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

[Chaosmancer]

A shame, because the undying tangent that's taken over in its place is a foul mockery of the life that could have been.

Honestly, I think this tangent started mostly because the OP never came back, and so we never got the sort of details that could make this conversation go anywhere but speculation.

And, with speculation, we immediately had "but it's evil, so the paladin would never accept it"

 

[Flamestrike]

So, murder needs to be defined by the criminal laws of the country.

No, I am providing you with a definition of murder in the context of my original post.

I mean, you seem to change the definition of good and evil based on the age of the person you are killing, because killing a man to save millions of lives is neutral, but killing a child to save millions of lives is evil. So, you seem to be very reactionary here.

Age has nothing to do with it. The man has his finger over a button about to kill millions. Killing him is reasonable and proportionate.

If some other option reasonably presents itself to stop the dude from killing millions other than killing him, that's the option a good person takes.

A baby isnt about to kill anyone. Killing him/her is not reasonable and proportionate. Pick up the baby and raise it with love and kindness instead of murdering it.

That's what a good person does.

Murdering people as a consequence of defending yourself,

You cant murder someone as a consequence of legitimate self defence. Murder requires mens rea, or the intent to murder.

But, you want to put Animate Dead on a pedestal,

I didnt write the 5E PHB and MM. It wasnt me that 'put them on a pedestal'.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, so execution is evil? Any government that executes prisoners is evil?

No. Executions for justice are also not murder. Just like killing in war is not murder. Self-defense is not the only non-evil method of killing that isn't murder.

Let us say you shoot a cannon at a pirate ship, protecting yourselves and the people of your ship. But, while it sank, it killed twice as many prisoners as there were pirates. Did you commit murder?

That depends on whether or not they knew the prisoners were there. No knowledge and it'st manslaughter. Knowledge and kill them anyway and it's murder.

Was the act evil?

Yes.

Does it matter whether or not you knew beforehand about the prisoners? If you didn't know is it still evil?

No for evil and yes for murder, and yes.

 

[Maxperson]

So, murder needs to be defined by the criminal laws of the country. So, if the criminal code doesn't call it murder, is it still murder?[/qjuote]

Yes it absolutely needs to be defined by the laws of the country. Murder is explicitly an unlawful killing. So is manslaughter, but the difference between the two is also defined by law.

 

[Maxperson]

No, I am providing you with a definition of murder in the context of my original post.

You can't re-define murder, though. Murder and manslaughter are explicitly unlawful killings.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No, I am providing you with a definition of murder in the context of my original post.

So murder (as defined in whatever criminal code exists in the country in which you live ) is not defined in whatever criminal code exists in the country in which I live?

Then how is it defined? I mean, you specicially call it out as being defined by the country, but then want to back away and say it is not defined by the country.

Age has nothing to do with it. The man has his finger over a button about to kill millions. Killing him is reasonable and proportionate.

If some other option reasonably presents itself to stop the dude from killing millions other than killing him, that's the option a good person takes.

A baby isnt about to kill anyone. Killing him/her is not reasonable and proportionate. Pick up the baby and raise it with love and kindness instead of murdering it.

That's what a good person does.

Note, the man has to have his finger on the button. You have to provide a justification. But I did not add that justification, you just assumed that it was there.

And, remember I mentioned bloodlines with regards to the baby? Let us say the child is going to grow up and explode. No fault of its own, no way to stop it. Is it still evil to kill the child and save millions? Raising it with love and kindness changes nothing, this isn't about the child growing up to be evil. This is about the child being a living bomb.


But again, this is just delving into specifics and has nothing to do with the point we've been discussing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No. Executions for justice are also not murder. Just like killing in war is not murder. Self-defense is not the only non-evil method of killing that isn't murder.

That depends on whether or not they knew the prisoners were there. No knowledge and it'st manslaughter. Knowledge and kill them anyway and it's murder.

Yes.

No for evil and yes for murder, and yes.

Yes it absolutely needs to be defined by the laws of the country. Murder is explicitly an unlawful killing. So is manslaughter, but the difference between the two is also defined by law.

So, you agree that context matters. That an act is only evil if it fits within a context of evil acts. Something like killing someone can be just or evil, the context matters.

This is the point I have been trying to make with regards to Animate Dead. The context matters, just the act alone cannot make something evil.

And then I went further and showed how the act does not match up with the context of the MM.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

How many cultists have paladins in your games murdered? How many would they have to kill to be evil?

Only one paladin in my game at the moment and she hasn't murdered anyone yet. She's killed a bunch of cultists, but that was in defence of others.

Goblins? Enemy soldiers?

The goblin situation was resolved by a spot of light pummelling and then diplomacy.

Adventurers murder people all the time. Doesn't get called out as being evil. Why is this different?

Murder as in premeditated killing of someone for no reason other than your own advancement or whim.
In my game, the stereotypical band of murderhobos that just run around attacking innocent people and taking their stuff would be evil.
I'm using "murder" in the context of a subset of killing that is always considered evil.

I'm adding in the math. It is a logical extension of "this place is made of Evil" and "Evil is real and measurable"

This seems to be a discussion a discussion where there is obviously an issue with understanding. I think that deciding what you think the other person might have meant to say and then claiming that that is what they said, rather than stating what they actually said, is not a good look.

If that is the case, it can be measured, there are formula. Stuff like the "alignment slider" would work. Which means that you would have a "casting animate dead generates 5 points of EVIL" type of mechanic. But we don't. That sort of thing does not exist by RAW, and in fact, RAW seems to point towards being more relativistic in it's approach.

Which makes it very difficult to point to an act and say "this act, no matter the context, is evil" because there are lots of different contexts where it might not be.

You can choose to try to use the Skeletons that you raise with Animate dead for good purposes. Your use of them can still be a good act, even though the actual creation of them was evil.

How much good balances out how much evil, and what are the relative weighting that you give to each act?If they're concerned with alignment, that is something the DM will have to decide themselves.

 

[Maxperson]

So, you agree that context matters. That an act is only evil if it fits within a context of evil acts. Something like killing someone can be just or evil, the context matters.

Evil is subjective. What is evil to one person, may not be evil to someone else. Society, not individuals determines what good and evil are, though.

Let's go back to murder vs. execution. A dictator makes the law, so he can make executions of political rivals for nothing more than being a rival, legal. Modern societies(even his own) will view that as evil, though, so even though it isn't murder, it is still evil.

This is the point I have been trying to make with regards to Animate Dead. The context matters, just the act alone cannot make something evil.

My above argument fails when it comes to D&D. Good and evil in D&D are objective truths, not subjective or relative. Animate Dead will always be evil unless the DM changes that through homebrew.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Only one paladin in my game at the moment and she hasn't murdered anyone yet. She's killed a bunch of cultists, but that was in defence of others.

The goblin situation was resolved by a spot of light pummelling and then diplomacy.

Murder as in premeditated killing of someone for no reason other than your own advancement or whim.
In my game, the stereotypical band of murderhobos that just run around attacking innocent people and taking their stuff would be evil.
I'm using "murder" in the context of a subset of killing that is always considered evil.

So, there is a difference. Ending the life of someone can be good, neutral, or evil depending on the context surrounding the event.

Killing is fine if it is in the defense of other people. Murder is never in the defense of other people. I'd be curious to talk about assassination, which is still premeditated killing, but can be for the benefit of people or the detriment of people.

But this is the point. Context matters when determining if an act is good or evil.

You can choose to try to use the Skeletons that you raise with Animate dead for good purposes. Your use of them can still be a good act, even though the actual creation of them was evil.

How much good balances out how much evil, and what are the relative weighting that you give to each act?If they're concerned with alignment, that is something the DM will have to decide themselves.

head-desk

We just established that the context of an action matters for whether it is good or evil. And yet, we are right back to declarations that the action of creating undead is always evil.

I'd ask why creating undead is always evil, but you will tell me to read the monster manual. Then I will point out that the monster manual does not match the rules given for undead in the spell. You will then just say "but they are the same and if you want to change it talk to your DM, because creating undead is evil"

And when I ask why, you will tell me to read the monster manual. Again.