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

[Eric V]

So, again, in bold this time CONTEXT MATTERS

I keep repeating it, you keep saying that I'm wrong. But clearly it matters if you need to clarify that to be evil, the people can't pose a reasonable threat to you or other people. Because if they do, your actions are not evil.

There is no action, in and of itself, that is evil or good. It is always about context.

Killing, for example, isn't always evil; it is evil under certain contexts. When it is unlawful killing and not in self-defense, we use the term murder: a word that describes an action under a certain context.

Your bolded point above could not be more correct, sir.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

You'd have to ask Flamestrike, they are the one who said it. I never bothered to check and see if they were wrong about it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

We have since received statblocks that do limit monsters in this way. The recent summoning spells, the artificer creations, and a few others.

So yes, since the Undead statblock is no different from a goblins or a trolls, then I must assume they need no bonus action to be commanded. If they did, then an errata would be added to correct the mistake.

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.

Zombie page says that they "can follow simple orders and distinguish friend from foe" and does not say that a horde of zombies all follow the same order. So, you can give discrete orders to them. Also, the identifying friend from foe part is also not in the spell.

Skeletons are actually more nuanced, because of their intellect. It says they can perform many tasks, mentioning things like scaling a siege ladder and forming a shield wall. The tasks need explained to them, which implies that MM skeletons can actually follow a set of commands that culminate in a single action, like loading and firing a trebuchet. But, since all of the actions listed seem to fall under sieging or defending a castle, and the entire entry only speaks of a single master, then it seems a skeleton can be given a command and left to do its work. Also, since they are being used in castle defense and offense, it makes perfect sense that they can have different groups doing different tasks, since everyone acting in the same manner is terrible for those sorts of tactics.

So, stated directly? No. Stated by context? Yes.

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

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.

"If you issue no commands the creature only defends itself against hostile creatures."

If we accept that you must command them not to attack the living, like the MM states, this is actually a problem. Because with zero commands, they do not follow the actions listed in the MM, they stand motionless and defend themselves.

So, we have two seperate end states. 1) The monster is hostile, needs to be commanded not to attack, and attacks immediately upon being free and 2) The monster is motionless, does not need to be commanded to not attack, and will simply defend itself even when freed.

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

So, the monsters and NPCs act differently without DM intervention. Which supports the idea that the MM is giving us a different type of creature, because without the DM saying otherwise, they act differently.

 

[Maxperson]

There is no action, in and of itself, that is evil or good. It is always about context.

Killing, for example, isn't always evil; it is evil under certain contexts. When it is unlawful killing and not in self-defense, we use the term murder: a word that describes an action under a certain context.

Your bolded point above could not be more correct, sir.

In real life, yes. In D&D, no. In D&D morality is absolute.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

What other type of master would they be talking about for the Zombie and Skeleton in the MM entries for those monsters?

If you want the Necromancer himself, that is page 217 of Volos. They have no special abilities that would explain the inconsistencies between the skeleton entry and the spell. (You can look at the above post with Cap'n Kobold for some of those details.)

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.

But, the part of the Monster block that makes it a murder machine states that they need to be ordered to not attack people.

But, with zero orders, they do not attack people.

Zero orders does not mean "no orders except the order to not attack people" it means zero orders. You have done nothing to the monster except to create it. Any fix I can think of for your side to this, ends up adding details to the spell that do not exist. So, my conclusion is that the two types of undead are subtly different. And if they are different, then it is possible that one is not evil.

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.

I have a RAW LG diety who does. So, doesn't matter if you can see it. It exists.

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.

I'm not logicking out of it. Lawful Good Dieites would not approve an evil act. They approve the use of Animate Dead. Therefore Animate Dead is not evil.

Lanefan stated "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. "

So, if they only approve of it under certain circumstances, does that change anything? No, because good and evil in DnD is objective. Something is either good or it is evil.

So, either Good Deities (who do not approve of Evil Actd) approve of an evil act. Or the act itself is neutral and therefore not evil.

 

[Maxperson]

What other type of master would they be talking about for the Zombie and Skeleton in the MM entries for those monsters?

Could be anything that can control zombies. Even so, I just went over the Zombie and skeleton entries and they match the spell pretty closely. I don't see the inconsistencies you say are there.

They follow simple tasks set to them by the ones that create them. It matches the spell and nothing implies the ability to follow more than one command.

But, the part of the Monster block that makes it a murder machine states that they need to be ordered to not attack people.

But, with zero orders, they do not attack people.

That's false. With zero orders WHILE UNDER CONTROL they do not attack people. With zero orders and not under control they do attack people.

So, my conclusion is that the two types of undead are subtly different. And if they are different, then it is possible that one is not evil.

Your conclusion is wrong. First, they do attack people unless controlled. Second, the entry says that they are evil, so it's not possible that any of them are not evil unless the DM homebrews otherwise.

I have a RAW LG diety who does. So, doesn't matter if you can see it. It exists.

Show me the LG god that has RAW that says explicitly that they approve of the use of the spell. Simply having it available does not equal proof, so you are going to have to quote explicit text from a LG god stating that they approve for your statement there to be true.

I'm not logicking out of it. Lawful Good Dieites would not approve an evil act. They approve the use of Animate Dead. Therefore Animate Dead is not evil.

You have not one shred of proof that they approve of the use of the spell. Allowing it's use does not equate to approval.

So, either Good Deities (who do not approve of Evil Actd) approve of an evil act. Or the act itself is neutral and therefore not evil.

False Dichotomies are false. The act can be evil and a good god can still occasionally approve of the use of the spell. Or the act can be evil, good deities never approve it the use, but include it in the spells offered because they believe in the free will of their clerics. Or.....1000 other reasons.

 

[Weiley31]

We are still having this argument?

Get back to the dice rolling!

 

[Flamestrike]

There is no action, in and of itself, that is evil or good. It is always about context.

Genocide. Give me a context whereby Genocide is a 'good' act.

Killing, for example, isn't always evil; it is evil under certain contexts. When it is unlawful killing and not in self-defense, we use the term murder: a word that describes an action under a certain context.

Killing itself has context; the use of force that results in a death.

Which Good deities are not opposed to, in principle. Plenty of good deities with the War domain (for example). Torm, Tyr, Heronious etc. Those deities are OK with killing, if done in self defence or the defence of others, is tempered by mercy, and no other option reasonably presents itself.

Not many Good deities encourage murder though. That's exclusively the domain of Gods like Bhaal, Cyric, Nerull and so forth.

 

[Lanefan]

"If you issue no commands the creature only defends itself against hostile creatures."

If we accept that you must command them not to attack the living, like the MM states, this is actually a problem. Because with zero commands, they do not follow the actions listed in the MM, they stand motionless and defend themselves.

So, we have two seperate end states. 1) The monster is hostile, needs to be commanded not to attack, and attacks immediately upon being free and 2) The monster is motionless, does not need to be commanded to not attack, and will simply defend itself even when freed.

For the 24 hours, obviously.

What isn't made clear is what happens next. Does the monster become free-roaming as per the MM, or does it stay put and only defend itself, or - a third option - does it stay put until-unless attacked which triggers it to become free-roaming?

My answer would be that it becomes free-roaming once the 24 hours is up.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Second, the entry says that they are evil, so it's not possible that any of them are not evil unless the DM homebrews otherwise.

Evil because evil. Surprised it took us so long to get back here.

Show me the LG god that has RAW that says explicitly that they approve of the use of the spell. Simply having it available does not equal proof, so you are going to have to quote explicit text from a LG god stating that they approve for your statement there to be true.

There is a pointless exercise. Osiris and Anubis don't have 5e write-up, so I'd have to go to a different edition. Which you will claim invalidates any information I find. And since they would be from a section of Faerun, you'll just call it homebrew and say it doesn't count.

False Dichotomies are false. The act can be evil and a good god can still occasionally approve of the use of the spell. Or the act can be evil, good deities never approve it the use, but include it in the spells offered because they believe in the free will of their clerics. Or.....1000 other reasons.

Objective and Absolute Good cannot approve of Objective and Absolute Evil. Otherwise, it is not objective and absolute.

It would be like saying all grass is green, except for grass that isn't. Then not all grass is green.