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

[doctorhook]

Necromancy probably should have been put in the DMG as well.

This is precisely the source of confusion. Why this but not that?

 

[jrowland]

Necromancy Arcane Tradition does not necessarily mean Necromancer. I can't imagine a necromancy tradition wizard being a very good Necromancer, really. It all depends on the sub-class feature, but I don't think its going to ooze necromantic goodness (darkness, evilness). I'll stick by my 12 and up reasoning: A necromancer class done well would not be suitable for 12 year old's (in the US legal reasoning...I for one think they can handle it).

I think Death Domain might not even make it in the DMG. Not enough stuff to make it worthwhile. What sort of class features would a Death domain cleric have that is not expressed in the other domains (besides fluff)? More laser pew pew? Light domain re-skinning maybe. But a re-skin isn't worth a PHB treatment, and might not be worth a DMG treatment beyond "Change the light cleric bonus spells. Make the reaction power necrotic damage, etc"

 

[Wyckedemus]

It is fine to me if the "Blackguard/Anti-paladin" and the Death domain for this edition are example "evil" options in the DMG to represent NPCs that wholly embrace and serve the nasty side of death on a spiritual level. They'd be examples for a variety of other reasons too, including encouraging the DM to create other options for their worlds.

Also, people may be misremembering the "Death" domain in 3E. That domain was not appropriate for "good" Death deities either, so in a later Forgotten Realms product they released a "Repose" domain that better portrayed divine heroes who protected of the sanctity of death.

If the DMG is an advice book, as they've described, maybe they'll provide advice on ways to implement "options" like these. Maybe you can alter it into a "Repose" domain, or use it as an example to design your own from the ground up.


... in my opinion.

 

[tuxgeo]

10 points to Gryffindor for @Mouseferatu 's pun. . . .

"Gryffindor?" Why the unholy heck would the Sorting Hat put the Mouse in there? (I mean, not to slander nor try to characterize Ari's naturral allies and friends, of course.)

Wasn't Pettigrew, who turned into a rat, a Slotherin? ("That's just lazy sorting.")

 

[Mouseferatu]

"Gryffindor?" Why the unholy heck would the Sorting Hat put the Mouse in there? (I mean, not to slander nor try to characterize Ari's naturral allies and friends, of course.)

I always thought of myself as Lawful Ravenclaw with Chaotic Hufflepuff tendencies...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd second that, but the Death domain in the DMG is likely not really suitable for a good/neutral god of death. We'll need a different domain for Osiris, Kelemvor, Raven Queen etc.

If the Death domain is unsuitable for a god whose primary domain is death, it seems like y'know, there might be a problem with the design of the Death domain... Maybe they should be calling it the "Murder" Domain or "Blight" or something. As we've established, most Death Gods are Neutral, some are Good, and a minority are Evil, so...

This is one of the more "meta"/"multiverse" things I worry about with 5E, which is that there seems to be a very unwelcome (to me) return to 3E-style "Evil = Necrotic/Negative Energy" as a game percept rather than a setting one-type laziness, and the idea that killing a dude by doing 8d8 Necrotic damage to him is somehow "worse" than by doing 8d8 Fire damage, which gives me such bad eyeroll-itis that I fear for my sight.

 

[Li Shenron]

This is one of the more "meta"/"multiverse" things I worry about with 5E, which is that there seems to be a very unwelcome (to me) return to 3E-style "Evil = Necrotic/Negative Energy" as a game percept rather than a setting one-type laziness, and the idea that killing a dude by doing 8d8 Necrotic damage to him is somehow "worse" than by doing 8d8 Fire damage, which gives me such bad eyeroll-itis that I fear for my sight.

And if it wasn't worse, then you might get other people disliking the idea that everything just works the same, just different labels to stuff that isn't very different at the end, what a bland game... WotC designers are trying to make the game interesting both functionally and narratively. Putting back some flavor and story into D&D is a major design goal for 5e. Still, none of us gets everything as we would like, neither functionally nor thematically/narratively. What you don't like, you have to change it up just like the rest of us. At least the options abound, and the framework is designed to be easier than ever to tinker with.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And if it wasn't worse, then you might get other people disliking the idea that everything just works the same, just different labels to stuff that isn't very different at the end, what a bland game... WotC designers are trying to make the game interesting both functionally and narratively. Putting back some flavor and story into D&D is a major design goal for 5e. Still, none of us gets everything as we would like, neither functionally nor thematically/narratively. What you don't like, you have to change it up just like the rest of us. At least the options abound, and the framework is designed to be easier than ever to tinker with.

I'd like to be agreeable here, but I have to say, I am unconvinced by this, and I don't think this is a good example of "Well, we all have to change things!".

The issue here is that by making these assumptions, they narrow what D&D is about, rather than broadening it. You say they are trying to "make the game interesting" and "add flavour and story", and that's cool, but I don't see this doing either of those things. It makes the game more bland and trite, when Good Clerics do Radiant, Evil Clerics do Necrotic, and worst of all, Neutral Clerics choose. If it was Clerics of certain gods that did different damage types based on the gods, or if Clerics of the gods always did radiant, but those who worshipped non-gods (i.e. high-end demons/devils etc.) did necrotic, I would totally buy it as "flavour", totally, but that's not really how it is, at least from what we've seen.

As for "options abound", well, they don't, not with this, at least. If I want to change this I have to trawl through every single Cleric spell and see if they decided that it did follow this bland scheme, or didn't. I can't set a switch at a PC level or the like, because it's inconsistent (which is part of why I say lazy design). Not unique in an interesting way, just inconsistent, to be clear.

If the designers really think that sort of thing is what makes D&D "interesting" and "flavourful", if they think returning to "Death is EVIIIIIL!" spooky-trite-ness is a good thing, then I should be bracing for a real onslaught of really wishy-washy, weak-sauce fluff, I guess! YMWV!

Let's have some REAL flavour - the Warlock sure has some. That's flavour. Not "Evil Cleric casting spells sometimes do Necrotic damage where Good ones do Radiant, no explanation given as to why".

EDIT - To be fair I still could be convinced that this is no big deal, if 5E actually has setting books AND those setting books immediately start challenging this kind of stuff, as they did in 2E, saying "Well that's not how this works here!", or if the DMG has a really decent chapter on how you can adjust this stuff (and does things like listing every spell you'll need to fiddle with), but I suspect that, as with early 4E, the mighty god BRANDING (TM)(R)(C) will mean that in the DMG they don't give good options here (merely hand-wringing briefly about how you could, maybe, I guess), rather hoping people just stick with the defaults and think they are cool. Then of course 2-3 years down the line we'll see a DM-oriented book which DOES give good options which should have been there from the start...

 

[Li Shenron]

It makes the game more bland and trite, when Good Clerics do Radiant, Evil Clerics do Necrotic, and worst of all, Neutral Clerics choose.

Depends who you ask. A game where Good, Neutral and Evil Clerics have the same options is even more bland to me.

I'd like to have both good death deities and evil death deities. Sadly, only the latter will be in the game at launch. Variety costs space and design effort, and they just had to choose what is more indispensible first.

As for "options abound", well, they don't, not with this, at least.

They are about to release 1000 pages of options. I'm sure each and every one of use need something that isn't there or is there in a form that's not what they want. And I'm also sure that 10000 pages of splatbooks wouldn't change it, since even in the late 3e years, most gamers would still talk about what should be different.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Depends who you ask. A game where Good, Neutral and Evil Clerics have the same options is even more bland to me.

I'd like to have both good death deities and evil death deities. Sadly, only the latter will be in the game at launch. Variety costs space and design effort, and they just had to choose what is more indispensible first.

Sorry Li, but no, this is facile stuff that is not true here. You can have "variety" without making Death Clerics some sort of "Evil-only" option. In fact, that means that there is LESS variety, not more.

The idea that a special Domain that's effectively NPC-only is "indispensible", when building NPCs as PCs is only an option, not even the standard/default way of doing thing (as is the case in 5E) is a very strange one, and as you don't explain how that is the case, I'm left mystified by that assertion.

If I was choosing "indispensible" stuff for D&D, neither Anti-Paladins nor NPC-Cleric-oriented domains would be on my list, and indeed, thinking about all the people who might play 5E, I suspect they wouldn't be on many lists, and even where they appeared, would be far down.

Or are you referring to something else entirely?

They are about to release 1000 pages of options. I'm sure each and every one of use need something that isn't there or is there in a form that's not what they want. And I'm also sure that 10000 pages of splatbooks wouldn't change it, since even in the late 3e years, most gamers would still talk about what should be different.

So your argument here is "people will always complain/never be happy/can't please everyone"? Do I misunderstand? Well, that seems rather dismissive and, frankly, isn't really an argument at all, but rather a sort of rhetorical shrug, no?

My point is simple: WotC have apparently* narrowed down something in D&D with 5E in a way that does not support options, that does not support variety, that does not support existing D&D settings, and that, most hilariously of all DOES NOT SUPPORT THE MAIN/DEFAULT 5E SETTING (unless the Death gods of the FR got re-jiggered again!), and yet you are seemingly claiming this is some sort of victory for choice, variety and flavour.

I cannot make sense of that, I'm afraid.

* = Still hoping this is BS!