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

[Maxperson]

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.

Baelnorn were good elven liches. They volunteered for lichdom so that they could protect their families. At no point are they ever evil.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

None of that is a functional difference, though. All of it boils down to official "homebrew" vs. actual homebrew.

 

[Lanefan]

None of that is a functional difference, though. All of it boils down to official "homebrew" vs. actual homebrew.

In my eyes there's still a difference.

Were the unthinkable to happen and WotC pick up my homebrew setting as The Next Big Thing, it'd cease to be mine (and also cease to be a true homebrew) the moment the WotC designers started messing with it, editing it, and so forth.

 

[FrogReaver]

For example. Water is good for you. You need it to live. Drinking it to an extreme will kill you. Extremes fail.

Which actually proves the opposite point you are making. That such a statement is true only illustrates that quantity sometimes changes the perceived goodness or badness of a thing. In what way then is quantity related to the homebrew discussion - seems much more like an all or nothing scenario there.

 

[Lanefan]

Baelnorn were good elven liches. They volunteered for lichdom so that they could protect their families. At no point are they ever evil.

Ah. Thanks for the explanation.

The only way this could happen in my game would be via a really well-worded Wish, and even then the odds would be very high that the result would be an Evil Elven lich at least to start with. Liches are, though, smart enough to change their own alignments over time.

Becoming a lich the usual way is guaranteed to start you out as Evil in your lichdom.

 

[FrogReaver]

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 find it works much better relative than absolute.

 

[Helldritch]

@Lanefan Right on that. But each "official" setting have no bearing on one another. What is allowed in Krynn might not be in Eberron and vice versa. The choice of a setting has no impact on the core rules. It has an impact on the game you play. The core rules are there so that we have a common ground to discuss our rulings and our views of the games. Applying different settings to the core rules is pointless and only lead to confusion. I view setting as homebrew because at some point they were. Depending on how you read the setting, a lot of things can change and two people from different setting will see the game very differently. To the All Orcs are Evil (Greyhawk) to Orcs can be Palladins too (Eberron and some others) to the Orcs do not exist (Krynn) there is litteraly worlds of differences. The base game, however is there for all.

@FrogReaver The black and white view of the core rule is great. But so is subjective morality. Both have their merits and flaws. The black and white view applies more to new players/groups or groups that simply prefer this view. The subjective morality is better suited for mature players/DM who much prefer role play and situations it can bring. Both are valid and fun to play. But again the core rule support the former and not later.

 

[FrogReaver]

@FrogReaver The black and white view of the core rule is great. But so is subjective morality. Both have their merits and flaws. The black and white view applies more to new players/groups or groups that simply prefer this view. The subjective morality is better suited for mature players/DM who much prefer role play and situations it can bring. Both are valid and fun to play. But again the core rule support the former and not later.

Take a step back and ask yourself if that has anything to do with the question I actually answered.

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

 

[Helldritch]

Take a step back and ask yourself if that has anything to do with the question I actually answered.

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

And read again. You've been answered with a yes. But it is not really supported by the core rules. The DM has to work a bit harder for that. Both styles of play are valid. Just as any setting is valid.

 

[FrogReaver]

And read again. You've been answered with a yes. But it is not really supported by the core rules. The DM has to work a bit harder for that. Both styles of play are valid. Just as any setting is valid.

Yea that last part there is the problem. No need to even bring it up. The question wasn't "Does D&D work well as a game with relative morality as compared to absolute morality WHEN LOOKING AT CORE RULES?"