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

[Weiley31]

I think you should make it one of those odd-couple rom-coms. Like "The Sure Thing." You know, you're stuck together, and on the surface you're unalike in every way, but you end up falling in love anyway.

Kids: * Dad the dog died again.*

Paladin: Hey sweety, the dog needs tending again.

Necromancer: Okay dear, right on it.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Honestly, I'm kind of getting tired of going around in circles like this. I just don't get why DMs would force people to be evil based on a vague phrase like "only evil people do this frequently".

A DM is at full liberty, and encouraged to change things based on the way they want to world to work. If they don't like the existing baggage around animating the dead, adjust it or remove it.
I would not change a character's alignment through careful and responsible use of the spell. I'd give even greater leeway to a spell like Danse Macabre from Xanathar's. Profligate and irresponsible use of Animate Dead however would have alignment consequences, on the basis of the landmine analogy, if not the actual act of casting the spell.

However, can we agree that there are some things that would cause a character to change alignment of they do them? Murder, torture etc - a character indulging in those regularly is going to end up with an evil alignment of their character sheet.

I also would like to point out, you just made plants evil. In fact, without human impulses and ethics, and a willingness to kill, you just made every predatory animal in the game evil.

Wolves don't have ethics and will happily kill to eat and feed their young, just like the fungus will happily create more dead bodies to spread itself. So, if fungus is evil, wolves are evil, and then we pretty much have no good creatures in the entire universe, because people enslave and kill creatures to feed themselves, which is worse, right?

Ah, maybe the difference is whether or not you kill to eat "frequently"

That is simply the way the rules are written. In the case of Spore Zombies, we're told that they use the Zombie statblock, which includes an alignment, which is Neutral Evil.
We can speculate why, like I did, but outside of DM intervention the rules are pretty clear.

 

[Lanefan]

Blood Banks
Willing Donations
Paying people to donate their blood
Feeding on animal blood (usually not super nutritious, but gets the jobs done)

I've read stories where the Leader of the country is a vampire, and they have a church whose members willingly offer their blood to empower their leader, and others where the vampire only feeds on their lover, making it an intimate moment between them.

"Eats Blood" doesn't immediately lead to "hunt them like rodents and rip their throats out"

Perhaps.

In my current campaign, a significant NPC and quasi-mentor throughout has been (and still is) a once-and-still high-level Necromancer who a few centuries back continued into undeadness, but instead of becoming a lich he went for becoming an arch-vampire (basically a jumped-up version of a normal vampire) in order to be able to continue more or less functioning in normal society.

At the time he was evil as **** but since then he's slowly come to value those around him as more than just fodder; and has always been close to very powerful people as a shadowy advisor in the background. Now, while still technically evil due to both race and his still-very-proficient Necromancer class, he's closer to pure neutral overall; so big-N little-e.

My players haven't yet pushed me for details about how he feeds himself these days, so I won't give any specifics here, but suffice it to say he's come up with a method that doesn't involve harming any of the local population* but still keeps him well nourished.

* - with one exception: in this town death sentences aren't carried out by electric chair or firing squad!

That said, he's a rather extreme exception. A vampire met in the wild is probably going straight for your throat, and may your deity have mercy on whatever levels you possess should it get there.

 

[Chaosmancer]

However, can we agree that there are some things that would cause a character to change alignment of they do them? Murder, torture etc - a character indulging in those regularly is going to end up with an evil alignment of their character sheet.

I never bother with Alignment, there is no value in it as far as I have ever been able to tell. So, actually, I can't agree with you that there are things that would change it, because that would require me to use it.

I can agree that there are evil acts, there are unforgivable acts, but that is about as far as we could get on an agreement.

That is simply the way the rules are written. In the case of Spore Zombies, we're told that they use the Zombie statblock, which includes an alignment, which is Neutral Evil.
We can speculate why, like I did, but outside of DM intervention the rules are pretty clear.

I can speculate why they said to use the statblock.

Because it was easy to say "use these mechanics" instead of righting a new statblock within the book.

You are of course free to go with your theory, which leads to every living creature on the face of your world being Evil for killing things so that they may continue to exist and spread.

Perhaps.

In my current campaign, a significant NPC and quasi-mentor throughout has been (and still is) a once-and-still high-level Necromancer who a few centuries back continued into undeadness, but instead of becoming a lich he went for becoming an arch-vampire (basically a jumped-up version of a normal vampire) in order to be able to continue more or less functioning in normal society.

At the time he was evil as **** but since then he's slowly come to value those around him as more than just fodder; and has always been close to very powerful people as a shadowy advisor in the background. Now, while still technically evil due to both race and his still-very-proficient Necromancer class, he's closer to pure neutral overall; so big-N little-e.

My players haven't yet pushed me for details about how he feeds himself these days, so I won't give any specifics here, but suffice it to say he's come up with a method that doesn't involve harming any of the local population* but still keeps him well nourished.

* - with one exception: in this town death sentences aren't carried out by electric chair or firing squad!

That said, he's a rather extreme exception. A vampire met in the wild is probably going straight for your throat, and may your deity have mercy on whatever levels you possess should it get there.

A human bandit might go straight for your throat too, just for some gold. I don't think we need to declare all humans evil by default. Lots of neutral creatures eat people to feed themselves, nuetral or unaligned, and aren't evil.

So, sure, you might have the occassional starving forest vampire kill people, but I don't think that is strong evidence of them being evil.

 

[Todd Roybark]

I dont want to know about a source from anywhere else. We're talking 5E here.

Dude, I am on the autism spectrum, and even I can understand the nuance in the the following phrase, in the context of D&D: “ There are rules, and then there is fluff text”

The rules are the stat blocks- the mechanical elements, not the fluff text. The reason why flavor text is also called ‘fluff text’, is because like light fluff, with the merest effort..such as a light breeze or an exhalation....
.....it goes away.

Quoting mechanical rules, like how Two Weapon Fighting works, should be valued differently than a paragraph of ‘fluff text’, in terms of what is Rules As Written.

Alignment, is a legacy element, that frankly has always been controversial, with little agreement between D&D playing individuals.

Alignment as listed in a monster’s stat block, is not a sound foundation of arguing RAW, because outside of some straight jacket constraints, such as the form taken by the spirits summoned from, say, the Spirit Guardians spell, Alignment has zero mechanical effect.

Monster stat blocks, used to include Frequency and Number Appearing. These ‘stats’ were dropped, because such default assumptions, when treated as RAW, are straight jackets of creativity.

Speaking for myself, as a person on the autism spectrum. I often have to work really hard to apprehend, let alone comprehend, nuance in certain scenarios. Speaking only for myself, statements like this:

I'm going to copy and past the above rules ad nauseum until you get it.

Strikes me, as perhaps more effort could be given to apprehending and comprehending, why people might want the option of nuance vis a vis Necromancy and Animate Dead, instead of forcing compliance through blunt force.

Hey @Umbran, what is your take on the stance of,” I’m going to keep on posting at someone until they agree with me?”

However in DnD there are Gods, there is an afterlife and there is objective good and evil, that is NOT relative to cultural norms or subjective.

D&D is imaginary. The D&D Alignment system is a rough joining of Moorcock’s LAW/ CHAOS axis, (not Good and Evil), with a Tolkien-esque Evil/Good aspect..( it lacks the nuance of a Zorastorian system).

D&D rules and text are written, by a very small grouping of predominately, white, male, Americans.

If the rules were written by predominately, black, african, Kenyans....do you think the
the terms, (that you, incessantly, are quoting), like “ Black” and “Dark” as being synonymous with “sinister” or “evil”, would be the ‘norm’ you, so vehemently, are arguing is RAW?

The Forgotten Realms is the default setting. Default rules typically apply, but good undead exist in prior incarnations of the Realms.

Eberron plays by it’s own rules. Same too with Ravinica. Wildemont is an everything and the kitchen sink type setting, so I could easily see a Neutral Good, Necromancer PC on Critical Role.

So all the official published settings for 5e D&D, have nuance that extends beyond your, fluff text based RAW arguements, based off a category error.

No offense intended, just my two cents.

 

[Flamestrike]

He did have a LE code, though. The Sith Code.

Dude, the Sith code is 'be Chaotic evil'.

It's 'act however your dark emotions like fear, hatred and anger direct. Learn from your master until you are strong enough to betray and kill him.'

That's not Lawful evil. Thats Chaotic evil.

Part of the Sith code is that you advance by killing and replacing your master, so that betrayal was not a chaotic act, but a lawful one.

By that logic, if I was following a code of 'Be the Joker from Batman' I would suddenly be Lawful?

Vader was driven by rage, hatred and fear. He did what he wanted, when he wanted, subject only to the will of the Emperor, who he only followed out of fear. He betrayed (and destroyed) the Jedi order, 2 masters in Obi wan and the Emperor, the Sith order, the Empire, his best friend, his wife and many, many others. He literally lived and operated outside the law.

Anakin Skywalker was no more 'lawful' as a Sith than he was as a Jedi.

 

[Maxperson]

Dude, the Sith code is 'be Chaotic evil'.

It's 'act however your dark emotions like fear, hatred and anger direct. Learn from your master until you are strong enough to betray and kill him.'

That's not Lawful evil. Thats Chaotic evil.

It would be if it wasn't an actual code that they follow literally religiously.

By that logic, if I was following a code of 'Be the Joker from Batman' I would suddenly be Lawful?

If you spell out line by line an entire code and follow that code, sure. The Sith code wasn't simply, "act how ever you want."

Vader was driven by rage, hatred and fear.

He used that to power the force, yes. He was not always walking in fits of rage, hating everything and in fear.

He did what he wanted, when he wanted, subject only to the will of the Emperor, who he only followed out of fear.

And yet backed his men up against others, obeyed his superior, Moff Tarkin who was not a force user, sought out an ally to overcome the emperor, rather than succeed on his strength alone, etc.

He betrayed (and destroyed) the Jedi order, 2 masters in Obi wan and the Emperor, the Sith order, the Empire, his best friend, his wife and many, many others. He literally lived and operated outside the law.

Betrayals don't make you chaotic evil when spaced out over literal decades. Nobody is perfect. The Mafia, a LE organization with LE bosses also experienced betrayals. At the end of the day they are EVIL. Evil betrays, even lawful evil. It just doesn't betray as often or willy nilly.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Lawfully aligned Paladins (or any one else for that matter of a Lawful alignment) is under no obligation to follow the laws of the land.

They may very well follow a code of their own, or view the laws of wherever they happen to be as illegitimate.

They respect honour, family and tradition. Nothing about them having to follow (or indeed even respect) the laws of a land where they just happen to find themselves.

Your ignoring the intent of the thread. My point is setting is this, player plays lawful paladin this way, then there is no issue. This is a method of preventing issues in the group as per the subject of the thread. Sure you could play the paladin with there on their own code, but how does that deny my approach to the stated problem? You CAN play the paladin as you stated or as I stated. I never said you couldn't. However, your arguing like my way is wrong, when it is not. What is your intent here? If my solution is not wrong and it resolves the issue, I fail to see why you are making this argument in context of this discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

No idea about anything Ravnica-specific as I've not yet read anything about that setting.

As for vampires, I'll be charitable and just assume you're not referring to the sparkly Twilight abominations*. But any vampire I've ever heard of feeds on blood (and, in my game and much of 0-1-2e, levels) and this process isn't exactly pleasant for the victim.

* - and if you are, I'll just pass along my best wishes for your recovery and leave quietly...

I've heard of emotional and mind vampires, but they also feed in an evil manner, sucking away the emotions or memories of the victims.

 

[Eltab]

Vader does not have to serve from fear. He can serve Palpatine from greed.
Greed for power, authority, knowledge (Sith secrets).