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

[drjones]

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.

Pretty much my thoughts. Which book you open when you make a character probably has more to do with a combination of popularity (they have feedback data on how many players were rolling evil parties and characters. I am gonna guess it is a minority.) and page count than some anti class X bias.

I know in my game some of the players are planning on going towards Evil which honestly I am wary of because in the past it was just an excuse to be a cock to other players and makes designing adventures a lot harder when you have to give the good and evil characters both viable motivations to do the same thing all the time and create reasons for people who hate each other to keep working together. I let them know it was acceptable but that the in character conflict it would generate would be played out for interesting effect and with an eye to making sure that everyone was having fun. If that means hanging the double-dealing sociopath bard well, better luck next character.

 

[steeldragons]

On a last note of the "non-evil/evil death god" stuff, the OSR game Swords & Wizardry (very smartly) presents options for specialty clerics of both, a non-evil/protector/judge of the dead type god and an Eeevilll Death god.

No reason D&D can't [and I would urge should] do the same. Have an [evil] "Bringer of" Death Domain in the DMG and a [neutral/non-evil] "Keeper/Protector of" Death Domain in the PHB.

 

[Ichneumon]

The inclusion of some subclasses in the DMG is as likely to have been done for space reasons as any other. If you have a choice between deferring a few subclasses and expanding the PHB to 352 pages, the former is going to seem more attractive. Yes, they had a number of darkly themed subclasses, some of which are still in the PHB. Why didn't they all go?

The necromancer is part of one of D&D's most iconic groupings (the eight schools of magic) and splitting it from the other wizard subclasses would've been jarring. Leaving the assassin out would've broken WotC's promise on including every class, in some way, from the first PHBs of past editions. Also, I doubt they wanted one of the core 4 to have only two subclasses.

The death cleric's an interesting one, as it's never been relegated from the PHB in any other edition. I don't even remember any caveats on how worshipping death gods is really for NPCs and players should think very carefully, check with their DM, etc. Again, I think this has been done for space reasons. There were already seven domains, and the cleric domain set isn't as 'atomic' as the set of wizard schools. So it was more painless to separate death (and maybe darkness) out.

Are there any other subclasses in the DMG? No idea, but I can think of a few that might be there, such as a demonic-themed barbarian or a winter-themed druid. In fact, something like the shaman could be there, even though it's not a 'dark' subclass. Yeah, the DMG does seem a little ill-fitting for class options, even though it's been used that way before (the assassin in 2e, and the witch in 3e). But is it really better for gaming groups to have to wait till something like The Book of Vile Darkness comes out before they can play their blackguard or Raven Queen cleric? I'd say no.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I'm not going to bother going back and quoting, but I flat out disagree with a lot of the alignments for death gods that have been worshiped here on Earth.

Hel is only considered evil because of her dad, and even Loki didn't do that much in the myths that was obviously evil. Sure, Hel does make sure people die of plagues, but when your portfolio is "Death & Disease", can you blame her? The myths even describe her as pretty nice except to the extremely nasty people.

Hades/Pluto: considering he's thought of as the nicest of a pantheon of Jerkwad gods (not that the Æsir are that much better), and he's at least somewhat fair.

Both of these deities are Unaligned at best. Heck, Hel might actually be Neutral Good.

 

[Mouseferatu]

So, as I understand it, the paladin oaths require certain sorts of behavior, do they not? And as we haven't seen the Death domain, we don't know what its specifics are.

What I'm getting at is, necromancer and assassin may suggest evil, but it's possible something about blackguard and cleric-with-death-domain may require it. That right there would be potential reason for separating them out.

Vis-a-vis the "evil god of death or not," a non-evil death god probably offers alternate domains. Healing, for instance, could easily fit. While it does sound odd for a death god not to offer the death domain, let's remember that said domains represent what abilities they offer their clerics, not every last detail of what the god has sway over.

 

[steeldragons]

On a last note of the "non-evil/evil death god" stuff, the OSR game Swords & Wizardry (very smartly) presents options for specialty clerics of both, a non-evil/protector/judge of the dead type god and an Eeevilll Death god.

No reason D&D can't [and I would urge should] do the same. Have an [evil] "Bringer of" Death Domain in the DMG and a [neutral/non-evil] "Keeper/Protector of" Death Domain in the PHB.

Just to set the record straight, I was mistaken. The OSR that does this is Fantastic Heroes & Witchery RPG, not S&W. Apologies. My bad.

 

[Lanefan]

What the *bleep* are any class write-ups doing in the DMG???

For me, who still subscribes to the adage that the DMG is off limits unless you are the DM, that means I either have to ban those classes outright or copy the relevant pages into a binder. >grumble<

Lan-"evil characters and classes are just as allowed around here as good ones"-efan

 

[doctorhook]

What the *bleep* are any class write-ups doing in the DMG???

For me, who still subscribes to the adage that the DMG is off limits unless you are the DM, that means I either have to ban those classes outright or copy the relevant pages into a binder. >grumble<

Lan-"evil characters and classes are just as allowed around here as good ones"-efan

I'm with you on this one. The DMG ought to be a player-free zone, rather than a storage area for variants. 3E was guilty of this: PrCs were introduced in the DMG, but thereafter PrCs appeared in every player supplement. What [gave]?

That said, I don't believe anyone has provided a source for the confirmation that the DMG will have some subclasses, so we have have no good reason to even think it's true.

 

[Dausuul]

I have only one thing to say on the subject of death gods and their alignment:

 

[Evenglare]

Best death god is best

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130903230118/powerlisting/images/1/1e/Death_Supernatural.jpg