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

Helldritch · Apr 13, 2020

You can survive an ambush. It is fast and done over quickly. Poison can take months and you won't know it is poison. It is a slow painful death given by someone with a smile on his face. Nothing is more evil than that except torture. I hope no one here see torture as a good thing...

Eric V · Apr 13, 2020

Plenty of people survive being poisoned! And lots of poisons are fast and done over quickly! Come on...

Helldritch · Apr 13, 2020

And many of the survivors were crippled for life. Both physically and mentally. Watch a bit more about poisoners in TV shows about Crime Scene Investigation and you'll see that those that survived never knew it. They were simply lucky that the poisoner was either inexperienced or got careless. You don't want to live what they went through.

Maxperson · Apr 13, 2020

Helldritch said:
You can survive an ambush. It is fast and done over quickly. Poison can take months and you won't know it is poison. It is a slow painful death given by someone with a smile on his face. Nothing is more evil than that except torture. I hope no one here see torture as a good thing...

In D&D you can, and since 3e almost guaranteed will, survive poison.

Greenfield · Apr 13, 2020

What I'm picking up is that "Homebrew" is defined as "Anything I don't want to acknowledge as actual rues".

Did I get that translation right?

Maxperson · Apr 13, 2020

Greenfield said:
What I'm picking up is that "Homebrew" is defined as "Anything I don't want to acknowledge as actual rues".

Did I get that translation right?

No. It has nothing to do with acknowledgement.

Helldritch · Apr 13, 2020

Homebrew is anything not in the core rules. PHB, MM and DMG. Adding MToF and XGtE is acceptable as they clarify and add rules. The rest is situational or could only apply to a specific setting.

Cap'n Kobold · Apr 13, 2020

Chaosmancer said:
Which really ties into why poison is seen as "evil" in the real world.

Because poison could strike anyone, no matter their personal power, while the rich could afford to buy armor and guards to protect them from things like a sword or a dagger.

It was evil, because it was powerful and dangerous. Not because of any innate morality.

Maybe. But there is a fair chance that poison was evil in the game world as written not because of a logical progression from real-life morality, (which, as shown, can be lawyered), but for purely game concerns:
It may have been the case that use of poison was defined as an evil act because it was a game style that was not consistent with the intended gameplay of D&D, and the designers wanted to discourage it.

Later editions, where there was more likelyhood of moral relativism arguments being used to justify player tactics, have changed that and discouraged poison use by simply making it inefficient.

Lanefan · Apr 13, 2020

PrandletheBold said:
Where is this written up? According to the 1e PH write-up re Animate Dead "This spell creates the lowest of the undead monsters, skeletons or zombies, from the bones or bodies of dead humans." I couldn't find anything in the DMG adding in additional undead types.

Turns out I was remembering a house rule as official - not the first time I've done that.

Welcome to a new idea then. In our game, there is NO connection between the undead zombie or skeleton and the spirit. The spirit has already departed, leaving behind "the empty husk".

And yes, you can Raise or Resurrect someone again if that person has been turned into an undead (IF there is enough body left for either). In fact, animating their corpses a useful way to bring your dead comrades' bodies back to town to Raise them rather than carrying or dragging them.

While a few of my PCs over the years might think this is a cool idea, most of 'em would be pretty torqued off if after revival they ever learned this had been done to their corpses.

Inevitable unless the caster dispels them at some point and they return to being immobile corpses or piles of bones, if they cease action when no longer commanded, or if they fall over immobile when their animator drops dead. Just talking about my own game here -- I know that everyone has their own unique rulings.

I certainly don't tie their "lifespans" to that of their creator, and none of the creator's lifeforce goes into their making. (thoguh it's a cool idea to have it work both ways - if a caster's undead gets destroyed the caster feels some lingering pain)

It's an open question what happpens once the most recent command wears off.

But how can the caster dispel them? They're not magical, otherwise anyone else could dispel them.

But you haven't yet answered my original question: Given the elements I listed (animated undead being Neutral, spirits are unaffected, and undead aren't being used for a nasty purpose ... and let's throw in that the hypothetical caster is making certain that if he or she drops dead from a coronary that their undead aren't going to go out roaming the countryside) ... is creating them still an Evil act?

I thought I did answer this.

In my view yes, it's still an evil act. Context doesn't allay this: an evil act done for a good reason is still in itself an evil act.

Lanefan · Apr 13, 2020

Maxperson said:
I think he's just saying that at higher levels a necromantic wizard can create other types of undead, not that Animate Dead does it.

No, I have it that higher-level casters can get more out of AD than just Skeletons and Zombies, and forgot it was a house rule.

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

Helldritch

Hero

Eric V

Hero

Helldritch

Hero

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Greenfield

Adventurer

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Helldritch

Hero

Cap'n Kobold

Hero

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Similar Threads