D&D General A paladin just joined the group. I'm a necromancer.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I sorta of cringe reflexively when I read statements like this. I would like to think a RPG is a collaboration between players and DMs.

Write a short story if you want to control everything.

In the example I gave, a player of non- evil Necromancer wizard asks if they could develop a variant of Animate Dead, that made neutral undead, that become inert corpses at the end of the spell.

Unless a DM is really wedded to a campaign premise that All Necromancer’s are Evil, what harm happens when a DM tries to allow a player’s character concept to fruition?

If I am asking a player to commit to playing a character, for potentially years, then I as a DM should be wilying to be flexible, in terms of accommodation.

This applies to even Tortles. I don’t like them, but if a player really wanted to play one, I would let them.

I’m not saying a DM, does not have Final Say, but the game is not solely the DM’s.

My view. Others don’t share it, which is fine.
I'd say that we have pretty similar views.
A player should feel free to ask the DM if they want a change from the default made in the world, and the DM should work with them and try to accommodate that. But the DM has final say.

For example, in my Eberron game, making a unilateral change to the spell would significantly change the power dynamics of the base setting. To accommodate the player I would probably make this new way of animating dead something that only they can do, through special blessing or similar.
Alternatively they will have discovered a new spell: a breakthrough in magical theory, the equivalent of discovering cold fusion in our world. - With all of the outside interest that that would imply.

You aren't helping me understand. I know what the book says.

What no one seems to be able to do, is give a reason for that. It just is what it is and that is what it is. Even though RAW is contradictory, this one portion declaring evil must be true, even when it seems like it shouldn't be.

You rose to their defense, why can't you answer it? Surely they had to have a reason for the contradictions and the declaration of evil.
I've suggested possible reasons, but I can't know what the actual reasoning was, because it was a decision by the game designers and I'm not them.

They sometimes respond to twitter or suchlike I think. If you want to know their reasoning, you could ask.

But if you don't want to discuss it, then don't discuss it. But since even RAW seems to have holes in it to allow for interpretation, I don't think I need to back down from my position that there seems to be more than one way to animate dead, and that those other ways are not evil by default.
Then I would encourage you to run with that in your games, and either outright change the rules, or just ignore the bits that don't make sense to you.

Equivalent analogy:

Here, as a member of a Peace Council I am going to give you a chemical weapon that will kill a city. But, I trust you to be responsible with it.

That makes no sense. If they do not approve of the use of that power, that power which Flamestrike says must be evil power (Dark and Sinister, remember) which is unlike all of their other magic, then why are they gifting it to their most devout followers? Because they trust them not to use the power they gave them? That is nonsensical.
"As a member of the peace council, you have access to the knowledge and authority to create chemical weapons that will kill a city. If we didn't trust you not to abuse that power, we would not have elected you."

Feel free to complain about the way the cleric spell list is set up, with a generic list that all clerics have access to and only a small selection of spells tailored to the domain the deity represents. I'm not unsympathetic and have already mentioned other ways in which it might not feel ideal.
If you have issues with the way the spell lists were set up, again, the game designers are the people to talk to. If you want to tell them why their system makes no sense, go for it. Just do it politely.

Especially considering how I continually have shown that the evil murder spirit summoned by dark and sinister magic is not the only RAW, if we can use the Zombie statblock and change it to neutral in one case, then we can use it and change it in another case. So, no matter what the MM says, it cannot be definitive for the spell, because the spell does not agree with the MM on what is going on.
If you want to change the stats of the spore zombie to make more sense to you, I'd encourage you to do so. Or even with the normal zombies. Go for it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I sorta of cringe reflexively when I read statements like this. I would like to think a RPG is a collaboration between players and DMs.
In play, perhaps. Everyone has input through their characters.

In design - which this is - no. The DM is responsible for the setting and the rules.

In the example I gave, a player of non- evil Necromancer wizard asks if they could develop a variant of Animate Dead, that made neutral undead, that become inert corpses at the end of the spell.

Unless a DM is really wedded to a campaign premise that All Necromancer’s are Evil, what harm happens when a DM tries to allow a player’s character concept to fruition?
Hopefully it'd never come to that, as if the DM has Necromancers pegged as Evil this should appear in the game write-up or houserules or somewhere (and not just in the PH/DMG for a 5e game as the way they sort-of spell it out there does seem rather disorganized) in such a way as to be known to the players before one even tries to roll up a Necro.

If I am asking a player to commit to playing a character, for potentially years, then I as a DM should be wilying to be flexible, in terms of accommodation.

This applies to even Tortles. I don’t like them, but if a player really wanted to play one, I would let them.
If someone ever comes to me wanting to choose Tiefling as a race in my game I'd simply pull out the races-available-as-PC list and ask where on that list he or she sees it.

If after not seeing it there (because it isn't there and never will be) the player persisted, my responses in declining the request would get progressively shorter, blunter, and less tactful until eventually arriving at a non-grandma-friendly version of go jump in the lake.
 

Fauchard1520

Adventurer
Do more good deeds than bad ones and you should be fine. If your DM turns you evil just for animating dead then there is probably something else going on.

I feel like the "cosmic seesaw" is a good solution until you go all reductio ad absurdum with it. Playing a character that "uses the powers of darkness to serve the cause of light" is interesting. I mean, that's Spawn, right? But when you go to the extreme with the system (e.g. "I lit the last helpless orphans on fire, so if I save the next couple I should get to keep my good alignment"), it breaks down.

For a reasonable player though, it ought to work out fine.
 

Iry

Hero
Playing a character that "uses the powers of darkness to serve the cause of light" is interesting. I mean, that's Spawn, right?
I've actually wanted to play a character like that for a while. Not a necromancer, but something like a Celestial Warlock that summons devils and forces them to do good deeds. :geek:
 

Hopefully it'd never come to that, as if the DM has Necromancers pegged as Evil this should appear in the game write-up or houserules or somewhere

Not every game does that. Some games, especially with newer players, don’t plan out the campaign or character advancement in advance.

Lanefan, what if the player asked if they could look like one of your approved races, but keep Tiefling stats? I presume most long term DM’s, at least try to work with players on their goals.

An extreme application of the position of: my way or the highway, will eventually leave someone just playing with themselves.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Stop looking at the PHB for your answer. Look at the Monster Manual.

Skeletons say: "When skeletons encounter living creatures, the necromantic energy that drives them compels them to kill unless they are commanded by their masters to refrain from doing so. They attack without mercy and fight until destroyed, for skeletons possess little sense of self and even less sense of self-preservation. "

Zombies say: "A zombie retains no vestiges of its former self, its mind devoid of thought and imagination. [...] The magic animating a zombie imbues it with evil, so left without purpose, it attacks any living creature it encounters."

Skeletons and zombies are like land mines that will seek out and kill any living creature they find. They are, quite literally, immortal murder machines. Uncontrolled, they serve no purpose but destruction. They are not just animated and given a semblance of life by magic like a golem. They are animated and given a false life by evil. Undead, apparently, are the outcome of injecting magic and evil into a corpse.

Not evil in the moral sense. Nothing so esoteric. No, in the world of D&D, evil is an elemental force that drives the multiverse. Evil itself is capable of physical form, of direct manipulation of living creatures, and even sentience itself. Evil is as real as electromagnetism is for us. Measurable, observable, repeatable, concrete.

And those are the simple undead. Most undead are much, much worse. Mummies are little better than indiscriminate killers themselves; unable to do anything but attack and kill and infect the living with death. Ghouls, ghasts, and wights are all more intelligent and much more devoted to their hunger for living flesh. Allips, Banshee, Shadows, Specters, and Wraiths are tormented spirits, prevented from travelling to the afterlife. Their immortal spirits have quite literally been enslaved to serve evil itself.

And all of them, every last wisp, bone, and tooth among them is bent upon the mindless and total destruction of the living. Every entry for every undead in every edition of the game says that. And all of them unlike life. They do not grow, do not change, do not breed, do not learn, do not create, do not feel. They cannot do anything except destroy life.

And then we come to the undead so potent that they can scheme and plot and know along side any living creature, only they have little to fear from age. The Death Knight, the Lich, and the Vampire. And all they use it for is their own selfish ends, more callous and endless murder, no purpose but self preservation and death. Undead at this level often require murder and the sacrifice of living souls to create. Abomination is too kind a word for it.

Undead are evil. More so than even fiends or corrupt and foul deities. For these creatures can think like living creatures. They feel, they learn, they grow, and they change (at least compared to undead they do). Besides, they're locked away behind the boundaries of their planes, and many are they're pure manifestations of their plane or alignment. Sealed from the rest of the multiverse unless someone should call on them, and directly opposed by angels, archons, and good and most neutral deities. The multiverse knows that such creatures do not belong among mortals. But not undead. Undead are created by taking what is mortal, what is natural, and what is alive from the mortal plane and twisting and corrupting it into an odious tumor of hatred and violence.

So. Who would willingly create such a creature? Create a machine that knows only two things: a) how to kill, and b) that it must kill. And then you seek to control it? What if you should die, or have control taken or lost? What will become of the evil you have manifested and released? What of the pain and disgust and unspeakable horror you cause the living by seeing their fathers, mothers, siblings, cousins, brought forth from where they rested peacefully to serve some petty and insignificant purpose. Explain to them why your needs are so dire that their love must be trodden upon.

Raising undead is monstrous. It's creating a creature of an pure and naive evil, and yoking it for some mundane task.

The lone exceptions to undead being horrific, hateful, malicious, and destructive are rather unique exceptions. Ghosts can be any alignment, but are typically non-violent entirely. They're not so much undead as the incarnation of an immortal spirit that refuses to pass on to the afterlife. They are not created by evil or magic. They're naturally occurring. They arise because they wish to, and little else.

Similarly, Revenants are essentially self-animating as well. They have one purpose: revenge. Still murder. Still hatred of the living. But very focused and limited... and divinely justified. Note that both Revenants and Ghost cannot actually be destroyed. To permanently kill a Revenant and deny it justice, you've got to kill it and then spend a wish spell to make it go away. Ghosts don't even give you that option. The Hollow One from Wildemount -- basically an option to be a Dark Souls protagonist -- is basically a class of Revenant.

The final exception, Baelnorn, were basically a literary device created to make Pool of Radiance more interesting. So rare they're virtually non-existent, and many of those that exist were created by actual divine magic. Baelnorn really are the exceptions proving the rule. Again, the divinely created Baelnorn are basically impossible to destroy as they do not necessarily have a phylactery.

So "Every entry for every undead in every edition of the game" calls them evil.

Except Ghosts
Except Revenants
Except the Player Character Option
Except Deathless (created by dieties and can be motivated by regret)
Except the Spore Zombies of Ravinica who aren't using evil magic
Except Archliches which were explicitly "any non-evil alignment"
Except the Blood of Vol from Eberron

I could keep going, but what more value will the list have? Seven seperate instances of good or neutral undead should be plenty to show that, no, every entry for every undead in every edition of the game does not call undead evil.

And while I have looked at the monster manual, repeatedly, I still contend that if we want to talk about the creation of undead, the fact that none of that makes its way into the actual act of creating the undead gives us options. The spell Animate Dead does not say you must use an evil spirit. Therefore, I do not see why I must use an evil spirit?

Because I'm creating a zombie and the zombie stablock says they are evil? Then the mold used to make Spore Zombies is evil. As a plant. Which leads to a beakdown of that evil you are talking about.

Evil is a measurable force is DnD? We can agree on that. Good dieties allow their clerics to cast this spell, using their magic. Are Good Dieties' magic evil? Evil is a fundamental force that they oppose, measurable, so how much evil magic do the gods of good contain?

Yes, everything you have said describes one type of undead, but nothing in the entry for necromancy, Animate Dead, or considering the logic tree, even the statblocks, prevents us from making a different type of undead.

And, I've broken the land mine analogy already while discussing with Cap'n Kobold.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Then I would encourage you to run with that in your games, and either outright change the rules, or just ignore the bits that don't make sense to you.

"As a member of the peace council, you have access to the knowledge and authority to create chemical weapons that will kill a city. If we didn't trust you not to abuse that power, we would not have elected you."

Since most of your post is just saying "change what you want" I'm going to just respond here.

Why does the Peace Council have the authority to create Chemical Weapons? What possible reason could they have for that?

Unless, there are ways to use city killing weapons for good. In which case, the weapons cannot be evil, and the creation of them cannot be evil.

Which takes us back to the spell, if the creation of undead is not inherently evil, then what? A good person can do it just not "frequently" what does that mean? If they raise a skeleton every week to fight against the demon invasion, is that too "frequently"? Are they evil?

Let us say to save an orphanage of Aasimar they summon two undead in a single day. Too Frequently? Too Evil?

Remember, DnD Evil is measurable, real and absolute. As many posters have been kind enough to tell me, so there isn't wiggle room. there is actually a set number of undead, a static number that you can summon, that is "evil". Per RAW.

And sure, I can change that number, again, I know that. My purpose here isn't to get your permission to run the game the way I want to run it. I already do that. My point is that if you guys are going to so vigorously defend the RAW, then you have to either show how it makes consistent sense, or acknowledge that is does not make consistent sense.
 

Dausuul

Legend
Sorry to jump in, but that opening paragraph hit a lot of my hot buttons.

The ends justify the means in almost every case.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Is it okay to burst into somebody's home without warning, kill them, and take their stuff? Because that's the sort of thing which, in a vacuum, I would describe as "chaotic evil." The words "monstrous," "murderous," and "thuggish" also come to mind.

If you're okay with your PCs doing that, ever, then you are acknowledging that the ends may justify the means.
 

Why does the Peace Council have the authority to create Chemical Weapons? What possible reason could they have for that?
Why would a deity or Darkness grant radiant damage spells and Daylight?

Which takes us back to the spell, if the creation of undead is not inherently evil, then what? A good person can do it just not "frequently" what does that mean? If they raise a skeleton every week to fight against the demon invasion, is that too "frequently"? Are they evil?

Let us say to save an orphanage of Aasimar they summon two undead in a single day. Too Frequently? Too Evil?
Ask. Your. DM.

Remember, DnD Evil is measurable, real and absolute. As many posters have been kind enough to tell me, so there isn't wiggle room. there is actually a set number of undead, a static number that you can summon, that is "evil". Per RAW.
You're going to have to link the post where people talk about this specific, set, static number. Not sure what is going on there, so I'll need some context.
Personally I regard it as a judgement call as to the situation and any repercussions that may arise from it.

And sure, I can change that number, again, I know that. My purpose here isn't to get your permission to run the game the way I want to run it. I already do that. My point is that if you guys are going to so vigorously defend the RAW, then you have to either show how it makes consistent sense, or acknowledge that is does not make consistent sense.
In the absence of more information from the OP, we're having to go by RAW. If you personally don't feel it makes sense, don't use it. You're allowed your own opinion. We can try to help you understand it, but we're not going to force you to agree with it.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Ask. Your. DM.

I .Am. The. DM.

And if Evil is so arbitrary that we have no guidelines other than "well what do you think" then it isn't absolute, is it?

Why would a deity or Darkness grant radiant damage spells and Daylight?

I've generally imagined Radiant damage being more "divine" damage, so I've got no issue with black radiant energy.

Daylight is a bit trickier, but it could be seen as an inverse. Light is simply the absence of shadow, so they can cast Daylight by absorbing the darkness into themselves, leaving behind only the light.

Since many creatures of shadow also need darkness to hide or use their abilities it could also be given to be used as a punishment. Removing the source of their comfort and strength is a fine way to punish subordinates that have failed to act as you desire.



You're going to have to link the post where people talk about this specific, set, static number. Not sure what is going on there, so I'll need some context.
Personally I regard it as a judgement call as to the situation and any repercussions that may arise from it.

In the absence of more information from the OP, we're having to go by RAW. If you personally don't feel it makes sense, don't use it. You're allowed your own opinion. We can try to help you understand it, but we're not going to force you to agree with it.

It is a matter of logic, honestly.

Many posters have stated that good and evil in the DnD multiverse is absolute, it is a force, it is measurable, it is not a matter of opinion. Therefore if Evil is an absolute force, like gravity, then the point where you become evil is measurable. There is a mathematical proof of how many undead it takes being created how quickly makes you "evil".

But, if it is a judgement call, like you prefer to make it, then it is subjective, not absolute. And if it is subjective, then an act by itself cannot be called evil. "Only Evil people cast this spell frequently" is then nonsense, because the act of casting the spell is not evil, it is the use of that spell in the context and the repercussions from using it within that context.

That is why I keep arguing. Because either you can provide a solid, definitive statement, like summoning 5 zombies in a day makes you evil, and here is where it states that. Or, it is subjective, a matter of opinion, and then most of the RAW that people keep throwing at me, is wrong.[/QUOTE]
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top