Section 1. "Control"
Necromancy, in the definition of terms is control of the undead. Mancy being control, and necro being "dead". Geomancy is the control of earth, pyromancy the control of fire, etc. In this, "control" is always present, and the "good" peoples of the world have a problem with anything that was once sentient being "controled" beyond its capasity to be self-determined. In the end, its much like slavery, and for many religions, its worse than slavery because while slaves have some freedoms, and can fight back, undead require their existance from a master. Many of you could argue that Vampires are an exception. I disagree, the argument i bring is that what DOES the controling, does not itself have to be sentient. And a vampires thirst, may control his soulless form.
Section 2. Ressurection v Necromancy.
Ressurection, in many mythos is very close to resembling necromancy, and the use of 'brining people' back from the dead is common in fantasy and religious text. The power of conquering (not using) death is the symbolism here, as the hero of cause is needed beyond his coporeals form ability to function, and so he or she is brought back to continue that purpose. The main issue here is that these 'resurrected' are not controled. Also, a fundamental rule of the universe is being broken (like necromancy) and for it to be broken there must be very good cause. In this, we already have a mechanic, the Immortal. Immortals are effectively units that die and return over and over. But they are SPECIAL, not to be confused with normal opperating procedure.
Section 3. Civilizations based on ressurection.
Civilization that would be angelic in nature would function quite nicely, except for the substanitive issue of "what is angelic" If Angels can be killed, then there is little purpose in proving they may resurrect - what diffrentiates them from other mortals? If the entire civilization can ressurect, or a great premise of the civilizations core existance relies on ressurection, then the question is begged "why do they die at all to begin with?" Ressurection is the suspension and elimination of death. In this, the core reasoning implies invincibility. No civ should be invincible.
Section 4. Angelomancers.
Ok this is prolly the thing that made me respond. Let me break down this word. Angelos. This means Messenger. Mancer. This means controller. So we have messenger-controllers. We now have a civ based on the telecom industry? Regardless of the intention behind the word (i assume it was unintentional) Angels are not CONTROLED. Especially not by mortals. Control of angels from 'lesser' beings defys the definition of what it is to be divinly angelic. Also, a host of angels is a host of messengers. And while that message can be death, it is not for a civiliztaions "purposes" that angels act. But instead the specific orders from heaven which need to be carried out. This may mean the destruction of deamonic entities, but Angels themselves should not care about the prosperity of any given civilization. Unless we are talking about divine civilzations of gods and demi-gods and while this would be a great game, its not exactly "the mortals" that create a sense of fun in FFH.
Section 5. Conclusions.
While "good" and "balanced" civilizations that use death magic do entice me as they are subject to being the antithesis of the cliche. I am wont to remind all of us that the "good" necromancer is often the exception, and he or she often (in story) accepts their damnation as a method to save others. The tragic hero is a compelling one. But an entire civilization devoted to the uses of death magic cannot be said to be using the most 'noble' of methods to achieve its ends. Death is not evil. Death is not in any way moral. It is the actions of those and their attitudes tward death that become evil or good. Is the attitude one of sanctity, reverance, and respect? Or is the attitude one of callus pragmatism? One of utilitarian greed? One of enmaddened hubris? It is not that things are brought back from the dead that is problematic, it is the reason for wanting to do so. And if it is for greed, or for self-interest...then it is most likely evil. If it is a gift....or if it is for salvation, then it is something quite other. Ressurections are rare...for this reason. If a "dead-using" civ wants to be good it can pursue "good" religion. But it will (and should) conflict with the premises of being good. I like the Sidar concept.......very neutral, very balanced...and thier view of death does not indicate any moral trappings......which means its neither good, nor bad. Death can be bad, and death can be amoral. But the use of death magic cannot be construed as "good."
