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

[Todd Roybark]

Flamestrike’s arguement is not RAW. RAW is page 7 of the Monster Manual, which under Alignment, states:

“The alignment specified in a monster’s stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster’s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there’s nothing stopping you”.

Default can either mean a failure to uphold an obligation or rule. The rule is: Undead are evil, or whatever else you want, with no restrictions— Freely by definition means unbound or unfettered.

That alone, kills Flamestrike’s arguement. Logic, is a cruel mistress. 🅰=🅰

The word Default can also mean a preselected set of options. I have a robustly, large collection of electronic devices and electronic games...none of them, are set to the default setting. A default setting in this D&D context, does not have the normative value, you are ascribing it.

This counterfactual demonstrates this. Imagine a stretch of road that has no actual speed limit. You are free to travel at any speed. The road, however, has a posted speed limit of 65 ( can either be MPH or KPH).

If a Peace Officer, were to start issuing citations for not traveling at the default, the posted speed limit, can we agree that those citations are invalid, illegal, even?

Flamestrike, (in my opinion), you are acting in a similar manner to the Peace Officer in the thought experiment above.

Any non-evil Necromancer Wizard could ask to create a custom spell.... that acts like Animate Dead that summons only neutral undead that turn back to corpses at the spell’s conclusion.

If the DM says no, that circumstance, that campaign is also not in complete RAW compliance.
It is not adhering to the “ feel free to depart from “ the default, “and change a monster’s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign” from the Monster Manual.

It is as much, a themed D&D setting as Eberron, or a Lovecraft themed setting.
Default settings, for electronics are meant to be adjusted, in game.

Alignment has no rules weight. Any alteration to anything alignment related, is RAW.

 

[Greenfield]

If you're asking me personally, motive rarely matters, and no the ends almost never justify the means. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

Sorry to jump in, but that opening paragraph hit a lot of my hot buttons.

The ends justify the means in almost every case, in real life. Is it okay to jab someone with a needle? Depends: Is it a hypodermic used to draw blood or administer medicine in a hospital, or are you just attacking someone?

Is it okay to electrocute an animal? Well, if you like to eat meat, then yes. That's how chickens are killed at poultry packing plants. If, on the other hand you just like killing things...

Is it okay to chain someone up and drag them away, kicking and screaming? Are you a police officer making an arrest, or a kidnapper committing a crime?

In the real world there are bloody few good things that can be done without a price. We pay that price every time we try to help someone, or ourselves.

As for the road to hell: I could argue that the road from Hell is also paved with good intentions. It's the same road, after all. The only difference is which way you're travelling. But your quote is kind of insidious, in that it seems to say that we shouldn't do anything with good intentions., that only callous or misguided intentions can lead to good results, and we know that's nonsense.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The real issue is the creation of the undead alone. That is considered evil, but again, we don't have a solid reason why.

Then I would suggest that you take it up with the game designers, rather than taking it out on people trying to help you understand.

Ripping away a persons free will, making them a slave to your will. Not inherently evil, depends on how you use it.

Putting a spirit in a corpse, evil. No matter the circumstance or usage, it is an evil act.

In which case, it seems to be completely arbitrary.

If that is your understanding, I can see why there is an issue.

"Putting a spirit in a corpse" is not always an evil act in all circumstances and usages. As part of the casting of Raise Dead for example, no moral issues.
As part of the casting of Animate Dead, because of the way the spell works, yes, an evil act.
If you don't like that fact, change it, or go to the game designers and demand your explanations from them.

I can help you out by pointing out the RAW. I can speculate as to why it is written that way. But since you have an issue with the way the default world itself functions, you need to ask the people who set the world up like that in the first place.

1) RAW is supreme, and the will of the good dieties allow the usage of evil magic and the will of dieites of darkness allows the creation of light. In short, nothing is consistent.

Maybe those deities simply trust those who are so faithful to them that they have gifted them divine power, to make responsible use of that power in the furtherance of the deity's aims?

Flamestrike’s arguement is not RAW. RAW is page 7 of the Monster Manual, which under Alignment, states:

“The alignment specified in a monster’s stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster’s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there’s nothing stopping you”.

Now (again) in YOUR campaigns YOU run, you can choose to ignore those rules (like you can ignore any other rules). You can have Animate Dead with necromancy not be evil, you can rule that Good spirits can animate the dead or whatever the heck you want to rule.

Not that it matters. A DM can ignore that if he wants to like he can ignore, implement or change any rule.

Yes. I've literally been saying exactly that all darn thread! Play the game how you want to mate. Feel free in your own games to run things your way.

Default can either mean a failure to uphold an obligation or rule. The rule is: Undead are evil, or whatever else you want, with no restrictions— Freely by definition means unbound or unfettered.

That alone, kills Flamestrike’s arguement. Logic, is a cruel mistress. 🅰=🅰

Flamestrike's argument that if you don't like it, you should change it?
Its now dead?

Any non-evil Necromancer Wizard could ask to create a custom spell.... that acts like Animate Dead that summons only neutral undead that turn back to corpses at the spell’s conclusion.

If the DM says no, that circumstance, that campaign is also not in complete RAW compliance.
It is not adhering to the “ feel free to depart from “ the default, “and change a monster’s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign” from the Monster Manual.

I would have to disagree there. A DM gets to decide what suits the needs of their campaign. A player doesn't get to label a game as not being RAW compliant just because the DM wouldn't make the change in the world that they asked for.

As Flamestrike has stated, alteration of the default is fine. But that alteration must be made, or at least OKed by the DM.

 

[Todd Roybark]

A DM gets to decide what suits the needs of their campaign.

I sorta of cringe reflexively when I read statements like this. I would like to think a RPG is a collaboration between players and DMs.

Write a short story if you want to control everything.

In the example I gave, a player of non- evil Necromancer wizard asks if they could develop a variant of Animate Dead, that made neutral undead, that become inert corpses at the end of the spell.

Unless a DM is really wedded to a campaign premise that All Necromancer’s are Evil, what harm happens when a DM tries to allow a player’s character concept to fruition?

If I am asking a player to commit to playing a character, for potentially years, then I as a DM should be wilying to be flexible, in terms of accommodation.

This applies to even Tortles. I don’t like them, but if a player really wanted to play one, I would let them.

I’m not saying a DM, does not have Final Say, but the game is not solely the DM’s.

My view. Others don’t share it, which is fine.

 

[Flamestrike]

I also wonder how we can declare something definitely evil other than, "well the rulebook says it is evil so it must be evil." which is an incredibly weak position for morality.

I'm not arguing from MY morality. I'm arguing from RAW.

My morality is likely incredibly different from yours.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then I would suggest that you take it up with the game designers, rather than taking it out on people trying to help you understand.

You aren't helping me understand. I know what the book says.

What no one seems to be able to do, is give a reason for that. It just is what it is and that is what it is. Even though RAW is contradictory, this one portion declaring evil must be true, even when it seems like it shouldn't be.

If that is your understanding, I can see why there is an issue.

"Putting a spirit in a corpse" is not always an evil act in all circumstances and usages. As part of the casting of Raise Dead for example, no moral issues.
As part of the casting of Animate Dead, because of the way the spell works, yes, an evil act.
If you don't like that fact, change it, or go to the game designers and demand your explanations from them.

You rose to their defense, why can't you answer it? Surely they had to have a reason for the contradictions and the declaration of evil.

But if you don't want to discuss it, then don't discuss it. But since even RAW seems to have holes in it to allow for interpretation, I don't think I need to back down from my position that there seems to be more than one way to animate dead, and that those other ways are not evil by default.

Maybe those deities simply trust those who are so faithful to them that they have gifted them divine power, to make responsible use of that power in the furtherance of the deity's aims?

Equivalent analogy:

Here, as a member of a Peace Council I am going to give you a chemical weapon that will kill a city. But, I trust you to be responsible with it.

That makes no sense. If they do not approve of the use of that power, that power which Flamestrike says must be evil power (Dark and Sinister, remember) which is unlike all of their other magic, then why are they gifting it to their most devout followers? Because they trust them not to use the power they gave them? That is nonsensical.

I'm not arguing from MY morality. I'm arguing from RAW.

My morality is likely incredibly different from yours.

RAW is declaring what is good and what is evil. The question of Good and Evil is a question of morality. Therefore RAW is talking about morality.

I never said it was your morality. But, "because it just is" is a weak position to argue morality from. So, RAW's stance of "it is evil because it is evil" is perhaps the weakest stance that could be taken.

Especially considering how I continually have shown that the evil murder spirit summoned by dark and sinister magic is not the only RAW, if we can use the Zombie statblock and change it to neutral in one case, then we can use it and change it in another case. So, no matter what the MM says, it cannot be definitive for the spell, because the spell does not agree with the MM on what is going on.

 

[FrogReaver]

Flamestrike’s arguement is not RAW. RAW is page 7 of the Monster Manual, which under Alignment, states:

“The alignment specified in a monster’s stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster’s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there’s nothing stopping you”.

Thanks. I'd forgotten about this. Says it all to me...

So to summarize:
1. Lawful Good God's Grant the Power to animate the dead into skeletons or zombies.
2. Skeletons or Zombies need not be evil by RAW.

I find those 2 facts impossible to reconcile with
1. Animating the dead is an evil act
2. Those who frequently animate the dead are evil

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not arguing from MY morality. I'm arguing from RAW.

My morality is likely incredibly different from yours.

RAW is inconsistent on this matter.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just thinking aloud...

You know what else is an evil act. Killing people. That's evil!
You know what's not an evil act. Killing people in self defense.

It seems to me the crux of the matter in both situations is "usually but not always"

 

[Bacon Bits]

The real issue is the creation of the undead alone. That is considered evil, but again, we don't have a solid reason why.

Stop looking at the PHB for your answer. Look at the Monster Manual.

Skeletons say: "When skeletons encounter living creatures, the necromantic energy that drives them compels them to kill unless they are commanded by their masters to refrain from doing so. They attack without mercy and fight until destroyed, for skeletons possess little sense of self and even less sense of self-preservation. "

Zombies say: "A zombie retains no vestiges of its former self, its mind devoid of thought and imagination. [...] The magic animating a zombie imbues it with evil, so left without purpose, it attacks any living creature it encounters."

Skeletons and zombies are like land mines that will seek out and kill any living creature they find. They are, quite literally, immortal murder machines. Uncontrolled, they serve no purpose but destruction. They are not just animated and given a semblance of life by magic like a golem. They are animated and given a false life by evil. Undead, apparently, are the outcome of injecting magic and evil into a corpse.

Not evil in the moral sense. Nothing so esoteric. No, in the world of D&D, evil is an elemental force that drives the multiverse. Evil itself is capable of physical form, of direct manipulation of living creatures, and even sentience itself. Evil is as real as electromagnetism is for us. Measurable, observable, repeatable, concrete.

And those are the simple undead. Most undead are much, much worse. Mummies are little better than indiscriminate killers themselves; unable to do anything but attack and kill and infect the living with death. Ghouls, ghasts, and wights are all more intelligent and much more devoted to their hunger for living flesh. Allips, Banshee, Shadows, Specters, and Wraiths are tormented spirits, prevented from travelling to the afterlife. Their immortal spirits have quite literally been enslaved to serve evil itself.

And all of them, every last wisp, bone, and tooth among them is bent upon the mindless and total destruction of the living. Every entry for every undead in every edition of the game says that. And all of them unlike life. They do not grow, do not change, do not breed, do not learn, do not create, do not feel. They cannot do anything except destroy life.

And then we come to the undead so potent that they can scheme and plot and know along side any living creature, only they have little to fear from age. The Death Knight, the Lich, and the Vampire. And all they use it for is their own selfish ends, more callous and endless murder, no purpose but self preservation and death. Undead at this level often require murder and the sacrifice of living souls to create. Abomination is too kind a word for it.

Undead are evil. More so than even fiends or corrupt and foul deities. For these creatures can think like living creatures. They feel, they learn, they grow, and they change (at least compared to undead they do). Besides, they're locked away behind the boundaries of their planes, and many are they're pure manifestations of their plane or alignment. Sealed from the rest of the multiverse unless someone should call on them, and directly opposed by angels, archons, and good and most neutral deities. The multiverse knows that such creatures do not belong among mortals. But not undead. Undead are created by taking what is mortal, what is natural, and what is alive from the mortal plane and twisting and corrupting it into an odious tumor of hatred and violence.

So. Who would willingly create such a creature? Create a machine that knows only two things: a) how to kill, and b) that it must kill. And then you seek to control it? What if you should die, or have control taken or lost? What will become of the evil you have manifested and released? What of the pain and disgust and unspeakable horror you cause the living by seeing their fathers, mothers, siblings, cousins, brought forth from where they rested peacefully to serve some petty and insignificant purpose. Explain to them why your needs are so dire that their love must be trodden upon.

Raising undead is monstrous. It's creating a creature of an pure and naive evil, and yoking it for some mundane task.

The lone exceptions to undead being horrific, hateful, malicious, and destructive are rather unique exceptions. Ghosts can be any alignment, but are typically non-violent entirely. They're not so much undead as the incarnation of an immortal spirit that refuses to pass on to the afterlife. They are not created by evil or magic. They're naturally occurring. They arise because they wish to, and little else.

Similarly, Revenants are essentially self-animating as well. They have one purpose: revenge. Still murder. Still hatred of the living. But very focused and limited... and divinely justified. Note that both Revenants and Ghost cannot actually be destroyed. To permanently kill a Revenant and deny it justice, you've got to kill it and then spend a wish spell to make it go away. Ghosts don't even give you that option. The Hollow One from Wildemount -- basically an option to be a Dark Souls protagonist -- is basically a class of Revenant.

The final exception, Baelnorn, were basically a literary device created to make Pool of Radiance more interesting. So rare they're virtually non-existent, and many of those that exist were created by actual divine magic. Baelnorn really are the exceptions proving the rule. Again, the divinely created Baelnorn are basically impossible to destroy as they do not necessarily have a phylactery.