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

[Maxperson]

I am simply using the same argument that you used.

If you find it lacking, then maybe you can understand why I found your own argument lacking before. And, Volo's saves us from spontaneously appearing orcs, without changing anything in the monster manual.

I don't find it lacking. I A) find it ridulous, and B) am telling you flat out that this is not my argument. It isn't, never was, and never will be. That clear?

What portion am I getting wrong? The Monster Manual fills in the details, and any details it misses should be dismissed?

This. That has never been my argument. You're getting that one very, very, VERY wrong.

Then how many "exceptions" to the default are there? 50% isn't an exception, 25% isn't an exception (those are actual percentages called out in stat blocks) so how much lower should we go? 10% of the population? 5%?

How many exceptions do you want? How do you not get that this is a DM decision and will vary from game to game?

They could propogate by budding, wouldn't change anything. The point isn't "well they have sex" the point is that they are evil. The statblock says they are evil, and that is the default. The Monster Manual says they gather together to kill, loot, and pillage. Not have polite discussions over tea. And, like I said, Volo's is RAW and covers this. So, we can add Volo's in if you wish.

The point is that according to your argument(It's yours because you made it and it sure as hell isn't mine) that orcs don't exist.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This. That has never been my argument. You're getting that one very, very, VERY wrong.

Okay, I must have misunderstood while we were discussing about the Undead and Animate dead. I thought you said that we should only look to the Monster Manual for the default truth of the world, and when I brought up the facets of the monster manual in that discussion that did not match with the spell.... you seemed to ignore them in favor of just saying that zombies are evil because the monster manual said so. Even in the face of potential evidence that they might have been talking about different entities, because of the inconsistencies.


But, as I pointed out. Volos provides us with all the child birth and rearing details for the MM orc. And still pretty much tells us that any orc tribe you encounter will try and kill you on sight.

So, I'm still right about what RAW says about the Orcs. And, following the ideas of objective good and evil, then killing a tribe of orcs is at worst a neutral act, because when you encounter them they will try and kill you. So it is automatic self-defense.

 

[Flamestrike]

So by your own definitions, ‘Destroy all Undead’ as a standard treatment in ‘ RAW’ campaigns is acceptable. This would then, be a morally justified genocide, by those terms.

Skeletons at 6 Int, ( which I find is too high, personally ), are equal to apes.
Chimpanzees and Orangs meet the definition of sentient and sapient, and also have a 6 Int.

Thus we arrive at: in a D&D context, mass killing of anything with a 6 or greater Int is genocide.

Undead cannot be killed. They're not alive; they're undead.

You cant murder the undead. Patricide, fratricide, matricide and so forth are out. So genocide is also impossible.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, I must have misunderstood while we were discussing about the Undead and Animate dead. I thought you said that we should only look to the Monster Manual for the default truth of the world, and when I brought up the facets of the monster manual in that discussion that did not match with the spell.... you seemed to ignore them in favor of just saying that zombies are evil because the monster manual said so. Even in the face of potential evidence that they might have been talking about different entities, because of the inconsistencies.

I can't remember if it was you, but someone else said that they go by the Monster Manual as the truth of the game world. I responded to them and you may have been confused by that.

My argument is that the spell says to use the MM Zombie stat block. Therefore the default RAW is to use that stat block as written. Looking at the Zombie stat block, the Zombies created by the spell are by RAW, evil. I don't know how you got from my argument about the stat block to the fluff of orcs.

At some point you brought up MM alignment rules as "evidence" that the Zombies from the spell aren't evil. I pointed out that those alignment rules say that the default(RAW) is whatever the stat block says. Therefore, to change the spell as you want it to be changed would require homebrew.

Changing an individual zombie or even some zombies to be another alignment would not be homebrew, since the alignment rules allow such changes. Only a large blanket change to the stat block or spell itself would require homebrew.

But, as I pointed out. Volos provides us with all the child birth and rearing details for the MM orc. And still pretty much tells us that any orc tribe you encounter will try and kill you on sight.

Nothing you have shown actually says that. You are reading more into those words than are there.

So, I'm still right about what RAW says about the Orcs.

No you aren't. There is nothing in the orc fluff that says that they will always attack others on sight. Absolutely nothing.

 

[Flamestrike]

During some in-town downtime, when some of the PCs had met in a tavern one night, one of the party goody-goods decided to cast Know Alignment on us all, and of course pulled me as E. Next came Hold Person (I failed my save by a lot), followed by him trying to convince the rest of the party to help him kill me. None bought in, so when the Hold was about to expire he ran me through. Dead.

I would stop the game before that happened, and explain to the PC in question that killing you was murder, and it was an evil act, and if he continued with his actions, I would change his alignment to evil (and there would be likely other ramifications in game as well).

No complaints, no arguments. An explanation only. I'm speaking as the Gods here.

 

[Flamestrike]

They are evil they will turn traitor, attack you to kill, enslave, pillage ect.



Objectively evil, you can't redeem them. That is not how objective evil works. To redeem someone they have to have good in them, evil does not have good in it.

I dont think you know what 'objective' means.

Just because objective morality exists, doesnt mean that a creature cant change its alignment.

Like; If I am objectively evil; I can still change my alignment to good.

Right, so you kill as many of them as it takes for them to stop attacking you.

Yes.

And you impose terms on them as the winning force to ensure it doesnt happen again.

Your response has still been that if a monsters statblock says it is evil, then it is evil.

Utter rubbish. Dont put words in my mouth that I never said. I never said anything like that.

So, you can't kill a warforged correct? Modron?

Warforged arent contructs; they're humanoids. Even in 3.5 where they first appeared they were explicitly 'living' constructs (they had the living subtype) so even then they were the exception to the rule as they (unlike other constructs) were expressly alive.

As for modrons, they're constructs. They're not alive. You cant kill something that isnt alive.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I can't remember if it was you, but someone else said that they go by the Monster Manual as the truth of the game world. I responded to them and you may have been confused by that.

My argument is that the spell says to use the MM Zombie stat block. Therefore the default RAW is to use that stat block as written. Looking at the Zombie stat block, the Zombies created by the spell are by RAW, evil. I don't know how you got from my argument about the stat block to the fluff of orcs.

At some point you brought up MM alignment rules as "evidence" that the Zombies from the spell aren't evil. I pointed out that those alignment rules say that the default(RAW) is whatever the stat block says. Therefore, to change the spell as you want it to be changed would require homebrew.

Changing an individual zombie or even some zombies to be another alignment would not be homebrew, since the alignment rules allow such changes. Only a large blanket change to the stat block or spell itself would require homebrew.

So, let me see if I can walk through this a little bit.

The zombie from Animate Dead is evil, because they say to use the Monster Statblock from the MM, and that says it is Evil.

So, if I was to populate an Orc Tribe, should I not use the statblock for "orc" in the Monster Manual? What other source should I use for RAW orcs?

And, if I do use the Statblock for the orc, what does it say? It says that Orcs are Evil. So, I would assume that any given tribe of Orcs is evil, because they would all be based off the statblock, correct?

Now, I could have an "exception" tribe of orcs. These orcs would not be evil, because the Monster Manual allows me to change their alignment, altering what the statblcok says. That would not be homebrew.

However, I can not have an "exception" zombie created by Animate Dead... because of reasons I guess. To have Animate Dead create non-evil Zombies I would need to homebrew the spell. Because of it requires a larger change than the Monster Manual rule that allows me to change alignment?

See, I get really confused here. Why can I have an entire tribe of "exception orcs" but not use the evidence that zombies created by Animate Dead don't match with the Zombies in the Monster Manual, or any of the other evidence I presented, to create non-evil Zombies using the MM "exception" rule.

If I can't make exception zombies, why should I assume that there even are exception orcs? Or, has it been this entire time that you agree that using Animate Dead to create Neutral Zombies is RAW. If that is the case, I should apologize, because them your position would be consistent.

Nothing you have shown actually says that. You are reading more into those words than are there.

No you aren't. There is nothing in the orc fluff that says that they will always attack others on sight. Absolutely nothing.

Um, yeah, they are very murder happy.

"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers "

"Such was the role of the orcs, he proclaimed, to take and destroy all that the other races would deny them. To this day, the orcs wage an endless war on humans, elves, dwarves, and other folk. "

"Orcs gather in tribes that exert their dominance and satisfy their bloodlust by plundering villages, devouring or driving
off roaming herds, and slaying any humanoids that stand against them. "

"Their lust for slaughter demands that orcs dwell always within striking distance of new targets. "

"The tribe then sets out en masse to carve a bloody path to its new territory. "

"Savage and fearless, orc tribes are ever in search of elves, dwarves, and humans to destroy. "

"Gruumsh leads his orcs on a mission of ceaseless slaughter, fueled by an unending rage that seeks to lay waste to the civilized world and revel in its anguish. "

"Orcs aren’t interested in treaties, trade negotiations or diplomacy. They care only for satisfying their insatiable desire for battle, to smash their foes and appease their gods. "

"When a tribe is on the move, orc warriors are commanded to scour the surrounding landscape for any opportunity to spill blood and bring glory to their gods. "

"Most of the orcs that stay behind when the warriors go on their raids are weaker than their tribe mates or otherwise not suited for a life of battle....But even these orcs are trained in combat, and all of them are expected to act like warriors if the lair is attacked or threatened. "

What in any of that quoted text makes it seem like you are likely to find a peaceful orc tribe? All of it makes it sound like if you are found by orcs, they will attack you. I guess if you are heavily armed, armored, and sufficiently outnumber them they will choose not to commit suicide, but all of this points to a people who will attack any civilized humanoid on sight.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't think you know what 'objective' means.

Just because objective morality exists, doesn't mean that a creature cant change its alignment.

Like; If I am objectively evil; I can still change my alignment to good.

Objective means not subject to opinion. It is a fact. I guess you could view it like something being objectively hot, but that is still false. Things are still subjective in physics, that is why it is called relativity. A bullet train is going "fast" from a human perspective, but from the perspective of light traveling, it is slow. A fire maybe "hot" to us, but a "cool" star still burns many thousands of times hotter.

So, how do we go to objective evil? Well, we would have to go into immutable fact. This creature is evil, it will do these things, this is a fact. If they can be altered, it must be an event that is tremendous to invoke such change. A Pegasus is good, until it's wings are ripped off and it is tortured while undergoing a ritual of dark magic. Then it becomes the evil creature known as a Nightmare.

Of course, this is just my view on it. I'm sure your view is that people can change all the time. That if you treat them justly, kindly, and with understanding they will likely turn good. Which raises the question. Why are some races listed as Evil, while others are listed as "any alignment"? If they really are good people who just need to be given a chance... then they wouldn't be objectively evil would they?

Yes.

And you impose terms on them as the winning force to ensure it doesnt happen again.

Oh.

You colonize them and impose your culture upon them in place of their own. Well, glad that can't possibly come across as problematic or evil.

Maybe force them to relinquish all their weapons, disband their armies, forbid them from training soldiers? I feel like I heard this somewhere before....

But, I'm sure your version would be the "right" way to do that, correct?

Utter rubbish. Dont put words in my mouth that I never said. I never said anything like that.

Really? You never said that a creature has to be evil because the Monster Manual said so?

Let me see

Post #152

Open your Monster Manual. Check the entries on Zombies and Skeletons (I presume you're animating the corpse as one of those creatures).

Zombies are described as being animated with magic described as being 'dark magic' and 'sinister necromantic magic'. It also states that the magic that animates the Zombie also 'imbues it with evil, causing it to attack any living creature it encounters.'

Skeletons also are described as being animated by 'dark' magic. The magic is also described as 'sinister necromantic magic'. The spirit that inhabits the skeleton is described as 'hateful and evil'. I goes on to state the Necromantic energy that powers the skeleton compels it to kill, without mercy or compassion.

Post #111 doesn't mention the monster manual, but still puts forth the same idea

However (in the absence of such a setting or the DM choosing to ignore the fact that undead are evil monsters, created with evil magic, and doing so often means you are also evil) animating the dead frequently makes you evil.

Lets go back the other way for more recent posts like #274

The spell also doesn't state that you must summon and evil and murderous spirit.

Says it under the entry for Zombies and Skeletons. You know -the things you're creating.

And no requirement that the zombie must be evil

There is if you're using RAW. Go check the entry for Zombies in the MM if you dont believe me.

#280

3) By RAW, zombies and skeletons are Evilly aligned (reference already provided)

Warforged arent contructs; they're humanoids. Even in 3.5 where they first appeared they were explicitly 'living' constructs (they had the living subtype) so even then they were the exception to the rule as they (unlike other constructs) were expressly alive.

As for modrons, they're constructs. They're not alive. You cant kill something that isn't alive.

Ok.

Why is a Warforged alive but a Modron isn't? Both are made of inorganic material. Both are capable of sentient thought. Neither needs air or food to survive. What is the difference?

Is it the lack of free-will on the part of the Modron? That would stipulate that Ants and other Eusocial insects are not in fact alive, and therefor cannot be killed. Because ants and other insects like them have a very similar societal structure. Mindflayers also follow that sort of hive-mind activity, would they be considered "not alive"?

Perhaps it is the fact that they are a planar entity? But, we have stories of Celestials and Fiends being killed, so it is possible to kill them. You can kill gods as well, they are alive despite being planar entities.

So, what is the difference? Why is a Modron not alive, but a Warforged is alive?

 

[Maxperson]

So, let me see if I can walk through this a little bit.

The zombie from Animate Dead is evil, because they say to use the Monster Statblock from the MM, and that says it is Evil.

So, if I was to populate an Orc Tribe, should I not use the statblock for "orc" in the Monster Manual? What other source should I use for RAW orcs?

However, I can not have an "exception" zombie created by Animate Dead... because of reasons I guess. To have Animate Dead create non-evil Zombies I would need to homebrew the spell. Because of it requires a larger change than the Monster Manual rule that allows me to change alignment?

The animate dead spell says to use the default fluff. If you want to change the default, it's homebrew. If you just want one random zombie from animate dead to be non-evil, talk to the DM.

See, I get really confused here. Why can I have an entire tribe of "exception orcs" but not use the evidence that zombies created by Animate Dead don't match with the Zombies in the Monster Manual, or any of the other evidence I presented, to create non-evil Zombies using the MM "exception" rule.

Do you not understand that you are changing the entire default for Animate Dead, Zombies or both?

Um, yeah, they are very murder happy.

"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers "

So were the Vikings, yet they didn't kill everyone who came across them and had a lot of trade going on. There is nothing about that sentence that says that they have to kill everyone they see.

"Such was the role of the orcs, he proclaimed, to take and destroy all that the other races would deny them. To this day, the orcs wage an endless war on humans, elves, dwarves, and other folk. "

"Orcs gather in tribes that exert their dominance and satisfy their bloodlust by plundering villages, devouring or driving
off roaming herds, and slaying any humanoids that stand against them. "

"Their lust for slaughter demands that orcs dwell always within striking distance of new targets. "

"The tribe then sets out en masse to carve a bloody path to its new territory. "

"Savage and fearless, orc tribes are ever in search of elves, dwarves, and humans to destroy. "

"Gruumsh leads his orcs on a mission of ceaseless slaughter, fueled by an unending rage that seeks to lay waste to the civilized world and revel in its anguish. "

"Orcs aren’t interested in treaties, trade negotiations or diplomacy. They care only for satisfying their insatiable desire for battle, to smash their foes and appease their gods. "

"When a tribe is on the move, orc warriors are commanded to scour the surrounding landscape for any opportunity to spill blood and bring glory to their gods. "

"Most of the orcs that stay behind when the warriors go on their raids are weaker than their tribe mates or otherwise not suited for a life of battle....But even these orcs are trained in combat, and all of them are expected to act like warriors if the lair is attacked or threatened. "

What in any of that quoted text makes it seem like you are likely to find a peaceful orc tribe? All of it makes it sound like if you are found by orcs, they will attack you. I guess if you are heavily armed, armored, and sufficiently outnumber them they will choose not to commit suicide, but all of this points to a people who will attack any civilized humanoid on sight.

Cool beans, but half-orcs prove you wrong. Dead people can't procreate.

Orc may be vile, but they don't always kill everything on sight.

 

[FrogReaver]

Clearly they are not limited to that fluff, therefore they don't HAVE to attack other humanoids on sight, since you know, they have minds and all.

Isn't that essentially the same argument that we have used about skeletons/zombies? That they are clearly not limited to that fluff?

Surely you can see why we would find that position you are taking here to be a tad bit hypocritical?