D&D 5E "Evil" options limited to the DMG?

Remathilis said:

Well sure, if you lump "good and neutral" together its 12. However, thing about neutrality is that is goes both ways.

So I have 4 good and 17 "neutral or evil" death gods. Want to keep playing semantics?

Click to expand...

I think he made that point because we are talking about Evil vs not evil. So his 12 is valid point. Yours is as well, but we aren't talking about Good vs Not good death gods, we are specifically talking about one sub set of the entire set, so again, 12 is a very valid point.

Remathilis said:

Well sure, if you lump "good and neutral" together its 12. However, thing about neutrality is that is goes both ways.

So I have 4 good and 17 "neutral or evil" death gods. Want to keep playing semantics?

Click to expand...

It isn't playing semantics you are arguing that death gods are evil or more likely to be evil (or lean evil) and others are arguing that they are more likely to be non-evil. Nice try though. No one is arguing that Gods of Death are usually good but you are arguing that they are usually evil, thus you must prove that they are evil, we only have to prove that they aren't inherently evil (as the 12 neutral or good vs 9 evil shows).

Does this really matter that much? Seriously: It is a non-issue. The only significant impact, if true, is that the stuff will not be available for a few more months - but that is going to be true of everything in the DMG. My suggestion is to run an introductory 'campaign' that runs from August til the end of the year to get to know the rules and then reboot in the new year so that people can make PCs with knowledge of the rules and all materials available.

And if you can't wait, make up your own version and retcon it to the offical when it is available.

Evenglare said:

I think he made that point because we are talking about Evil vs not evil. So his 12 is valid point. Yours is as well, but we aren't talking about Good vs Not good death gods, we are specifically talking about one sub set of the entire set, so again, 12 is a very valid point.

Click to expand...

pkt77242 said:

It isn't playing semantics you are arguing that death gods are evil or more likely to be evil (or lean evil) and others are arguing that they are more likely to be non-evil. Nice try though. No one is arguing that Gods of Death are usually good but you are arguing that they are usually evil, thus you must prove that they are evil, we only have to prove that they aren't inherently evil (as the 12 neutral or good vs 9 evil shows).

Click to expand...

Remember, my original word was UNWHOLESOME. Sure, the Egyptian Gods are good (and that is mostly dependent on their view of of the afterlife) but most of them aren't the nicest fellows. Hades might be LN, but he's also a god of greed and deception who stole his bride and has tormented many a Greek hero: not the kinda guy most people want a priest of in their party. Two of them are neutral WITH EVIL TENDENCIES (which means I counted them in each column). Hell, if you cull the racial pantheons (Elf, Dragon, Halfling) from the list, it drops even further.

I'm not arguing all death gods are evil, but I'm sure the thinking behind the Death Domain (in 5e) is going to be a bit more than evil-curious, and that some DMs don't want death priests (or clerics worshipping death gods). So the DMG is a good place to put them along with other optional rules.

If you have a problem with us equating your unwholesome with evil, then why did you put up alignments for all the gods in the first place if it doesn't even matter what alignment they have by your own definition of unwholesome?

pkt77242 said:

Wait, what? You have 12 that are good or neutral and 9 that are evil, yet that proves your point? You are massaging that information to fit your view of death not what you just posted. You can have that view if you want but it definitely doesn't match the numbers that you just posted.

Click to expand...

I think we're all in agreement that there are at least two major types of "death god" in D&D: evil and non-evil, and each represents a very broad philosophy regarding death that is mutually exclusive from the other. Remathilis' sampling of 21 D&D death deities reflects this philosophical divide with a roughly even (60/40) split between evil-death and non-evil-death.

I think the more important discussion is whether 5E will focus on evil-death or not. 4E was non-evil-death-oriented, giving lots of paper to The Raven Queen (Un) and FR's Kelemvor (LN). 3E had evil-death, using Nerull (NE) as a default death-god and by filling the 3E death domain with [evil] spells. (Weirdly though, 3E necromancers weren't particularly evil.)

Zhaleskra said:

I wasn't going to reply to this, but then I saw the OP mentioned the Death Domain. "Death = Evil" has been to undeath, and it's not true to boot. Because I'm not following 5E, I don't know if the Death domain is going to be a bunch of death-causing spells, but based on the concern I'd wager "yes".

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I'm reading you right, but I think I agree. I've mentioned this before, but the alignment shift of zombies back to Neutral Evil and the fact that finger of death now causes the target to rise as a zombie both seem like clues to me that the theme of death in 5E will be evil-oriented. Whether that means a lot of undeath powers, I'm not sure.

I would submit [so we can get off this and go back to talking about the supremely valid and 'correct' decision to put evil options in the DMG ;P ] that Neutral, as it can be goodish or badish or both depending on a whim, it simply be removed from the data you all seem to want to be considering...cancels itself out, as it were.

So we're left with 4 good and 9 evil. [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] ' point stands/"wins." Moving on...

I think evil classes/races/character types in the DMG for some pages of "ready made bad guys" that 1) the players don't have access and thus, 2) won't necessarily know what all they can do/how to fight them/different abilities than the PCs have; is a great great idea and thing.

I would further submit (though I know it won't happen) that both the "ninja assassin" [or Assassins, in general, but thanks to "Assassin's Creed" that'd never happen] and necromancer COULD EASILY go in the DMG with antipaladins and Death domain clerics as "possible options for players depending on the campaign/table"...which my understanding is what the DMG is supposed to be filled with. [and, yeah, as noted a "vengance" paladin is basically the same thing as a Blackguard/Anti-paladin. NOT calling it a Blackguard or Anti-paladin doesn't change that].

The "skirting evil" options are there for D&D's reputation/tradition and everyone who wants them: tables that want to run "evil campaigns", those who are looking for the "redeemed/redeemable evil guy-turned/trying to turn-good" character type or, even, the <shiver>"OooOOooO I'm soooo baaaad n' anti-establishmennnnt. Ain'I sooo outside the norm and/or consider me enlightened!" crowd. <shudder>

But they aren't a default option of the game or front and center in the PHB as "Here! You can play these guys too!"

Now. Obviously, none of this is happening. Necro's and ninja-assassins are in the PHB. We already know [or are pretty sure about] this. The vengance oath for paladins is going to be in the PHB. Why Death ofany/all domains for clerics in the PHB/standard game would qualify for DMG...I'm not really sure other than supposing they are going to put a distinctly "evil" slant on it.

...and I will concur that, for evil clerics for PCs to encounter, things like: War, Demons, Destructive Fire [or Natural disasters?], UNdeath and/or a wicked "Underworld" afterlife plane...a god of Assassins? A god of slavery? A god of "I'm gonna bathe the world in darkness"? But Death clerics? meh.

I guess...maybe...for the 8-12 y.o. set, death is the biggest darkest bad incomprehensible unknown...making it more "scary/evil-seeming"...and plugging the "being anti-life is bad [and so it's in the DMG]" angle certainly can't hurt.

Now go slaughter stadiums full of creatures that aren't like you for prizes [xp] and toys [treasure]!

--Steel -ramble ramble more coffee ramble- Dragons

It is likely more to do with a "Suitable for 12 and older" type rating than anything else.

Editions changed alignments of deities. If you compare to 3e, some of those deities got shifted to evil. (Including Hades, which really bugs me, but there you have it.)

As far as the topic, I share the opinion that the reasoning is based a lot on the majority view that a player will have.

Players who look through a PHB and say, "I want to play an assassin" are more likely to be saying, "I like that combat style", or even, "I don't think thief is sufficiently set up for dealing damage" than they are to be saying, "I want to be evil."

But a player who looks as a blackguard descriptions and says they want to play it is much more likely to be saying "I want to be Eeevvviiilll..."

Same goes with Death domain, though not necessarily to the same extent. (As an aside, Mike implied there are at least 2 domains in the DMG. My hope is that Darkness is the other one.)

Necromancer is somewhere in the middle on player response.

So yeah, the distinctions are somewhat arbitrary, but they had to draw the line somewhere. I don't really care too much one way or another. I will say though, that as a DM I do approve of taking some of the more overtly evil choices out of player presentation, because it affects initial impression. And any DM who is fine with evil PCs is going to be telling them about the evil options in the DMG anyway. (Unless he's one of the rare DMs who is using the PHB without the DMG--a feasible option, though I expect very uncommon.)

Zhaleskra said:

I wasn't going to reply to this, but then I saw the OP mentioned the Death Domain. "Death = Evil" has been to undeath, and it's not true to boot. Because I'm not following 5E, I don't know if the Death domain is going to be a bunch of death-causing spells, but based on the concern I'd wager "yes".

Click to expand...

That's the whole point.

If I were to design a domain to represent non-evil death clerics, I would choose spells that:

a- protect from death spells and effects, such as Death ward
b- impede or reverse death, such as Spare the dying or Revivify
c- peacefully interact with the dead, such as Speak with dead
d- allow travel to the afterlife, such as Astral projection

There is no conceptual problem with a deity of death granting spells of the a- and b-type, as long as this is seeing as preventing someone to die when it's not his proper time time. Resurrection-type spells might be too much with their long time delays and therefore somewhat questionable.

OTOH, an evil death cleric can very much have domain spells which are all about killing someone, imprisoning them into the afterlife, messing with their souls or creating undead.