A DnD YouTuber my husband told me about does not believe in good necromancers. I understand his position; if an act is evil and/or highly unappreciated/feared, like necromancy, it’s hard to see someone realistically pull off a “good” version of the act.
As I’ve no great love for the undead, you may expect me to agree there are no good necromancers. But I feel like it’s like saying there are no good murderers: yes, arguably, there are. Always in ambiguous, gray areas, but it’s not like all murderers are relegated to evil villains, end of story.
The best part of “you can’t!” is all the ways it inspires, “yes I can!” so I’ve invented my own character concept of a morally ambiguous necromancer I’d actually like to play in a future session now. As per what seems to be usual, a lot of the edge of wickedness of necromancy is cut with humor: my guy is always drunk or hung over and doesn’t ever remember raising that skeleton, but now it’s stuck to him like another bad headache.
But I’m sure there are other executions that don’t rely on humor – primarily because Tyler brought up the YouTuber as context for his own, non-humorous, non evil necromancer. Finding exception to evil, turning it gray, is usually an interesting and fun exercise; consider its inverse, however, and you get a lot of useful motivations or acts for villains, especially those that are the heroes of their own stories.
There are no good necromancers, and there are no evil humanitarians.