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

[Maxperson]

Reference materials is actually a big difference.

Let me ask you this question as a counter: "What is the functional difference between me writing a slashfic of Spider-Man dating Green Goblin and Marvel writing a slashfic of Spider-Man dating Green Goblin."

Officiality is not a functional difference. And officiality is all the difference you have there.

And, remember, if we take your definition of homebrew to its extreme, then everything is homebrew. There is zero official content at all.

First, no, that's wrong. Second, I bolded the important word there. If you are taking anything to an extreme, you've lost the argument. For example. Water is good for you. You need it to live. Drinking it to an extreme will kill you. Extremes fail.

Because, what was the Mind Flayer if not a homebrew monster Gygax threw together for his home game?

Holy Strawman Batman! We aren't talking about core rules. We're talking about specific settings.

I mean, the entire game was made by a small group of people in their spare time, for their own enjoyment. Then they decided to share it. So, if all settings are homebrew because functionally they all work the same, then all content is homebrew, because functionally, someone created first.

And that is not a useful definition.

I agree. Your Strawman alteration is not a useful definition.

 

[Maxperson]

So, we are supposed to look at the statblock as applying only to the orcs encountered.

Therefore the Statblock only applies to Orcs encountered in Raiding groups, it does not apply to any other orc. Correct?

It applies to adult orcs, regardless of where you encounter them.

In that case, why must we assume that the Zombie and Skeleton statblocks apply to all of those undead? Not just the ones encountered as enemies?

I corrected you above. This argument based on your incorrect assumption fails.

All of this assuming the DM doesn't choose to change it of course, because we keep repeating that point but it makes the rest of the discussion a little difficult to follow since I have to keep stopping and adding that exception after every line.

I see the problem. You assume waaaaay too much. Perhaps stop assuming and just respond to what we are saying.

 

[Helldritch]

So, we are supposed to look at the statblock as applying only to the orcs encountered.

Therefore the Statblock only applies to Orcs encountered in Raiding groups, it does not apply to any other orc. Correct?

In that case, why must we assume that the Zombie and Skeleton statblocks apply to all of those undead? Not just the ones encountered as enemies?

If the statblock does not apply to all orcs, only the orcs likely to be encountered as warriors, why is the flip side that it must apply to all zombies or skeletons?

All of this assuming the DM doesn't choose to change it of course, because we keep repeating that point but it makes the rest of the discussion a little difficult to follow since I have to keep stopping and adding that exception after every line.

But, this isn't always true. Even in the 5e Monster Manual, we have undead that are not evil. Ghosts.

So nothing about the state of undead itself makes it a requirement to be evil. Even before going back to the list of good undead from the various sources.

Base game assume X. Then X is what you get. Whether you juggle with words, quotes or partial snippets of info here and there to prove your point is irrelevant. Evil is evil. Period. Everything contrary to the base rules is either homebrew or an exception. If you want to make the exception to be the norm; it is your call.

As for the ghost... They are generally victims of fate. Not all ghost are evil. They are the exception. You found one. But an exception is not the norm.

You know, I'm not going to get offended if you use my name.

You are not alone in your assumption. I'm trying to be as inclusive as possible. It was not meant as a disrespect.

I also don't care what you do with undead or necromancers in your game, I have said that repeatedly. However, I see enough RAW to challenge that your assumptions of what is RAW is absolutely correct. It seems to be that RAW is much more lenient, barring a single sentence that almost seems out of place considering the rest of the game.

I mean, under Deception you didn't get "Lying is wrong and only Evil people do so frequently" or under Sleight of Hand "Stealing is against the law and only Evil people do so frequently". Enchantment spells literally steal people's free will, and no note about "And only Evil people do so frequently"

We could go down a rather substantial list, how about stealing people's souls with Soul Jar? Using Dream to give people Nightmares until they die? Using Poison to kill people?

Why is it that only Animate Dead is called out this way? Especially when the evidence within the spell itself, is lacking on that explanation. Only the Monster Manual statblock gives any indication, and every time I bring up Orcs or a different monster, that statblock seems to cover a smaller and smaller portion of the population. But it always should cover all of the undead? Even when it doesn't match what the spell actually says?

RAW: Evil is evil. What could be clearer than that? It does not need to be written for it to be evil. Again, a tool is a tool. Magic is a tool. A tool is neutral. It is what you do with the tool that determine if what you do is evil or not. Creating evil creatures and making evil actions makes you an evil person. No need to go further than that.

Animate and Create Undead are special cases if you compare them to other spells such as charm person. They are the only spells that create evil no matter whom uses them. Charm person could be used to stop an attack on an innocent. It could be used to calm down a distressed townfolk into submission just enough time he recovers his senses. But Animate and Create undead only create evil things. In this case, it is not the action that determine if the spell is evil, but nature of what it brings into existence.

 

[Eric V]

Does D&D work well as a game with relative morality as compared to absolute morality?

The base game seems to have a problem with the former.

 

[Helldritch]

Does D&D work well as a game with relative morality as compared to absolute morality?

The base game seems to have a problem with the former.

Yep, you're right about that and it is by design. A black and white view is easier for young players. As we get older, we might want more nuances. And that is good. But you can't change that the game is a black and white view of the world by default.

 

[Maxperson]

Does D&D work well as a game with relative morality as compared to absolute morality?

The base game seems to have a problem with the former.

I don't think it has a problem with it at all. It's just not the default.

If you want to have relative morality, just homebrew your game to have it. It will take an adjustment on the part of your players, since they tend to assume absolute morality due to long time experience with D&D, but it should be easily doable.

 

[Lanefan]

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

What's a Baelnorn?

An Archlich would fall under the umbrella of intelligent undead, and as such - while starting out evil for sure - could change its own alignment over time.

Skeletons and Zombies aren't smart enough to do anything except follow their programming.

 

[Lanefan]

So tell me. What is the functional difference between, "Wizards creates a setting with changes to the rules default" and "I create a setting with changes to the rules default."?

Simple.

The one you make is for you only, and maybe a few of your friends who also DM and who adopt your setting. It's a true homebrew, designed and used at home and (probably) never intended to be any more than that. Also, the only critics you have to answer to are yourself and the people at your table - and maybe the tables of a few other DMs.

The one WotC makes is for (they hope!) everyone. It's not a homebrew, in that it's specifically intended for mass consumption; but neither does it set any baseline defaults in the game system due to being its own thing.

Eberron ceased being a true homebrew the minute WotC released it as an official setting.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, under Deception you didn't get "Lying is wrong and only Evil people do so frequently" or under Sleight of Hand "Stealing is against the law and only Evil people do so frequently". Enchantment spells literally steal people's free will, and no note about "And only Evil people do so frequently"

Fair point re enchantment spells; but breaking a law (e.g. stealing) trends just as Chaotic (i.e. anti-law) as it does Evil, and lying is so very situationally-dependent as to be almost unalignable.

We could go down a rather substantial list, how about stealing people's souls with Soul Jar? Using Dream to give people Nightmares until they die? Using Poison to kill people?

We could; and in my game I do follow the 1e tenet that poison use is explicitly called out as Evil.

 

[Lanefan]

Does D&D work well as a game with relative morality as compared to absolute morality?

I think it can, actually, at least to some extent.

You'd end up with a Game-of-Thrones-like setting, where just about everyone comes in shades of gray.

What you'd lose would be alignment-based items and spells, though, which are something I rather like and are the main reason I've kept alignment in my game.