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

[Helldritch]

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.

And rightly so. There is a difference between setting which is homebrew to start with, even if official. A setting is homebrew. A corebook can be applied to any setting without changing the rules. XGtE, MToF are such books. We are talking about settings here. A setting can change just about anything that is assumed in the base games. Additionnal corebooks will not change the rules, but will clarify or add more rules.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Well, at least you are willing to admit that the Death Domain isn't always evil.

Too bad we probably won't make any progress beyond that.

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.

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

So Orc babies are Evil. That is the default assumption of the game.

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.

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.

I'm cutting most of this, but looking at a contradiction.

See, you said a construct or unintelligent undead has it's alignment programmed during creation.

Then you said it is evil even if the components, the creator, and intent is not evil. With no evil components, no evil creator, no evil intent, how do we get evil programming? How can you add nothing evil to the mix, and get an evil result?

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.

No reason for negative energy to be evil. But you do you I guess.

 

[Maxperson]

So Orc babies are Evil. That is the default assumption of the game.

No idea. The game doesn't get into original sin. We do know that the adult orcs listed in the MM are evil.

 

[Catulle]

I think applying the term "homebrew" to the contents of a supplement published by the company designing, developing and printing Dungeons and Dragons is introducing unnecessary confusion to the point of foolishness - it's certainly long past being a descriptive term.

But then, I'm not entirely convinced that the OP, in either of their contributions to this thread ever used that term, or "RAW", so that seems more a matter of inference and extant axes-to-be-ground than implication, hence... well, all of this back-and-forth.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No idea. The game doesn't get into original sin. We do know that the adult orcs listed in the MM are evil.

The game doesn't seem to differentiate between age groups for orcs.

Besides, the claim is that the race is itself evil by default.

 

[Maxperson]

The game doesn't seem to differentiate between age groups for orcs.

Besides, the claim is that the race is itself evil by default.

The claim is that the stat block shows evil, so the ones encountered are evil by default. Unless you want to argue that orc infants have a 16 strength, the stat block is for adults.

 

[Greenfield]

D&D is morally simplistic and always was, hence the concepts of Good and Evil (with the capital letters) as absolute, measurable things.

Similarly. it's view of races is also simplistic. So if we accept that Good and Evil exist as absolute, measurable qualities then we have to accept the validity of some "bad guy" races being Evil.

So we can argue the validity of these premises all we want, in a real life kind of way, but in-game they're real. Orcs are Evil. Undead are Evil, as is the act of creating them. Says so right in the rules.

Accepting that character alignment is real, in game, we have to accept that characters who routinely perform Evil acts will earn the Evil alignment descriptor. Alignment isn't a club you have to be accepted into, it's a description of character behavior.

So the game's views on Orcs and Undead is kind of a black-hat/white-hat thing, simplistic and almost childish. We knew that going in and, bottom line, it's a game. It's not supposed to address the great moral mysteries of life. It's supposed to a bit of simple escapism. Accept it for what it is and have fun.

The war that's been going on here? Were either of you having fun in there? If not, why do it?

 

[Lanefan]

I'm cutting most of this, but looking at a contradiction.

See, you said a construct or unintelligent undead has it's alignment programmed during creation.

Then you said it is evil even if the components, the creator, and intent is not evil. With no evil components, no evil creator, no evil intent, how do we get evil programming? How can you add nothing evil to the mix, and get an evil result?

Same way you can add a bunch of neutral ingredients to a recipe and produce something poisonously vile without intending to.

With constructs, if you can program an alignment into them it can be anything. With undead, it's always going to end up Evil no matter what you do - just the nature of the beast.

 

[Maxperson]

With constructs, if you can program an alignment into them it can be anything. With undead, it's always going to end up Evil no matter what you do - just the nature of the beast.

Baelnorn disagree with that. Good undead have a precedent. And I think the Archlich was also good.

 

[Helldritch]

Baelnorn disagree with that. Good undead have a precedent. And I think the Archlich was also good.

Exceptions are not the rule though.
Edit: And aren't they specific to a setting (in other words, homebrew per definition?)