D&D 5E [UPDATED] DMG - Villainous Classes Preview

[BigVanVader]

I think the idea is that 1) you're subverting the natural order of things by interfering with the cycle of life (though the same can be said of healing magic, and especially resurrection, of course) and 2) those undead minions used to be people, and dragging them from their eternal reward so they can make the tea is kind of a dick move.

Who says that messing with some corpse is messing with a person? It would be like if I wore your pants after you stopped wearing them, I don't take control of your legs and make you kick lamps over and stuff.

 

[Jaelommiss]

I think the idea is that 1) you're subverting the natural order of things by interfering with the cycle of life (though the same can be said of healing magic, and especially resurrection, of course) and 2) those undead minions used to be people, and dragging them from their eternal reward so they can make the tea is kind of a dick move.

I'd add 3) necromancers trying to create undead to further their own powers generally tend not to have any moral objections to creating the necessary corpses.

I could definitely see situations where a necromancer could be considered good, but not if they are raising the dead for their own greed or ambition. A wizard or cleric raising fallen soldiers (with the family's permission) to help defend during a prolonged siege might be an example of a non-evil necromancer.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I think the idea is that 1) you're subverting the natural order of things by interfering with the cycle of life (though the same can be said of healing magic, and especially resurrection, of course) and 2) those undead minions used to be people, and dragging them from their eternal reward so they can make the tea is kind of a dick move.

Which runs into the problem that "Animate Dead" does absolutely nothing to the soul. It's off in a heaven being annoyingly happy or in agony in a hell. What you have is an animate sack of meat or bone. Greater undeath spells may actually do things to souls. Of course there's that whole "powered by negative energy" thing, but is destruction, in itself, evil?

 

[Mercule]

I don’t think a Death worshiping Cleric should inherently be evil. There are plenty of cultures that see death as a fundamental part of the natural world. Indeed, Death is the ultimate statement in Neutrality!

Yeah, the 'Death is Evil' attitude is a bit silly to me. One of my 4e ideas that I never made was a Deva Paladin of the Raven Queen, so technically he was worshiping the Goddess of Death, yeah.

Agreed. The god of the moon, in my home-brew setting, is also the "keeper of the dead". He's also Chaotic Good. I guess he's kinda like a reasonably friendly and upbeat Anubis. Anyway, the point is, it wasn't unheard of for folks to leave their bodies to the church to help take care of things like cleaning, grounds-keeping, etc. (not cooking -- ick). The concept was a bit like deathless in Eberron, just without adding any new rules (and they were mindless).

That may be a fairly extreme example, and probably wouldn't work very well with the Death domain, as listed for 5E (this was a 1E concept that really took off in 2E). Still, it's clear that fantasy worlds where God of Death != evil isn't exactly a stretch.

 

[Sacrosanct]

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] and [MENTION=13009]Paraxis[/MENTION]: yes, I'm entirely serious. "you can make villainous NPCs with classes and levels using the rules from the Player's Handbook" follows the "most people are stupid" model I felt with 4e, which I also avoided. To me it promotes the idea that people don't use their own imaginations. Games that talk down to their audience DIE.

Luckily, I have it on good authority that the DMG isn't "specifically designed for Zhaleskra", but for hundreds of thousand of gamers and potential gamers. So I guess my advice to you if you find that paragraph "insulting" is to get some perspective, or grow a thicker skin, or both.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Which runs into the problem that "Animate Dead" does absolutely nothing to the soul. It's off in a heaven being annoyingly happy or in agony in a hell. What you have is an animate sack of meat or bone. Greater undeath spells may actually do things to souls. Of course there's that whole "powered by negative energy" thing, but is destruction, in itself, evil?

Well there is the problem with any created undead that if you stop controlling them. (and it is pretty easy to lose control.) They just try and kill any living thing they see.

 

[DMZ2112]

How about if they just use this preview?

...Oh, a wise guy, eh?

And regards the whole 'oh, no, death isn't evil' thing: this is a presentation of a clearly antisocial death domain.

That's kind of my point. It's more an Undeath domain than a Death domain. So now we have priests of Kelemvor for whom the official Death domain makes no sense. Yay?

Does anyone think that there should only be a good/neutral* death domain?

Honestly I'm sort of of the mindset that domains in general ought not be obviously aligned. Do other classes have archetypes that are aligned? The paladin, I suppose, but I'm inclined to forgive the paladin design because of its longstanding relationship with an alignment requirement.

By the same token, I don't really mind the Oathbreaker paladin being in the DMG. But while /this/ Death domain clearly ought to be a dungeon master option, I'm a little disappointed that the official Death domain is. That's all I'm trying to say.

As for neutral death divinities being worshipped, well, not many in reality. (Some who try to placate death, like in santeria, though.)

I don't think you're digging very hard or very deep.

 

[Umbran]

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] and [MENTION=13009]Paraxis[/MENTION]: yes, I'm entirely serious. "you can make villainous NPCs with classes and levels using the rules from the Player's Handbook" follows the "most people are stupid" model I felt with 4e, which I also avoided. To me it promotes the idea that people don't use their own imaginations. Games that talk down to their audience DIE.

Zhaleskra,

Did you consider, for a moment, that there are some folks - perhaps not many, but some - who come to the game without a mentor? Who are trying to figure out the game based on the Starter Set and the books, and that's about it?

Those people need guidance. It isn't a matter of talking down to anyone, but of recognizing that some segment of the audience has *zero* experience. It isn't treating them like they are stupid, or unimaginative - it is recognizing that players can start out uninformed, with *zero* experience. For these folks, the books are not merely a reference work, but a place to learn pretty much everything.

So, there's going to be some content you don't personally need. It may seem simple-minded to you, but the book isn't written just for you. Leave some room for the needs of the new, please.

 

[Morrus]

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] and [MENTION=13009]Paraxis[/MENTION]: yes, I'm entirely serious. "you can make villainous NPCs with classes and levels using the rules from the Player's Handbook" follows the "most people are stupid" model I felt with 4e, which I also avoided. To me it promotes the idea that people don't use their own imaginations. Games that talk down to their audience DIE.

Are instructions on how to determine ability scored talking down to the audience?

I think you're missing the point of the rulebooks. If you don't want the core rulebooks to tell you the core things about the game, then maybe you should not buy then? Because that's what they're for.

Do you feel RPG core rulebooks (of any game) should miss out the "this is a roleplaying game" and "this is what the dice look like" sections?

The alternative is a pamphlet which notes changes in tabular form from previous editions in a careful effort to avoid any sentences which might insult you by not assuming prior knowledge. That's silly, right?

 

[hardvice]

That's kind of my point. It's more an Undeath domain than a Death domain. So now we have priests of Kelemvor for whom the official Death domain makes no sense. Yay?

I kind of feel that way about the domains we have so far in general. The problem is that you have all of these established, nuanced pantheons, and then you try to pin them all down to seven or eight domains and just end up with a bunch of really poor fits.

Obviously they couldn't do the whole glut of old domains at once — wizards and clerics already have far more options than everybody else — but I'm really hoping there's some kind of Deities & Demigods book early in the lineup with a ton of additional domains. (But then maybe that's just me. It offends me as a Gondsman that I'm stuck with the Knowledge domain like some kind of bespectacled Oghma worshipper.)

You're spot-on about the alignment agnosticism of the classes and subclasses, though. I really like the fact that I can play a Lawful Good assassin or a Chaotic Neutral paladin provided I can come up with the backstory to explain it. Alignment restrictions always felt kind of arbitrary; sure, there are trends, but this is D&D — there's always an exception.