually.... a reference to ... *ahem* you know.... the show Supernatural....

Never watched it. It sounded all ...... biblely and stuff.

Um.... There's angels and demons.... but.... I wouldn't call it Bibley.

It's like... Hunter the Vigil, on tv. lol

I was being facetious. The passage sounded like something from the bible, but that was my mistake for being a bit tired and punchy.

[Nightmask]

Why does everything have to be morally gray these days? I like my game black and white. Necromancers are evil.

So where are you getting the idea anyone's suggesting everything's morally grey? Because no one's said anything of the sort. 'Good necromancers exist' isn't being morally grey, pointing out the magic isn't inherently evil isn't being morally grey, pointing out animating the corpse you no longer need isn't morally grey, nor is pointing out it's what your motivations are that determines whether the act is good or evil isn't morally grey. It's all morally black and white, you're looking and going 'okay what is the Necromancers intent when he's doing this?' and seeing if it's a good or evil motivation (including whether or not he's trying to rationalize away something evil as something good of which animating a corpse ISN'T inherently evil). From that you're deriving a black or white perspective not a morally grey one.

[Giant2005]

I don't think there is anything innately evil about Necromancy in the first place, it is just considered so because Necromancers tend to be pricks.
If a Necromancer is an Atheist who doesn't believe in the soul or any form of afterlife, then that body is nothing more than an inanimate object to him. Tinkering with that inanimate object would be no different to tinkering with other inanimate objects much like a Techno-Wizard would.
Being selfish would be a requirement however, as such a philosophy would require you to not care about the beliefs of the former family and friends of that inanimate object you are tinkering with.

[Killer Cyborg]

Why does everything have to be morally gray these days? I like my game black and white. Necromancers are evil.

So where are you getting the idea anyone's suggesting everything's morally grey? Because no one's said anything of the sort. 'Good necromancers exist' isn't being morally grey, pointing out the magic isn't inherently evil isn't being morally grey, pointing out animating the corpse you no longer need isn't morally grey, nor is pointing out it's what your motivations are that determines whether the act is good or evil isn't morally grey. It's all morally black and white, you're looking and going 'okay what is the Necromancers intent when he's doing this?' and seeing if it's a good or evil motivation (including whether or not he's trying to rationalize away something evil as something good of which animating a corpse ISN'T inherently evil). From that you're deriving a black or white perspective not a morally grey one.

Just assuming that intention is the determining factor in whether or not something is evil is greying things up.
For example, most people would say that if you rape a baby, it doesn't matter how good your intentions are, the act itself is inherently evil.
So assuming that evil stems from intent rather than effect, or even a combination of intent and effect, is looking at evil as a subjective phenomenon rather than an objective one.
Which is graying things up.

[Killer Cyborg]

I don't think there is anything innately evil about Necromancy in the first place, it is just considered so because Necromancers tend to be pricks.
If a Necromancer is an Atheist who doesn't believe in the soul or any form of afterlife, then that body is nothing more than an inanimate object to him. Tinkering with that inanimate object would be no different to tinkering with other inanimate objects much like a Techno-Wizard would.

And if he was a racist who didn't believe that blacks were humans, then killing blacks wouldn't mean anything to him.
Or if he was a sociopath who believed that he was the only REAL person in the universe, and the rest of the people were just figments of his imagination, so he could rape, kill, whatever with no real consequences, then none of those actions would mean anything to him either.
But it would still be evil, IMO.

Being selfish would be a requirement however, as such a philosophy would require you to not care about the beliefs of the former family and friends of that inanimate object you are tinkering with.

Good point.

[Colt47]

For some reason this discussion reminds me of Pagan from the Ultima series. The avatar, who is the embodiment of the seven virtues from Britannia and is basically a paladin, is forced to learn how to summon evil elemental lords, kill children, and even conduct necromantic rituals in order to get back to Britannia in order to stop the guardian from taking it over. The fact is, a character can still be good and be a necromancer or demon summoner under the right situation.

[Killer Cyborg]

For some reason this discussion reminds me of Pagan from the Ultima series. The avatar, who is the embodiment of the seven virtues from Britannia and is basically a paladin, is forced to learn how to summon evil elemental lords, kill children, and even conduct necromantic rituals in order to get back to Britannia in order to stop the guardian from taking it over. The fact is, a character can still be good and be a necromancer or demon summoner under the right situation.

As long as part of that situation is "existing within a setting where it is possible to be good and to be a necromancer," sure.
But as far as the Necromancer OCC is concerned, Rifts is not such a setting.

[Nightmask]

For some reason this discussion reminds me of Pagan from the Ultima series. The avatar, who is the embodiment of the seven virtues from Britannia and is basically a paladin, is forced to learn how to summon evil elemental lords, kill children, and even conduct necromantic rituals in order to get back to Britannia in order to stop the guardian from taking it over. The fact is, a character can still be good and be a necromancer or demon summoner under the right situation.

It's odd that Palladium has the Summoner and Shifter classes which one can with care remain good in alignment, even as they're routinely trafficking with demons, yet make it out that Necromancers can't ever be good when even AD&D acknowledges that you can have good Necromancers. Clearly a writer bias showing up to not even acknowledge that some necromancers could be good.

[Colt47]

For some reason this discussion reminds me of Pagan from the Ultima series. The avatar, who is the embodiment of the seven virtues from Britannia and is basically a paladin, is forced to learn how to summon evil elemental lords, kill children, and even conduct necromantic rituals in order to get back to Britannia in order to stop the guardian from taking it over. The fact is, a character can still be good and be a necromancer or demon summoner under the right situation.

As long as part of that situation is "existing within a setting where it is possible to be good and to be a necromancer," sure.
But as far as the Necromancer OCC is concerned, Rifts is not such a setting.

No, this has nothing to do with the setting. The point is that sometimes a lesser evil is necessary for a good cause, and that is part of the point with the world of Pagan. Again, no one is going to agree on absolutes on alignment from what I've been able to tell on the forum, but personally I wouldn't start arbitrarily changing someones alignment write up just because they picked a less than savory occupation.

[Killer Cyborg]

For some reason this discussion reminds me of Pagan from the Ultima series. The avatar, who is the embodiment of the seven virtues from Britannia and is basically a paladin, is forced to learn how to summon evil elemental lords, kill children, and even conduct necromantic rituals in order to get back to Britannia in order to stop the guardian from taking it over. The fact is, a character can still be good and be a necromancer or demon summoner under the right situation.

As long as part of that situation is "existing within a setting where it is possible to be good and to be a necromancer," sure.
But as far as the Necromancer OCC is concerned, Rifts is not such a setting.

No, this has nothing to do with the setting. The point is that sometimes a lesser evil is necessary for a good cause, and that is part of the point with the world of Pagan.

Committing evils for any reason is still committing evils, and in the context of a RPG, it can cause alignment changes.

Again, no one is going to agree on absolutes on alignment from what I've been able to tell on the forum, but personally I wouldn't start arbitrarily changing someones alignment write up just because they picked a less than savory occupation

In a setting where Good and Evil are fairly concrete things, with fairly clear standards, I would.
Because it would fit with the setting.

[Nightmask]

For some reason this discussion reminds me of Pagan from the Ultima series. The avatar, who is the embodiment of the seven virtues from Britannia and is basically a paladin, is forced to learn how to summon evil elemental lords, kill children, and even conduct necromantic rituals in order to get back to Britannia in order to stop the guardian from taking it over. The fact is, a character can still be good and be a necromancer or demon summoner under the right situation.

As long as part of that situation is "existing within a setting where it is possible to be good and to be a necromancer," sure.
But as far as the Necromancer OCC is concerned, Rifts is not such a setting.

No, this has nothing to do with the setting. The point is that sometimes a lesser evil is necessary for a good cause, and that is part of the point with the world of Pagan. Again, no one is going to agree on absolutes on alignment from what I've been able to tell on the forum, but personally I wouldn't start arbitrarily changing someones alignment write up just because they picked a less than savory occupation.

Plus it's not a given that animating a corpse is even evil in the first place. The tropes regarding Necromancers and Necromancy are driven by humanity's fear of death and whether or not there is a soul and one can live on afterwords. Just as Anubis, a neutral if not benevolent god regarding Death gets almost always depicted as some kind of evil monster because of that association even though that's completely contrary to his actual depictions in Egyptian history. Or the neutral or good death gods who're shown having Necromancy as one of their class features even though they clearly aren't evil.

[Killer Cyborg]

For some reason this discussion reminds me of Pagan from the Ultima series. The avatar, who is the embodiment of the seven virtues from Britannia and is basically a paladin, is forced to learn how to summon evil elemental lords, kill children, and even conduct necromantic rituals in order to get back to Britannia in order to stop the guardian from taking it over. The fact is, a character can still be good and be a necromancer or demon summoner under the right situation.

As long as part of that situation is "existing within a setting where it is possible to be good and to be a necromancer," sure.
But as far as the Necromancer OCC is concerned, Rifts is not such a setting.

No, this has nothing to do with the setting. The point is that sometimes a lesser evil is necessary for a good cause, and that is part of the point with the world of Pagan. Again, no one is going to agree on absolutes on alignment from what I've been able to tell on the forum, but personally I wouldn't start arbitrarily changing someones alignment write up just because they picked a less than savory occupation.

Plus it's not a given that animating a corpse is even evil in the first place.

I already addressed that.
In Rifts, it's canon that necromancy specifically cannot be done by Good characters, so there's something inherently evil (or, at the least, something inherently NOT Good) about the magic itself.
But no, animating a corpse itself is not necessarily an evil actin the setting- there are no notes about it being such in any of the spell descriptions for non-necromancer magic.

[flatline]

What makes animating the dead evil?

If it's the act of animation itself, then animating anything would be evil, yet I've never heard anyone claim making golems is evil.

If you killed someone so you could animate their body, the killing would be evil.

But if you found an already dead body and animated it, why is that necessarily evil? Is there something that says the soul of the deceased is someone enslaved when you animate the body?

--flatline