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

[Lanefan]

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

With Goblins, light pummelling is diplomacy.

Heavy pummelling is negotiation. A subtle but meaningful difference.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

That's because in this case real-world thoughts don't line up with D&D playability.

In the real world, context absolutely matters.

In D&D, context doesn't matter a whit because alignment - and many of the acts that follow or lead to it - are themselves absolutes, as defined by the game and-or the DM.

Thus, in D&D murder can be defined by a DM as evil regardless of context. Creating undead is implied to be evil by the game itself, though not very clearly, without regard to context. And so on.

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.

I'm not @Maxperson but I'd say the same thing.

Why? Because where rules and rulings like this conflict, in the interests of internal consistency a DM is forced to pick one to take precedence (in this case the spell write-up or the MM) and then must stick to it and allow it to overrule other instances where conflicting info is given.

Here I'd pick the MM every time (as it seems Maxperson has also done), as it's a broader-scale definition of what a particular monster or creature is and represents. But, were I to pick the spell version then the MM write-up would go out the window and all such undead would follow the spell's model.

 

[Lanefan]

Then explain how a lawful good diety can have lawful good clerics while still promoting the use of Animate Dead. The PHB gives us that the Death Domain, while normally reserved for evil clerics, can be taken by good clerics of specific death gods in the Egyptian Pantheon of the PHB.

The Death Domain gives Animate Dead as a domain spell. It is as vital to the beliefs of the diety involved as Beacon of Hope for Life Clerics, Identify for Knowledge Clerics, Call Lightning for Tempest Clerics, or Disguise Self for Trickery Clerics.

No homebrew, this is straight PHB.

Evil is objective.
Animate Dead is Evil.
Good Dieties approve of the use of Animate Dead

This doesn't work. This is a logical paradox. You can't have good Death Domain clerics if Animate Dead is always evil, but the PHB tells us that you can see Good Aligned Death Clerics of Good Aligned Deities.

There's a flaw in your logic - you add in an element that might not be present.

Evil is objective.
Animate Dead is Evil.
Good Deities grant Animate Dead to their Clerics.

Note that nothing in there either says or implies that Good Deities approve of the use of Animate Dead. Sure, they might, in certan circumstances; but probably best not to assume general approval all the time.

(from the meta- or deisgn-level view: I think spells like this, that are obvious mismatches between themselves and the granting deity, are granted only because the game as designed doesn't bother with deity-specific spell lists or variants; leaving it up to each DM to decide what happens next)

 

[Chaosmancer]

I see. How does the MM state that they are commanded?

It doesn't. No where in the MM does it tell you how the necromancer commands his undead.

No, it specifically doesn't.
It states that you can command any or all of them. So the first round you command one group of zombies to charge the adventurers, the second round you command another group to close the door.

That is changing the scenario, and entirely my point.

Per the spell that takes two rounds.
Per the MM you can do that in one round. And in fact, I've seen necromancers give out multiple commands to multiple undead all the time. MM does not prevent this.

I would guess that the player resource assumes that PCs would command their minions not to attack living creatures - such as themselves - unless ordered to.

Where does it say that?

Assumptions don't help us. You can assume that the necromancer gives that order, but nothing says that they do.

Not only does the spell state "Once given an order, the creature continues to follow it until its task is complete" which implies they can only follow a single order at a time, but further it states "The creature is under your control for 24 hours, after which it stops obeying any command you've given it."

It is a minor thing, but command is singular. Implying that you can't have multiple commands. Only the singular.

The "foul mimicry of life" implies certain things however.
The spell does not state anything about the behaviour of the skeleton once uncontrolled. That would make its behaviour down to the DM to decide. - Who may well decide to use the guidance in the MM.

A bad play can also be a "foul mimicry of life". And honestly, take out foul and yeah, Undead are just mimicking life, just like flesh golems which are stitched together from corpses. They are also a "foul mimicry of life" and happen to be neutral.

And, you are right the DM may choose to follow the guidance of the MM. But they could also follow the guidance of the spell. In which case the undead will stand still and do nothing except defend itself from agressors. Which is not the evil murder machine you keep claiming.

I think that that is probably due to the ability for a player to create a homunculus coming out after the MM entry had been written. That or its something more important to the use of the spell than the creature itself. - Like the fact that the MM entry does not state that skeletons controlled under the animate dead spell can be commanded purely mentally.

Maybe it is more important to the spell than the creature that it can have nearly twenty times it's listed hp, but I doubt it.

More likely, it is because the spell came after the creature, but either way, it does not really matter for my point. The spell that creates the creature and the statblock for the creature are not identical. The spell creates a different version.

This supports the idea that it could happen in other places, like with skeletons that are not mentally controlled. Even though the spell specifies they are mentally controlled.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not @Maxperson but I'd say the same thing.

Why? Because where rules and rulings like this conflict, in the interests of internal consistency a DM is forced to pick one to take precedence (in this case the spell write-up or the MM) and then must stick to it and allow it to overrule other instances where conflicting info is given.

Here I'd pick the MM every time (as it seems Maxperson has also done), as it's a broader-scale definition of what a particular monster or creature is and represents. But, were I to pick the spell version then the MM write-up would go out the window and all such undead would follow the spell's model.

But since you are implying there is a choice, then it is completely fair to say that Neutral undead are RAW, and that casting animate dead to create then is neutral. Because that is a precedence set by the rules as they are written, and it is a completely valid choice between to conflicting options.

I don't need everyone to pick the same option. I just am pointing out that it is a RAW option, no homebrew required.

There's a flaw in your logic - you add in an element that might not be present.

Evil is objective.
Animate Dead is Evil.
Good Deities grant Animate Dead to their Clerics.

Note that nothing in there either says or implies that Good Deities approve of the use of Animate Dead. Sure, they might, in certan circumstances; but probably best not to assume general approval all the time.

(from the meta- or deisgn-level view: I think spells like this, that are obvious mismatches between themselves and the granting deity, are granted only because the game as designed doesn't bother with deity-specific spell lists or variants; leaving it up to each DM to decide what happens next)

I agree with it on a design level. But if we are going to take the design as reflecting the world of RAW, then it doesn't matter why they did it. It matters that they did it.

And, if Evil is objective, then it doesn't matter when they approve of it. Either good Dieties approve of Evil, or the action isn't always Evil. And frankly, it is splitting hairs to choose between the two, because it doesn't matter. The Good deities are the source of Objective Good. Either way you pick, Objective Good is approving of the use of the spell.

If it is sometimes good, sometimes evil, then it is actually neutral. It cannot be objectively evil.

 

[Iry]

The Good deities are the source of Objective Good. Either way you pick, Objective Good is approving of the use of the spell.

I'm not against you, but where is this stated? I was always under the impression that objective alignment was determined by even higher powers like The Sovereign Host or AO. Not run-of-the-mill gods who are capable of changing alignment.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It doesn't. No where in the MM does it tell you how the necromancer commands his undead.

So you are interpreting the lack of detail about how a Skeleton is controlled by its master in the MM to imply that it is definitely not as a bonus action?

That is changing the scenario, and entirely my point.

Per the spell that takes two rounds.
Per the MM you can do that in one round. And in fact, I've seen necromancers give out multiple commands to multiple undead all the time. MM does not prevent this.

I'm really going to need a citation from the MM for this. I do not see where it states that you can give multiple commands in a single round as you claim it does.
I'm not saying you're lying. Just that I couldn't find it.

Assumptions don't help us. You can assume that the necromancer gives that order, but nothing says that they do.

Not only does the spell state "Once given an order, the creature continues to follow it until its task is complete" which implies they can only follow a single order at a time, but further it states "The creature is under your control for 24 hours, after which it stops obeying any command you've given it."

It is a minor thing, but command is singular. Implying that you can't have multiple commands. Only the singular.

If that is your interpretation of it, then that is fine.

And, you are right the DM may choose to follow the guidance of the MM. But they could also follow the guidance of the spell. In which case the undead will stand still and do nothing except defend itself from agressors. Which is not the evil murder machine you keep claiming.

I'm going to need you to point this out for me as well I'm afraid.
You're claiming the spell gives guidance on what the skeleton does after you lose control and it stops obeying your commands.
I'm claiming that the spell does not.

If I missed something like that, that's extremely worrying to me.

Maybe it is more important to the spell than the creature that it can have nearly twenty times it's listed hp, but I doubt it.

More likely, it is because the spell came after the creature, but either way, it does not really matter for my point. The spell that creates the creature and the statblock for the creature are not identical. The spell creates a different version.

This supports the idea that it could happen in other places, like with skeletons that are not mentally controlled. Even though the spell specifies they are mentally controlled.

I think that it is very likely that skeletons can be controlled verbally. Just not by PCs without DM intervention.

 

[Maxperson]

Per the MM you can do that in one round. And in fact, I've seen necromancers give out multiple commands to multiple undead all the time. MM does not prevent this.

What page? I can' find a Necromancer in the MM.

A bad play can also be a "foul mimicry of life". And honestly, take out foul and yeah, Undead are just mimicking life, just like flesh golems which are stitched together from corpses. They are also a "foul mimicry of life" and happen to be neutral.

I've been to some evil plays. Torture is evil.

And, you are right the DM may choose to follow the guidance of the MM. But they could also follow the guidance of the spell. In which case the undead will stand still and do nothing except defend itself from agressors. Which is not the evil murder machine you keep claiming.

You are mixing up two different things. The first is the spell, which says that when issued no commands the creature just stands there and defends itself. Since you can only issue commands while under control, this only pertains to the 24 hours the spell is active. The second thing is the MM stat block which says that they are evil.
The first has no effect on the second and vise versa. Just because the evil zombie can only defend itself whil under control and given no orders, does not mean that it isn't able to wander around and eat everyone in a peaceful village once control is lost.

 

[Maxperson]

And, if Evil is objective, then it doesn't matter when they approve of it. Either good Dieties approve of Evil, or the action isn't always Evil. And frankly, it is splitting hairs to choose between the two, because it doesn't matter. The Good deities are the source of Objective Good. Either way you pick, Objective Good is approving of the use of the spell.

It depends on the god. Some of the good ones, NG and CG might occasionally approve of an evil spell if it enacts a greater good. I don't see LG gods doing that.

If it is sometimes good, sometimes evil, then it is actually neutral. It cannot be objectively evil.

Except that in D&D, unless the DM changes the game, good and evil are objective things. You can't "logic" your way out of that. You can only homebrew or house rule your way out.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not against you, but where is this stated? I was always under the impression that objective alignment was determined by even higher powers like The Sovereign Host or AO. Not run-of-the-mill gods who are capable of changing alignment.

I missed that. Yes, it's the multiverse or maybe a power higher than the gods that makes good and evil objective forces in D&D. It's not the gods.