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

[Aldarc]

Who here has said that?

Ask and ye shall receive:

No need for that. Homebrew in this context means only: "Outside of the core game". The core game is by definition: " The PHB, the DMG and the MM". Anything else, even if official material, is homebrew. Be it Wildemount, Eberron, Ravenloft, Darksun, Forgotten Realm, Planescape, Spelljammer, Mystara, Birthright and even my dear loved Greyhawk. All these can be considered homebrew. While a the core game assumes one thing, a setting can freely assume another.

 

[Maxperson]

Ask and ye shall receive:

Okay. So that might not say what you think it says. He and I have been talking about settings, which is probably why even though he named only the core three books, he also only named settings.

If he did mean to include XGtE, then I will disagree with him. XGtE is outside of core, but it's not homebrew as it doesn't change the core rules so much as add new rules and ways to do things.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Dude. It's an evil Domain, regardless of what god it's suggested for. That's why it's in the DMG under Villainous NPCs and describes evil incarnate when talking about it.

You're trying to cheese your way around that and it's not working.

Since you seem to not want to read the PHB, I'll bring it to you.

"Thus, although MOST clerics of the Death domain (found in the Dungeon Master’s Guide) are villainous characters, clerics who serve Anubis or Nephthys need not be.

I'm cheesing nothing. I'm am talking pure 100% RAW.

Now, if you are claiming that good gods can hold sway over an evil domain and grant it to their non-evil clerics... I mean, go ahead. That doesn't muddy the waters at all.

No, by that point we've long since entered the realm of horror on a grand scale, having crossed the border the moment we created machines that can a) think for themselves and b) act on those thoughts beyond the parameters of their programming.

And, though you can't kill, torture, or imprison a brain in a box you can in theory isolate and delete it...unless we're as a species so unbelievably stupid as to allow them the means to self-replicate, in which case we deserve whatever horrors we unleash.

I think benevolent AIs are actually more likely than horror AIs.

There was a mathematician named George Price in the 60's who discovered and proved an equation for altruism and kindness. Many aspects of life which we see as altruistic are actually quite selfish in the grand context. If I give to the poorest members of my tribe, then not only is my tribe strengthened, but as a benefactor to the poorest members, they are more likely to help or protect me in turn. Helping them is just a means of helping myself.

Thus, I find it probable that any AI developed sufficiently will realize that the best way to control humanity and utilize our capabilities for production would be to keep us happy and healthy. Things we have proven increase productivity. And, since the AI is keeping us happy, healthy, and fulfilled in our work, we won't want to hunt it down and destroy all technology, ending its existence.

That isn't to say we should not be cautious of creating AIs, just that they do not inevitably lead to Armageddon.

*******
Someone asked why a computer isn't alive. It doesn't grow or adapt, it doesn't consume food and it doesn't reproduce. It only "responds to stimuli" the way a bell responds to being struck, or the way a wheel responds to being spun: It responds as designed and built to do. No independence. No matter how long or complicated the row of dominoes is, no matter how intricate the arrangement, it still isn't alive, even when it "responds to stimuli". It responds as it was designed to, in this case, it falls over when pushed.

Computers do not adapt or reproduce yet.

However, they do "feed" on electricity.

But it is the stimuli question that is the most interesting, because humans are the same way. Let me ask you, what happens when you accidentally touch something hot? Your hand moves away in an automatic response. Because your nerves indicated pain, and bypassed your cognitive thought to immediately move the muscles. Because they are designed to keep you away from pain.

We can track most emotions like love or empathy to chemical reactions in the brain, and in the case of love, follow it to desire and the genetic drive to pass on and protect our genes.

At the end of the day, it seems that human minds are also just a massively intricate and complicated row of dominoes. We respond how we are designed to respond. The only difference is we are so complex, and each brain is built with different measures, that we cannot accurately predict the results every time.

And before we delve too much farther into the nuances of how much complexity you need to be alive, I will remind you that most plants and insects have a very low bar of complexity. We can predict a trees response to stimuli with 100% accuracy (to my knowledge). The only reason we consider it alive is because the organic machines known as cells consume resources to divide and create more of themselves with the goal of gathering more resources for the organism as a whole.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're conflating two different things here.

1. The undead are evil, as per the MM. Therefore, creating them and thus bringing evil into the world is an evil act. End of story. (I simply can't grasp how anyone can dispute this)

You know, let us approach this from a different perspective for a second. Talking biology and technology has my mind in a direction.

Creating and bringing something evil into the world is an evil act. End of story. The Monster Manual tells us what is evil.

So, giving birth to an orc or a goblin is an evil act. The Monster Manual tells us that those creatures are evil, and bringing evil into the world is an evil act.

But see, no one is going to agree with this. Everyone is going to tell me that this logic is wrong, because there is no guarantee that that orc or goblin will be evil, they could be good. Why could they be good? The Monster Manual says they will be evil.

Well, those people will likely point out, the Monster Manual also says you can change the alignment of a creature. All creatures in the monster manual have a potential to be good. Even Goblins and Orcs.

Why then can undead not be good? Why can we not apply that same logic that prevents giving birth to an orc from being an evil act to undead?

Because they will then point to the fact that the undead is not alive, that it is made to kill, that it is formed by evil magic and if I just read the MM I'll see that is all true.

Except, being alive or not alive has nothing to do with alignment. And the murder machine, evil magic, and omnicidal spirit find no ground in the spell description. So, why can't we use the monster manual rule to change alignments? Because the lore says they are evil? But none of that lore is necessary for the working of the spell. And if the lore is iron-clad and unchangeable, then the lore also states that the orc baby or goblin baby will grow up to raid, pillage, kill ect. They will also be evil, no changing it, because the lore says so.

But, yet again, no one is going to accept that, they will tell me that if they raised the child differently, the child would be different. After all, that is how things work.

Well, the spell for Animate Dead does not require any of the components that make the zombie or skeleton evil. None of them. So, I can cast the spell in a completely RAW manner and not create a murder machine fueled by hatred for the living. So, if I do so, why am I still bound by the Evil alignment? If the orc baby raised in a non-evil setting is non-evil, then why is the Undead created in a non-evil manner not non-evil?

And, if they are non-evil, if I cast the spell in that manner, then why is casting the spell evil?

We can't even argue that all undead, no matter their creation, are evil. Because we have evidence to the contrary. Argue that all Good Gods hate the undead? I've got evidence to the contrary.

At this point, it seems they are evil because tradition dictates they must be evil. Why is this so? Because despite what the spell that creates them tells us, there is only one way, and that is the way of evil. Creating undead is a simple thing, that has only one possible outcome, you can't change it, you can't approach it differently, it simply is evil because that is what it is.

 

[Maxperson]

Since you seem to not want to read the PHB, I'll bring it to you.

"Thus, although MOST clerics of the Death domain (found in the Dungeon Master’s Guide) are villainous characters, clerics who serve Anubis or Nephthys need not be.

I'm cheesing nothing. I'm am talking pure 100% RAW.

Sure. They can avoid using spells like Animate Dead. They NEED not be evil, but if they use Animate Dead frequently, they are. This is RAW.

Now, if you are claiming that good gods can hold sway over an evil domain and grant it to their non-evil clerics... I mean, go ahead. That doesn't muddy the waters at all.

I'm saying that the game takes the easy way and lets the players choose their domain, regardless of god, even if the RP for it is crappy. You can take Death Domain, with DM permission since it's a DMG domain, for every god in the book. Sune? Death Domain! Ra? Death Domain! Mystra? Death Domain!

Simply saying, "But my god offers it." does not make it an approved domain by that god or mean that your cleric isn't evil if you Animate Dead a lot.

 

[Maxperson]

Why then can undead not be good? Why can we not apply that same logic that prevents giving birth to an orc from being an evil act to undead?

They can be. Zombies are not good, though, per RAW. Baelnorn should they make an appearance in 5e are good undead.

Now, you can have a exceptions, per RAW, but the spell doesn't deal with exceptions. It deals with the default since it uses Zombie stats. To change the default assumptions of the game(the spell or zombie stat block) you have to homebrew.

So, why can't we use the monster manual rule to change alignments?

The DM can as an occasional exception. If he changes it permanently, it's no longer using that rule and is homebrew.

But none of that lore is necessary for the working of the spell. And if the lore is iron-clad and unchangeable, then the lore also states that the orc baby or goblin baby will grow up to raid, pillage, kill ect. They will also be evil, no changing it, because the lore says so.

Of course lore is changeable with homebrew. Why wouldn't it be? The DM can say that all zombies are fluffy good ancestors who are raised to come help their families out. He make make them more intelligent and not just sit there doing nothing when not commmanded. Everything is changeable.

Well, the spell for Animate Dead does not require any of the components that make the zombie or skeleton evil. None of them. So, I can cast the spell in a completely RAW manner and not create a murder machine fueled by hatred for the living.

The player cannot. The DM has to make it so. The spell requires the DM to give the stats and the stats say evil murder machine. Unless the DM changes zombies of course via homebrew.

And, if they are non-evil, if I cast the spell in that manner, then why is casting the spell evil?

It wouldn't be. If the DM homebrews the spell, Zombies or both to be non-evil, it would not be an evil spell

 

[Eric V]

For what it's worth, the 13th Age Necromancer has a talent they can choose called "Redeemer." This talent means that undead you summon to fight for you, upon their destruction, explode in holy energy and their spirits are free from service to the Lich King. The fluff for the talent is that they fight harder for the pc necromancer knowing that they will be free from bondage to the undead Icon after the fact.

As a result, every undead the necromancer summons is one less soldier for the Lich King.

Maybe there could be a similar solution for the OP?

 

[Maxperson]

For what it's worth, the 13th Age Necromancer has a talent they can choose called "Redeemer." This talent means that undead you summon to fight for you, upon their destruction, explode in holy energy and their spirits are free from service to the Lich King. The fluff for the talent is that they fight harder for the pc necromancer knowing that they will be free from bondage to the undead Icon after the fact.

As a result, every undead the necromancer summons is one less soldier for the Lich King.

Maybe there could be a similar solution for the OP?

Sure! There are all sorts of homebrew solutions that would work. The OP just wants to avoid having his solution be homebrew and wants to get around RAW for some reason.

 

[Lanefan]

You know, let us approach this from a different perspective for a second. Talking biology and technology has my mind in a direction.

Creating and bringing something evil into the world is an evil act. End of story. The Monster Manual tells us what is evil.

So, giving birth to an orc or a goblin is an evil act. The Monster Manual tells us that those creatures are evil, and bringing evil into the world is an evil act.

But see, no one is going to agree with this. Everyone is going to tell me that this logic is wrong, because there is no guarantee that that orc or goblin will be evil, they could be good. Why could they be good? The Monster Manual says they will be evil.

Well, those people will likely point out, the Monster Manual also says you can change the alignment of a creature. All creatures in the monster manual have a potential to be good. Even Goblins and Orcs.

OK, I'm kinda with you up to here.

Why then can undead not be good? Why can we not apply that same logic that prevents giving birth to an orc from being an evil act to undead?

Because they will then point to the fact that the undead is not alive, that it is made to kill, that it is formed by evil magic and if I just read the MM I'll see that is all true.

Yes, and that as far as I know the alignment of an undead (as opposed to a living being) cannot be externally changed, nor can that of an aligned construct; and the lesser undead aren't intelligent enough to change it for themselves through rational thought-action loops.

Except, being alive or not alive has nothing to do with alignment.

Initial alignment, no. The ability to change alignment, yes.

An unintelligent undead or a construct has its alignment "programmed in" on creation, an alignment which remains forever locked in and cannot be changed by its environment. A living thing might or might not be born with an in-built alignment, but in any case if it's smart enough to think for itself it's smart enough to think and act its way to a new alignment given time and desire; and it can also be changed by its environment.

That's the difference.

Well, the spell for Animate Dead does not require any of the components that make the zombie or skeleton evil. None of them. So, I can cast the spell in a completely RAW manner and not create a murder machine fueled by hatred for the living. So, if I do so, why am I still bound by the Evil alignment? If the orc baby raised in a non-evil setting is non-evil, then why is the Undead created in a non-evil manner not non-evil?

Because the Orc can be influenced by its environment. A lesser undead cannot.

The components might not be evil, the caster might not be evil, the intent might not even be evil; but regardless of any of that the end result is still the creation of something that is evil.

We can't even argue that all undead, no matter their creation, are evil. Because we have evidence to the contrary.

Intelligent undead can change their alignment just like any other intelligent being (though the simple fact of their undead state makes them anathema to most people regardless).

Argue that all Good Gods hate the undead?

Yep, I'll argue that all day long. A part of being a Good deity is to oppose Evil, isn't it?

 

[Maxperson]

An unintelligent undead or a construct has its alignment "programmed in" on creation, an alignment which remains forever locked in and cannot be changed by its environment. A living thing might or might not be born with an in-built alignment, but in any case if it's smart enough to think for itself it's smart enough to think and act its way to a new alignment given time and desire; and it can also be changed by its environment.

I agree, though I have ruled that their alignment can be changed by things such as Helms of Opposite Alignment.

Intelligent undead can change their alignment just like any other intelligent being (though the simple fact of their undead state makes them anathema to most people regardless).

Yep, I'll argue that all day long. A part of being a Good deity is to oppose Evil, isn't it?

For NPC undead, I will rarely have an intelligent undead change its alignment. The negative energy that fuels it also provides very, very heavy influence to be evil.