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

[Flamestrike]

How exactly does one "shoot back" at someone who hasn't shot at you? Just asking.

Fair point.

 

[Maxperson]

Without the monster manual to tell you that they kill any living thing they encounter, you would have no leg to stand on to claim that they are created evil.

And without the PHB giving you the spell, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on, either. I mean, as long as you're using ridiculous arguments like, "Without the portion of the game that explains it all, you wouldn't know!", why stop there?

And, as I have said repeatedly, there are disconnects between the mechanics and lore of the monster manual and the mechanics of the spell.

You've said it. You've also failed to prove it. The disconnects only appear if you make assumptions that aren't present, like assuming that evil orcs will always attack on sight.

And if they are not, then why must we assume that the zombies are murder machines and therefore evil and therefore the person who casts the spell is evil?

Nobody on our side is assuming anything. It's dictated by RAW. If you cast that spell frequently, you are evil. Zombie default alignment is evil. You only start getting into assumption when you try to cheese yourself around RAW in order to get away with something the game's default doesn't let you get away with.

What I am doing is pointing out that I don't need to homebrew it. That the only reason you are saying I need to homebrew it is because you are assuming facets that are not technically RAW.

What you ARE doing is making the mistake of assuming that just because Osiris gives the Death Domain, that he is okay with his clerics casting Animate Dead.

Edit: Hell, it's not even Osiris. Osiris suggests Nature and Life. It's Nephthys who is the good god that suggests(not gives) the Death domain. It's not just us that you don't pay attention to apparently.

 

[Maxperson]

The quote even provides the page number. PHB 298

You mean the page that says that most clerics with the Death Domain are evil and ask the DM for permission to play it, and then the section of the DMG under Villainous NPCs where the Death Domain is listed? The description of which is entirely evil? Good god man, can't you take a hint about what the domain is about?

 

[Helldritch]

Ok let me make it simple so that everyone understand.

RAW: Undead are evil.
RAI: Undead are evil.
RAW: Creating undead is evil.
RAI: Creating undead is evil.
RAW: Magic is a tool.
RAI: Magic is a tool.

What you do with magic will determine if you are doing evil things, neutral things or good things.

RAW: The stat blocks.
RAI: The stat blocks.
RAW: The DM can homebrew.
RAI: The DM can homebrew.
RAW: Homebrew is not RAW.
RAI: Homebrew is RAI but never RAW.

A non evil orc? Homebrew.
A non evil undead? So far, Homebrew. (save Eberron, but then again, by definition, a setting is Homebrew.)
Can they exist? Of course, but it is homebrew. Whether you like it or not. You may use any fallacious arguements you want. Nothing will change the base game.

Again the example of the rifle.
You can hunt with a rifle. It is not an evil thing to do.
You can defend yourself with a rifle. It is not an evil thing to do.
With your rifle, you can kill your neighbourg and his whole familly because they breathe the same air as you are. That is an evil thing to do. So if you use the rifle to kill all famillies that breathe your air, you are evil. Is it because the too is evil? No, it is because that you are using the tool to do evil things. It is exactly the same with magic. You want to use magic to create evil things? Then you are evil, or will be evil soon.

The spell itself is not evil. It does nothing until you use it. BUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTT! As soon as you use the animate dead spell, you are doing something really evil. Even in a desperate move, if you die, these undead will attack and kill innocents. You know the consequences of the spell and you still use it. You are either a misguided fool who will turn to evil soon as he does not care about the consequences of his actions. Or you are already evil and you try to justify yourself with the famous: "The end justifies the means". Again the gray zone that I talk about so much in many posts.

Edit: Note: By you I mean the character. Not the persons to whom the post is intended.

 

[Greenfield]

If it's a WOTC published setting, it isn't "homebrew". Unless your home happens to be somewhere at WOTC, of course.

 

[Helldritch]

If it's a WOTC published setting, it isn't "homebrew". Unless your home happens to be somewhere at WOTC, of course.

No need for that. Homebrew in this context means only: "Outside of the core game". The core game is by definition: " The PHB, the DMG and the MM". Anything else, even if official material, is homebrew. Be it Wildemount, Eberron, Ravenloft, Darksun, Forgotten Realm, Planescape, Spelljammer, Mystara, Birthright and even my dear loved Greyhawk. All these can be considered homebrew. While a the core game assumes one thing, a setting can freely assume another.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not at all. You'd be well within your rights to be wary of the Orcs, but not all Orcs are walking around trying to kill things.

Plenty of Orcs are just hunters, villagers, civilians, Good or Neutral aligned and wanting nothing to do with bloodshed or the war. They could be civilians or healers, and even in war you cant intentionally gun down civilians or medics (unless they pose you a threat of some kind of course).

Nazi soldiers are fair game. German civilians are not.

I'm sorry, considering your position on "the statblock default is evil" how can you justify plenty of non-evil orcs?

Considering all of their lore is dedicated to telling us how pretty much all orc society cares about is bloodshed and war, where are you getting the idea that they want nothing to do with war?

In fact, considering this statement from RAW "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. " Where do you even get the concept of Orcish civilians?

An Orcish "civilian" in this reading is just a warrior who is considered to weak to go raiding and is expected to stay home and fight anyone who goes to the camp.

Great, but we're not talking about Aztecs here. We're talking about Orcs. Unless you're comparing real world non European civilisations to that of fantasy Orcs, in which case I find that quite xenophobic and ethnocentric.

But hypothetically if there were a civilisation that predicated itself on rape, murder and enslavement as a way of life (enshrined in its religion), doing away with the aspects of that culture (humanely) that advocated for rape, murder and enslavement is a Good thing.

Remember - you're the one that set the terms here. If we dont help steer them away from murder, rape and enslavement, we have to kill them all. Redemption is clearly the better option.

I'm just following RAW from the book and noting that your logic is the same logic that was used back then.

Does the fact that we have "real gods" telling us that is would definetly be more good if the orcs worshipped them instead of their own god really make a difference? I question that, if you don't that is your decision.

For the same reason rocks and computers are not alive, or circles are not squares.

No, wrong. Warforged are expressly part organic and part machine. Read the desription of them.

Dead undead is a misnomer. If its dead its dead (and it ceases being undead). You cant have a dead undead anymore than you can have a living dead.

See, I wondered if we were going to get here.

Why is a computer not alive?

We are fairly close (a few decades probably) from developing the first AI's. I've read a lot of sci-fi that deals with AI's and it has led me to make a realization. Once we get the capability to transfer a human mind into a machine body, then what is the difference between an AI and a brain in a computer?

And, as some of those stories showed in vivid detail, if a brain in a box isn't considered "alive" then it has no rights. You can't kill it. You can't torture it. You can't imprison it.

And this leads to horror on a grand scale. Which is why I am pushing you for your definition. What constitutes alive to you? Does it have to be organic? Why does being organic matter for the right to happiness? The right to freedom?

I dont care. I provided you with sources. Go pick up XGTE and see for yourself. Osiris clerics get the Grave domain (and its heavily implied that this is supposed to replace the Death domain for Good and Neutral clerics of Death gods). Once you're done with that pick up your DMG and note where it says ONLY evil clerics have access to the Death domain.

So even if Osiris grants the Death domain (doubtful) then only his Evil clerics have access to it. Everyone else gets the Grave domain.

So, you don't care that the PHB says "Thus, although most clerics of the Death domain (found in the Dungeon Master’s Guide) are villainous characters, clerics who serve Anubis or Nephthys need not be."

I admit, I added Osiris to the list, because God of the Underworld, but even so this is RAW from the PHB.

But, if you don't care about RAW that disagrees with your position... what is the point in even arguing? You just ignore evidence that doesn't agree with you.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You mean the page that says that most clerics with the Death Domain are evil and ask the DM for permission to play it, and then the section of the DMG under Villainous NPCs where the Death Domain is listed? The description of which is entirely evil? Good god man, can't you take a hint about what the domain is about?

No, the part that specifically lists that not all Death Domain clerics are evil. I quoted it in my last post, if you care to read it.

And without the PHB giving you the spell, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on, either. I mean, as long as you're using ridiculous arguments like, "Without the portion of the game that explains it all, you wouldn't know!", why stop there?

You are the person who said Fluff wasn't rules, and you are the person arguing for siloing the rules so that the default only seems to be the default when it is referenced by a spell.

What you ARE doing is making the mistake of assuming that just because Osiris gives the Death Domain, that he is okay with his clerics casting Animate Dead.

Edit: Hell, it's not even Osiris. Osiris suggests Nature and Life. It's Nephthys who is the good god that suggests(not gives) the Death domain. It's not just us that you don't pay attention to apparently.

I did say I added him in. Not my fault no one else bothered to go read the section I was talking about.

Nobody on our side is assuming anything. It's dictated by RAW. If you cast that spell frequently, you are evil. Zombie default alignment is evil. You only start getting into assumption when you try to cheese yourself around RAW in order to get away with something the game's default doesn't let you get away with.

Really? Because most of the things you say the spell does, are not part of the spell.

It doesn't even claim to use the default statblock, and it doesn't claim to follow the default fluff. You are assuming it does.

The only RAW seems to be that casting it frequently is evil, but there is no explanation for why unless you assume that the spell fits the Monster Manual. And it doesn't.

But, frankly, this argument is never going to go anywhere at this rate.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The spell itself is not evil. It does nothing until you use it. BUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTT! As soon as you use the animate dead spell, you are doing something really evil. Even in a desperate move, if you die, these undead will attack and kill innocents. You know the consequences of the spell and you still use it. You are either a misguided fool who will turn to evil soon as he does not care about the consequences of his actions. Or you are already evil and you try to justify yourself with the famous: "The end justifies the means". Again the gray zone that I talk about so much in many posts.

Sigh, it will be ignored, but, yet again, the spell does not tell us that the undead you create will kill people when you lose control.

Conjure Elemental says that. It specifically says that an uncontrolled elemental attacks anything near it and tries to kill them.

Animate Dead does not say that. The only place it says that is in the monster lore. Monster lore which does not match up to the spell. You are assuming that the undead attacks, but we cannot prove it. And if they do not, then why is the creation of the undead evil?

Because it uses evil spirits? The spell doesn't say that it uses evil spirits.

Because it uses dark magic? Spell doesn't say it uses dark magic.

We are left with no reason for it to be evil.

But, I've argued this point dozens of times and everyone just ignores it and says "RAW they are Evil".

 

[Maxperson]

No, the part that specifically lists that not all Death Domain clerics are evil. I quoted it in my last post, if you care to read it.

Dude. It's an evil Domain, regardless of what god it's suggested for. That's why it's in the DMG under Villainous NPCs and describes evil incarnate when talking about it.

You're trying to cheese your way around that and it's not working.

You are the person who said Fluff wasn't rules

That's not what I said. Go back and re-read for what I actually said.

I did say I added him in. Not my fault no one else bothered to go read the section I was talking about.

You do realize that every single god gives every single domain, right? That those listed are only suggested for the cleric to take? The cleric choosing any given domain does not mean that the god approves of that domain or that it's not evil if you take and use the death domain.