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

[Catulle]

And down another rabbit hole we go.

Then again, given what weekend it is, with a Bunny front and center, is it any surprise that going down rabbit holes is all the rage right now?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Officiality is not a functional difference. And officiality is all the difference you have there.
First, no, that's wrong. Second, I bolded the important word there. If you are taking anything to an extreme, you've lost the argument. For example. Water is good for you. You need it to live. Drinking it to an extreme will kill you. Extremes fail.
Holy Strawman Batman! We aren't talking about core rules. We're talking about specific settings.
I agree. Your Strawman alteration is not a useful definition.

If officiality isn't a functional difference, then what is the functional difference between the Deathwisp coming from the Tome of Beasts by Kobold Press for use in 5e games or if it had been from the Monster Manual by Wizards of the Coast?

If "being officially printed by the company that made the game" is meaningless, then a monster being printed for 5e should be treated the same, no matter which company prints it. But, that isn't what you want, because you want the monsters printed by WoTC to be more official and therefore more acceptable than those printed by any other company.

The same with classes, what is the functional difference between the Blood Hunter class created by Mathew Mercer and the Artificer class created by WoTC? Simply Officiality. Mercer did playtesting, he's actually released and edited multiple versions of the class for years now. Designed for 5e. And yet one is part of the core rules, and the other is third party.

And if I myself made a class or a monster simply to hand to my players, for no cost. I would say it is homebrew. Created just for my home with no consideration for a wider audience.

Officiality matters. Especially if you want to set the Core rules as somehow being the most important part of the game, because they are official.

I see the problem. You assume waaaaay too much. Perhaps stop assuming and just respond to what we are saying.

But you all keep feeling the need to point out "unless the DM changes it" every time I say something. So, I had to include that little disclaimer to show that yes, I know the DM can change anything they like in any direction they like.

It applies to adult orcs, regardless of where you encounter them.

I corrected you above. This argument based on your incorrect assumption fails.

So all adult orcs are evil, but all orc children are an unknown quantity because we lack the information about them.

So, how about we talk about an evil race we do have that information for.

Black dragons. As soon as they are hatched, they are Chaotic Evil. Actually, the same is true for Neogi as well. And Mindflayers (the Neolithid is just an enlarged larva after all)

So, it seems to be supported that any time we get the stats for an evil race in a child form, they are evil. But, that is just an assumption. All we can say for certain is that those children are evil and all adult orcs are evil.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Base game assume X. Then X is what you get. Whether you juggle with words, quotes or partial snippets of info here and there to prove your point is irrelevant. Evil is evil. Period. Everything contrary to the base rules is either homebrew or an exception. If you want to make the exception to be the norm; it is your call.

As for the ghost... They are generally victims of fate. Not all ghost are evil. They are the exception. You found one. But an exception is not the norm.

RAW: Evil is evil. What could be clearer than that? It does not need to be written for it to be evil. Again, a tool is a tool. Magic is a tool. A tool is neutral. It is what you do with the tool that determine if what you do is evil or not. Creating evil creatures and making evil actions makes you an evil person. No need to go further than that.

Animate and Create Undead are special cases if you compare them to other spells such as charm person. They are the only spells that create evil no matter whom uses them. Charm person could be used to stop an attack on an innocent. It could be used to calm down a distressed townfolk into submission just enough time he recovers his senses. But Animate and Create undead only create evil things. In this case, it is not the action that determine if the spell is evil, but nature of what it brings into existence.

So all orcs are evil, no matter where you find them or the age you find them. Because Evil is Evil without question.

And obliterating a person's mind and leaving them a drooling husk for the rest of their life is perfectly neutral, it is just a too after all.

Enslaving another person's will to your own and puppeting them into slavishly following your commands? Neutral. Just a tool.

Terrorizing someone to death with their worst fears? Just a tool.

Forcing Magical servitude upon someone for a month to their entire life, upon pain and death if they refuse your orders? Tool

Taking a pile of bones and making a construct out of them? Evil, why do you even need to ask, clearly that is evil.

 

[Helldritch]

I get the feeling that you are not reading the answer or at least you're not considering the answer we (I) gave.

I'll copy the part that will answer your questions about spells
From an earlier post: "Animate and Create Undead are special cases if you compare them to other spells such as charm person. They are the only spells that create evil no matter whom uses them. Charm person could be used to stop an attack on an innocent. It could be used to calm down a distressed townfolk into submission just enough time he recovers his senses. But Animate and Create undead only create evil things. In this case, it is not the action that determine if the spell is evil, but nature of what it brings into existence."

This means that for all other spells that do not create evil things right from start, it is what you do with the spell that will determine if what you do is evil or or not. So if you do an evil action with a spell, you are doing evil willingly. And creating evil things is always evil. No matter your intention.

As for the orcs...
We do not have the stats for these younglings. This is the DM's call. No need to go further than that strawman argument.

 

[Maxperson]

If officiality isn't a functional difference, then what is the functional difference between the Deathwisp coming from the Tome of Beasts by Kobold Press for use in 5e games or if it had been from the Monster Manual by Wizards of the Coast?

Absolutely nothing. There is no FUNCTIONAL difference. Many people prefer official, because they don't trust non-official products to be balanced or thoroughly tested, but if you have two identical creatures from official and non-official sources, there is zero FUNCTIONAL difference.

If "being officially printed by the company that made the game" is meaningless, then a monster being printed for 5e should be treated the same, no matter which company prints it. But, that isn't what you want, because you want the monsters printed by WoTC to be more official and therefore more acceptable than those printed by any other company.

Wrong example. Monsters are one of the few things that I do use from 3rd party sources. It's easy to see how they stack up vs. PCs, so I don't have to worry much about balance. Hell, I don't really worry about balance much anyway. My big issue with 3rd party stuff is that you can't look through it thoroughly before buying and it's often poor quality stuff.

The same with classes, what is the functional difference between the Blood Hunter class created by Mathew Mercer and the Artificer class created by WoTC? Simply Officiality.

What's the functional difference between two different classes with two different sets of abilities? Seriously? If you have to ask...

Officiality matters. Especially if you want to set the Core rules as somehow being the most important part of the game, because they are official.

Officiality absolutely matters. I never claimed otherwise. What officiality does not do is alter functionality one iota.

So all adult orcs are evil, but all orc children are an unknown quantity because we lack the information about them.

Yep. It's up to you whether or not you want the children to be born evil or be clean slates that are tainted by the adults.

Black dragons. As soon as they are hatched, they are Chaotic Evil. Actually, the same is true for Neogi as well. And Mindflayers (the Neolithid is just an enlarged larva after all)

What about them?

So, it seems to be supported that any time we get the stats for an evil race in a child form, they are evil. But, that is just an assumption. All we can say for certain is that those children are evil and all adult orcs are evil.

OR........they only bother to stat out those races where the children are born evil. OR......

There are a number of reasons why that could be. It doesn't have any bearing on the orcs, though. It's the DM's call whether or not to have the kids be evil.

 

[FrogReaver]

What's the functional difference between two different classes with two different sets of abilities? Seriously? If you have to ask...

You don't even engage in the point being made and instead make a completely unrelated point. Obviously he wasn't saying the class abilities were functionally the same - he was talking about the only functional difference in their design process.

Consider your statement: now if such a statement came from us would you consider it good faith or bad faith?

 

[FrogReaver]

So on Orcs:

Aren't Orc Children homebrew?
If so then aren't all Orcs in the default game evil?

 

[Maxperson]

You don't even engage in the point being made and instead make a completely unrelated point. Obviously he wasn't saying the class abilities were functionally the same - he was talking about the only functional difference in their design process.

Dude. I engaged the point immediately above. Apparently you didn't read the post. Then I responded to the part showing where he clearly doesn't understand what functionality is.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I get the feeling that you are not reading the answer or at least you're not considering the answer we (I) gave.

I'll copy the part that will answer your questions about spells
From an earlier post: "Animate and Create Undead are special cases if you compare them to other spells such as charm person. They are the only spells that create evil no matter whom uses them. Charm person could be used to stop an attack on an innocent. It could be used to calm down a distressed townfolk into submission just enough time he recovers his senses. But Animate and Create undead only create evil things. In this case, it is not the action that determine if the spell is evil, but nature of what it brings into existence."

This means that for all other spells that do not create evil things right from start, it is what you do with the spell that will determine if what you do is evil or or not. So if you do an evil action with a spell, you are doing evil willingly. And creating evil things is always evil. No matter your intention.

I don't think you are considering what I am writing.

Feeblemind is not a temporary thing, it is a full destruction of self. The target loses the possibility of communication, they lose their personality, wants, desires. It is all erased under the spell. And with a maximum save result of 15 (rolling a 20-5) If the wizard who cast this spell is of average casting ability, (+3 to stat) it is impossible to recover from without outside intervention.

And, as an 8th level spell, we could point to many many other options that would achieve a goal, without this destruction. Sequester can put a creature into suspended animation to remove them as a threat, it is 7th level.

So, since it matters how you use it, under what Good act could you justify destroying a mind and personality while leaving the body intact to be a less than a beast?

And that doesn't get into Geas, a spell that is quite abusable, since it is essentially magical slavery. For a month the target is magically charmed and must follow your commands or take 5d10 psychic damage (with an average of 27 damage, this means that most targets below level 3 or CR 2 this is obey me or die). Are we going to be of the position that it is morally good to enslave someone under pain of death as long as they are evil?

As for the orcs...
We do not have the stats for these younglings. This is the DM's call. No need to go further than that strawman argument.

But we have stats for other younglings. Orcs were just one of the examples that everyone was familiar with from my list of 75 sentient evil species.

So, dragons and Neogi are born evil, we have stats for them as hatchlings. So I can ask the same question I asked with orcs with them.

When a Neogi gives birth (lays eggs technically) they are bringing an evil creature into the world. If bringing an evil creature into the world is an evil act, then by this logic, Neogi laying eggs, is an evil act. The same for Chromatic Dragons.

I mean, it must be because of your own assertion "Creating evil things is always evil. No matter your intention." So giving birth is an evil act for these creatures that we have baby stats for.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Absolutely nothing. There is no FUNCTIONAL difference. Many people prefer official, because they don't trust non-official products to be balanced or thoroughly tested, but if you have two identical creatures from official and non-official sources, there is zero FUNCTIONAL difference.

Wrong example. Monsters are one of the few things that I do use from 3rd party sources. It's easy to see how they stack up vs. PCs, so I don't have to worry much about balance. Hell, I don't really worry about balance much anyway. My big issue with 3rd party stuff is that you can't look through it thoroughly before buying and it's often poor quality stuff.

What's the functional difference between two different classes with two different sets of abilities? Seriously? If you have to ask...

Officiality absolutely matters. I never claimed otherwise. What officiality does not do is alter functionality one iota.

Okay, I think we might be getting somewhere with this.

You acknowledge that being official matters. Whether it is for a rule, a monster, or a class, being official has some weight to it that matters. Perhaps it doesn't change the function, but it does matter.

So, there is a difference between and official setting and a homebrew (designed by an unofficial source) setting.

The reason that we have "Official" "Third-Party" and "Homebrew" is because people care about this distinction. Official products are released by the company that makes DnD. Third Party content is made by a different company, but still a company that generally has a production line and multiple products for sale. Homebrew content is made by any random person who does not have a company that publishes their work.

This has nothing to do with quality or functional differences. This is all about "where does the content come from" Homebrew, as it is normally used, is outside of the corporate angle. It is not designed as a product to be sold.

Calling Eberron "homebrew" completely misses the point. Eberron is official material. It is sold by the company that makes the game. Keith Baker, as the designer of the official content, is a bit of a grey area when he posts or writes something that contradicts the official material, but is generally seen as more official because he is the published author of the official content.

My DM who wrote some really cool things into Eberron, homebrewed. Because no one is selling that content, and it was not designed to be sold. It was designed to be used in a "home game"

Yep. It's up to you whether or not you want the children to be born evil or be clean slates that are tainted by the adults.

What about them?

OR........they only bother to stat out those races where the children are born evil. OR......

There are a number of reasons why that could be. It doesn't have any bearing on the orcs, though. It's the DM's call whether or not to have the kids be evil.

I went ahead and reasked the original question with an evil sentient creature that we do have baby stats for in the above post.