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

[Chaosmancer]

You're giving me the subjective views of the people in the town(s) and asking me to give the Orc an objective alignment.

But (given the information above) I would say the Orc is objectively evil. He murdered a man for no good reason (not in self defence, or the defence of others).

No, it does not. The alignment of his victims does not matter in and of itself. If he's killing people for reasons other than self defence (or the defence of others) and/or when other options reasonably present themselves, he's evil.

So, when you find out that he was only killing evil people (the three were just good at hiding it) and that he killed each one to prevent someone who was currently in danger from being hurt, he is now good.

Or maybe he didn't, maybe he just thought he was doing that, because a curse made him think so, and he killed all those people for no reason. And he is actually still evil.


But what I find most interesting here, is that I am now left to wonder about is how many soldiers are objectively evil. They go to war, and there are other reasonable options than killing the enemy. Do the only evil soldiers get to be the ones who shot first?

I mean, if both armies are full of good aligned soldiers, neither side attacks the other, because they would then not be killing in defense of themselves or others. And that is the only time it is neutral to kill, every other time is evil.

You take whatever reasonable and proportionate steps are required to stop violence.

Remember; you've posted an absolutely extreme example here. These Orc villagers nearby are hell bent on growing as a force, invading your lands, and murdering everyone. In your post; nothing short of genocide will stop them.

I see signing them up to a treaty, banning the worship of an evil pantheon of Gods (or at the very least, banning any evil practices of those Gods like sacrifice and so on), disarming them, and steering them away from murder, bloodshed and rape to be good acts.

Right, changing their culture, banning their religion, and instead proseltyzing them to convert to your culture and your religion, preventing them from being able to fight back. Only possible good way to go about it.

'Unless the DM says otherwise' IS RAW. That;s the precise rule, copied from the MM, word for word.

You cant talk about a monsters alignment in the absence of DM discretion.

So, without the DM saying otherwise, all orcs are evil. By RAW.

You seem to point towards all sorts of evil acts that evil people get up to, so all orcs would be following through on those actions correct? In fact, the orcs would be aggressive and trying to murder people. So, killing them in self defense would be non-evil.

The books say they are alive. They're not constructs; they're humanoids. They're expressly alive, sentient and sapient. They even had a subtype in 3.5 called 'living'.

Beats me what makes them alive (heck; beats me what makes you or I alive); but they are.

Right, so you have made a claim with no support and no reason.

Again, being humanoid doesn't matter. Plants are alive and they are not humanoid. All humanoid tells us is that they are effected by magic like humanoids are.

Sense they have no discernable difference from Modrons though that would tell us why one is alive and the other isn't the more reasonable (heck, and good) course of action would be to assume they are in fact alive, rather than declaring they are not alive, and there for it is morally neutral to end their existence (after all, if can't be murder if it can't be killed)

 

[Chaosmancer]

You can tell the difference between a stat block and the fluff description, right?

Then all you care about is "Zombies are evil because they are evil"

Even though nothing in the spell calls out evil, even though you harm no one in the use of the spell, even though the monster mechanically says nothing about what happens when they lose control, and thus can be completely safe, even though there is no evil magic involved, no evil spirit involved.

Because all of that, all of that came from the fluff description. None of it is mechanics.

All you care about is that the default zombie is evil, so the zombie you create must be evil, and they are evil because they are evil and therefore evil.

It counts.

Only if you include artifacts in your game. And I doubt that most people do.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Do not mix up the deities or the functions. They gave the death domain but it does not mean that Osiris promotes the creation of undead at large. The only undead that Osiris allows are Mummies. Mummies are the guardian of the rest of the Pharaoh and are a special case. Mummies are created through the use of positive energy that makes them not hungry for the living and especialy apt at following instructions not to the letter but to the intent. Mummies were often willing to become mummies and thus are a special case. Osiris would be quite unhappy with a follower using animate dead to animate "mere" skeletons and zombies. Doing that would fall under a strict "It is a hopeless situation, I have to do it" and even then it would require the perpetrator to atone for his/her sins (I think that only males could be a priest of Osiris but I am not sure). Think of it as a last resort that Osiris gives to his follower. You better not do it, but if you have to, do it. The caster better cast it on non followers or enemies or else he might have a very bad consequences. Even then he will have to answer for his action. The kind of "We'll talk about it afterward and see if it was really that desperate to use this spell."

I kind of doubt the last resort idea. The Domain spells are given as part of what the deity believes in. Trickster Clerics get illusion spells. Tempest Clerics get Call Lighting. Nature Clerics get Speak with Animals. Knowledge clerics get Identify.

Death Clerics get Animate Dead. The only reason people are saying that it must be some sort of last resort option, to be used rarely and only under dire circumstances, is because the spell is seen as evil.

But, why is it evil?

We can't even fully say it is because it creates evil creatures, because MaxPerson has kindly and strongly advocated that not all members of a statblock must be evil.

And the fluff of the spell and mechanics of the spell do not fit with the entries for Skeletons and Zombies.

Which leaves us with "it is evil because it is evil"

To which I ask, why? If we are allowed to ignore fluff, if alignment can be changed, then why is the spell evil?

Again, this is a remnant of the 4th edition (if I remember correctly). They want magic to be compared to a tool. A tool is not inherently evil. IT works with a real tool like a sword, but not with magic. In previous editions (1ed, 2ed and 3.xed.) The spell has always been tagged as evil and so are undead. A tool that can only summon evil is evil. No gray in here. I do not have to see something explicitly written to know that it not a good thing to do. Logic is to be used at all times.

But why are we assuming the zombie or skeleton is evil? If the default can be changed, and the default doesn't match with what the spell provides, then why are we assuming that we have to take the worst part of the default and assume it is true?

 

[Maxperson]

Then all you care about is "Zombies are evil because they are evil"

Don't tell me what I care about. I'll tell YOU what I care about, and that's not it.

Even though nothing in the spell calls out evil, even though you harm no one in the use of the spell, even though the monster mechanically says nothing about what happens when they lose control, and thus can be completely safe, even though there is no evil magic involved, no evil spirit involved.

Because all of that, all of that came from the fluff description. None of it is mechanics.

Except for the part about casting it a lot making you evil. That's a mechanic. That's a rule.

Only if you include artifacts in your game. And I doubt that most people do.

They exist in every game unless the DM removes them. Their existence is default, whether or not you use them. And you don't even need artifacts. There are magic items that also use alignment.

 

[Helldritch]

I kind of doubt the last resort idea. The Domain spells are given as part of what the deity believes in. Trickster Clerics get illusion spells. Tempest Clerics get Call Lighting. Nature Clerics get Speak with Animals. Knowledge clerics get Identify.

Death Clerics get Animate Dead. The only reason people are saying that it must be some sort of last resort option, to be used rarely and only under dire circumstances, is because the spell is seen as evil.

But, why is it evil?

We can't even fully say it is because it creates evil creatures, because MaxPerson has kindly and strongly advocated that not all members of a statblock must be evil.

And the fluff of the spell and mechanics of the spell do not fit with the entries for Skeletons and Zombies.


Which leaves us with "it is evil because it is evil"

To which I ask, why? If we are allowed to ignore fluff, if alignment can be changed, then why is the spell evil?

Death domain clerics get the animate dead because the domain was originally associated with evil deities only. Getting it as a good or neutral cleric is simply an oversight. Do not go further down this path of reasoning. This means that good and neutral deities will allow its use only as a last resort or simply ban it from use.

As for stat block saying: "not all members of a statblock must be evil" Do not fall into that pit trap too. Base game assumes "X" then "X" applies to all save the exceptions that the DM deems necessary to further a story. Nothing else is implied. An exception is not the rule. But the rule does tolerate an exception. Note here the singular on "exception". Homebrew it as you like, but do not pretend that it would be canon.

As for the last question in the bloc above. It is evil because the things it creates are evil to the core. If left unchecked, the created undead will kill every living thing they will encounter. Be it a knight in armor, a soldier, a mother or a child. It will do so without remorse or hesitations. It will kill. Not to eat, not for pleasure but simply to kill. If that is not evil for you, nothing is. The fact that there are possible exceptions to the rule does not invalidate the rule itself. You make a good zombie for your story? Fine, but all the other zombies are evil. One exception is not the rule.

But why are we assuming the zombie or skeleton is evil? If the default can be changed, and the default doesn't match with what the spell provides, then why are we assuming that we have to take the worst part of the default and assume it is true?

IF you change the default then it is homebrew. Homebrew is homebrew. If you want to assume the base game then you take what the stat bloc says and nothing more. Skeletons and zombies are evil. Stop right there. Do not go to anything else. Nothing you will say will change the fact that without homebrewing they were, are and will be evil.

Again there is nothing wrong with homebrewing. It is your game. But do not try to impose your view/homebrew as the base game. It is not. I made skeletons with veterans stats. They're not base game but they are though as hell. But they are homebrew. No where in the MM will you see skeleton veteran. No where in the rules do you see Skeleton alignment: Lawful Good. Yet, with homebrew, you can. But it won't be the base creature. The base creature is evil.

 

[Lanefan]

I kind of doubt the last resort idea. The Domain spells are given as part of what the deity believes in. Trickster Clerics get illusion spells. Tempest Clerics get Call Lighting. Nature Clerics get Speak with Animals. Knowledge clerics get Identify.

Death Clerics get Animate Dead.

All true.

Of course, in my game at least, anything resembling a Death Cleric is going to be at best somewhere south of Neutral regardless of pantheon or deity*, as Death is commonly seen as unpleasant or undesirable for a whole bunch of different reasons.

* - put another way, no Good deity would support a Death Cleric.

 

[Aldarc]

Orcs = Stupidly Evil.

Yeah, sounds about right since forever - why mess with it now?

To decouple that from a lot of the racism that has been historically coded into orcs, and this has been discussed before - with you - in other threads.

Setting specific changes are homebrew, even if from official settings.

How is it "homebrew" if it exists as part of the official D&D multiverse? I don't think that you are using the term "homebrew" in the conventional sense.

 

[Flamestrike]

So, when you find out that he was only killing evil people (the three were just good at hiding it) and that he killed each one to prevent someone who was currently in danger from being hurt, he is now good.

Do you read my posts? Please start to man, Im getting sick of repeating myself.

The alignment of his victims does not matter. I said this in my last post that you're quoting here. And it is never morally good to kill a person. Ever. In some cases it may not be morally evil though.

It is not morally evil to kill a tyrant terrorising a town (as you described the 'evil' victim) in self defence or the defence of others, if no other option reasonably presents itself to you, and the force you use is proportionate. He (your Orc) is killing is self defence of others (the townsfolk) in this case.

You described the victim as killing and terrorising the villagers. It is not morally evil (nor is it morally good mind you) to use force (including lethal force if needed) to stop that killing and terrorising, if no other option reasonably presents itself to you.

But what I find most interesting here, is that I am now left to wonder about is how many soldiers are objectively evil. They go to war, and there are other reasonable options than killing the enemy. Do the only evil soldiers get to be the ones who shot first?

You dont have to wait till someone shoots at you first, to shoot back in order for it to be self defence!

If you're on the battlefield, its safe to assume that the enemy soldiers are trying to kill you and the guys on your side standing next to you. Ambushing them, bombing them from the sky or whatever is not morally evil (nor is it morally good). Its an act of self defence, or the defence of others, when no other option reasonably presents itself to you.

Should your enemy surrender in good faith, you accept that surrender. Should you capture prisoners of war, you treat them with dignity and respect. At all times you seek to minimise collateral damage, and look for ways to end the conflict peacefully

Right, changing their culture, banning their religion, and instead proseltyzing them to convert to your culture and your religion, preventing them from being able to fight back. Only possible good way to go about it.

Their culture (and religion) is 'rape, murder, enslave'

Yes. Putting a stop to that raping, murdering and enslaving (without resorting to genocide) and converting those rapist, murdering slavers to good people in worship of the Gods of good, is a good act.

More Souls for Heaven. Less Souls for Hell. Both of which exist in (default) 5E.

So, without the DM saying otherwise, all orcs are evil. By RAW.

And without measurement, an electron has neither a position nor a momentum. It exists in a state of uncertainty.

Like the alignment of the Orc. It's alignment defaults to evil, unless the DM decides otherwise.

Right, so you have made a claim with no support and no reason.

I provided both, but you're being obtuse and resorting to circular arguments and intellectual dishonesty (ignoring what I am saying and forcing me to say it several times) in order to 'win' an argument on the internet.

they have no discernable difference from Modrons though that would tell us why one is alive and the other isn't the more reasonable (heck, and good) course of action would be to assume they are in fact alive, rather than declaring they are not alive, and there for it is morally neutral to end their existence (after all, if can't be murder if it can't be killed)

Modrons, as constructs cant be affected by healing magic (which doesnt affect contructs or undead).

Warforged WHICH ARE NOT CONSTRUCTS, are affected by healing magic, expressly are called out as 'living' by 3.5 and 4E DnD, and are heavily implied (including in 5E Unearthed Arcana) to have souls:

Do warforged have souls?

My initial point was that Constructs and Undead are not alive. As Warforged ARE NOT CONSTRUCTS, you're arguing a strawman trying to argue that they are (or are not) alive. They're Humanoids; they're not Constructs or Undead.

Like even if you were to somehow prove they are not alive (despite being expressly called out as being living for over 10 years now through multiple editions of the game), they're not Constructs, so you prove nothing. It would have no bearing on my statement that Constructs and Undead are not alive, and ergo they cant be killed.

 

[Helldritch]

Are we being trolled?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Can you provide something that says raising undead is an evil act in 5e? I've got a culture where you will your body to your family, church, liege, or whatever on death to act as a everliving servitor. I had not seen anything in the rules that it was inherently evil in 5e.

There's more than one subclass that is around it, some that even give it to you as class features like the Spores Druid.

You probably already got something to this effect, but 28 pages of thread.

Pretty much all of the undead you can summon in 5e is some variant of Evil. Even if you are zealous in keeping up your control on them, you are still bring in the cosmic force of Evil where it did not exist before. I'd call that an evil act.

Granted, you could be in Eberron or some homebrew world where some undead aren't inherently evil, but the default is that pretty much all of the undead you can create as a necromancer are evil.