Mystrans

[Orplar]

In the helpfile on FK is says that Mystra does not favor those whom defile the dead. So I am curious as to how Necromancy would fall under the views of the church, seeing as it is a sphere of magic and they are encouraged to practice and spread the use of the weave.

[Horace]

She allows arcane magic to exist - she doesn't create the spells that use what she provides. Since she is a good aligned god, she doesn't care for any evil acts or evil spells. But she is still has a duty to serve from a more neutral stance than other good aligned gods...Ao wouldn't allow her to just stop providing magic to evil casters. She'd lose a portion of that portfolio and another god would have to take it up - thus weakening herself and making a different evil god much more powerful.

That said, only a couple necromancy spells are inherently evil.

[Selveem]

Creating undead or defiling the dead in any way is seen as an Evil act. As per the Book of Vile Deeds, it is so because you are drawing more negative energy into the world (the negative energy used to create unlife). The church as a whole is fairly Neutral. If you remember, Mystra and Kelemvor have a.. history. Due to this, I believe that is why Mystra does not favor the creation of undead or animation of the dead.

[Selveem]

Er, isn't the current Mystra neutral? I thought it was the old Mystra who was Good aligned?

[Horace]

Mystryl was Chaotic Neutral - Mystra 1 was lawful neutral - current Mystra (midnight) is Neutral Good.

Current Mystra has to serve in the same capacity as Mystra 1 - as were Ao's edicts. But just because you serve, doesn't mean you enjoy it.

[Orplar]

the Old Mystra, Mystryl was Chaotic Neutral I believe. The Current Mystra is Lawful Neutral.

Again, I may be wrong but I believe that is what I read somewhere

[Horace]

Mystryl died in the netheril whoops, chaotic neutral

Mystra 1 was lawful neutral and was dispersed by helm, then summoned by elminstir in a misty form, put her form onto/into bane to make bane implode. It destroyed her and the ethereal plane.

Mystra 2 (or Midnight) is neutral good, and still rockin


edited - corrected mystra 1 death

[Selveem]

I stand corrected. I had them reversed in my head. Sorry about that.

[Horace]

It's kind of a cool note - Mystryl had almost no rules, and could do anything (spare robbing divine magic). The lack of limitations on magic lead to some crazy things and she eventually had to sacrifice herself to save what she stood for (gods are what they serve - in this case, magic).

Every time the god of magic died, they had more edicts forced onto them from Ao. He made sure Mystra one was lawful, and not so undisciplined - you could say this was due to his demands, but it's not for certain. Again the alignment caused the downfall of the god, by her nature not allowing certain actions.

When midnight took over, she inherited all of Mystra 1's portfolio, but kept her nature (alignment). Was granted almost infinite power, but the power was so displaced that all she can really do with it is serve her purpose. She's now the most powerful god by far, but most restricted by Ao.

[Nysan]

Note:

Mystra's points concerning the defiling of the dead and her dislike according to the books applies only to her followers, i.e. those sporting her shiny symbol. Many faithful of her enemies and deities she dislikes use the Weave, several of these faiths dealing with the dead, yet she cannot refuse them the Weave. She maintains the Weave, but beyond Her faithful and a few rules concerning certain very high up spells near deity power level, its not Her concern.

Cannot recall exactly, perhaps it was "prince of lies" or "crubile: the trial of Cyric the mad" but in one of them Mystra almost lost Her divine powers because she stepped beyond Her position when She denied followers of dark faiths access to the Weave because they were evil.

So, dead body play is only a no no for Her faithful...if your a book person that is.

[Kregor]

There is, also a demipower, Velsharoon, that has cliaimed place as the god of necromancy. His aspect has made appearances in FK, in fact. So yes, in a sense, Mystra II's disdain for necromancy is somewhat filled in by another power.

[Hviti]

That said, only a couple necromancy spells are inherently evil.

They aren't all evil? Which kinds would/wouldn't be, then? There are some fairly benign ones (preservation), and some fairly evils ones (animating dead), but where to draining attacks (vampire touch/enervation/weaken) fit in on the good/evil spectrum?

[Nysan]

No spell is evil. No spell is good. Not a one. Spells are tools, like a hammer or shovel. No free will of their own (well, before casting) to suggest good or evil intent. Much like a knife can be used to save or take a life, so it is with spells. Any spell ever discovered by mortals can be used in good ways or evil.

There are many in FR history that studied or practiced Necromany that were not evil beings, granted not as many that followed it for evil...but it was still an option. We have even had one or two good aligned necromancers here in FK over the years.

Spells are what people make them, nothing more.

[Lerytha]

"No spell is evil"

That distinction is entirely IC. There's OOC arguments either way. But depending on your character's viewpoint, raising the dead (albeit only one part of necromancy) can be the most evil thing imaginable.

Just wanted to make that point.

[Selveem]

If that were the case, then I am uncertain why 'Help Flay' says that the spell is clearly evil. Also, what you state contradicts The Book of Vile Darkness which defines evil and evil acts. Animating the Dead: "Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place." (Book of Vile Darkness, page 8 ). Does FK not go by definitions of evil as per this book?

[Dalvyn]

I don't really get that definition from the BoVD. Creating undead is always evil because it bring negative energy to the Material Plane? Huh huh. I can admit that creating undead bring in negative energy, but why is negative energy inherently evil in the first place? Positive energy is not associated with "good". People who visit the Plane of Positive Energy are suffused with life energy, so much that they end up "bursting", so I do not really buy the "negative energy = evil, positive energy = good" equations.

I think that some spells are inherently evil. Spells are not automatically evil because they cause damage. Spells that cause unnecessary suffering, on the other hand, are evil. Flensing is a spell that causes damage by peeling off the victim's skin ... that's what I would call unnecessary suffering, and thus an evil spell. Vampiric touch? I don't think it's necessarily evil, though I guess it depends on how this is done.

[Nysan]

Animating a corpse to bring it to a priest for resurrection or to have it carry an injuried ally is not evil.

Flensing used to remove a diseased portion of skin or skin covered in a dangerous material (flesh eating slime, ect) is not evil.

Vampiric touch, drawing energy from a willing subject to survive long enough to finish a spell that will save a large number of people or to sustain oneself long enough to reach aid.

Merely hammers and shovels, limited only by the imagination of the user.

[Horace]

The spells that are flagged as [evil] in the players handbook or the magic of faerun book, are evil. It's just the mechanics of the game.

There is an entire "evil domain" of spells. And on the spells that aren't inherently evil (read - flagged as automatically evil) there is only one, which is summon monster - but that spell is asterisked to specifically say that if you're casting from this domain you have to use an evil variation of the spell.

For example, this is how animate dead looks (don't worry, it's srd):

Animate Dead
Necromancy [Evil]
Level: Clr 3, Death 3, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Targets: One or more corpses touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

That [Evil] flag means that the spell is inherently evil. Now can you do something evil for a good reason? Sure, happens all the time! Does this necessarily mean that the evil done is absorbed by others and not the caster? That's entirely up to whoever is running the show. But the point remains, mechanically, there are inherently evil spells.

I'll list them - because I'm just sitting around at home:

Animate Dead
Contagion (fancy word for disease)
Create Greater Undead
Create Undead
Curse Water

Deathwatch (get to see how close beings are to dieing, within reason) - this spell actually taps in to the literal sight of dead beings around you, so an argument can be made that experiencing a shared sense with the dead is what causes the "evil"...how long can you see through a monsters eyes before becoming one, and you can't choose to see through the eyes of the little boy ghost who lost his trike, you automatically see through the eyes of Nasty Nate and his pals of traumatic deaths.

Desecrate (evocation is the first non necromancy)
Dispel Good (abjuration coming in second)
Eyebite (the force that damages the victim is literally called "evil energy")
Magic Circle against Good (abjuration with two)
Protection from Good (abjuration with three)
Symbol of Pain
Unhallow (makes site unholy)
Unholy Aura (abjuration for four)
Unholy Blight (evocation)


So that's the list from the Players Handbook. I'm not offended by anyone saying there aren't inherently evil spells, I'm just advocating the book rules. In which case, if you can argue that what you produce is a good effect - then wotc can probably look at the spell description, and where the power is being siphoned from, to say the means are evil or corrupting.

And for the record, just because you know "contagion" doesn't mean you're able to give someone hemophilia to treat the stroke they just had - you're still at the mercy of the spell description. Spells in dnd are ritual, they don't lend themselves to being easily manipulated for fine tuning. You'd have to create and entirely different spell.

[Lerytha]

I take your point, Nysan, about animating the dead to walk it to a resurrection point, and "flensing" to remove a diseased flesh.

However, the spell "Flensing" produces a particular affect, which is to systematically strip a victim of its skin. Nasty, painful, and inherently evil because of that unneccessary pain.

The spell animate dead seems a little extreme, just to move a body. Its essentially FORCING the body of your friend or ally into a slavery (however brief) which causes absolute suffering and horror to the one animated (as per descriptions of the mobiles who have been animated). Doing that just to save the effort to carry the corpse seems (to me from a mainly-IC slightly-OOC POV) to be evil.

But I suppose these are discussions interesting enough to be saved for IC roleplay debate... Ah. I do love me debates.

[Hviti]

How about enervation? That's draining levels (actually, I never really got what the IC explanation behind that was - vamp. touch at least drains health, but draining levels?) - so would that be still an inherently neutral act, like vampiric touch and weaken?