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

[Lanefan]

My mistake - it would have been more technically accurate to say "destroy". In our game, the "control undead" ability of the caster can be used to cause their own undead to collapse into simple piles of mundane bones - "the plug has been pulled", so to speak. Success of controlling undead is not guaranteed at low level - you have to roll as if a Cleric of the same level Turning, applying Charisma modifier, so by 5th level you essentially are guaranteed to control and put down the undead (skeletons and zombies) you have created with Animate Dead. Otherwise, control lasts for one year - renewal is automatically successful if you do it, but you have to remember to do it.

More or less how I do it, except the creator can't always destroy them quite that easily (if the creator's a Cleric, no problem if he-she is half-decent level; if the creator's a Necromancer then other means of destruction must be found, as though they could be simply commanded to lie down eventually that command will wear off).

I also have control length vary depending on whether the undead are ones you created yourself (in which case the once-a-year renewal applies) or whether they're ones someone else created and-or you met in the wild, in which case control doesn't last nearly as long.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I agree with you. I tend to draw inspiration about what is evil from psychology professor Dr. Robert Hare's work, summarized in his book "Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us." Dr. Hare has spent decades studying psychopathy. These people, without conscience or empathy for others, willing to inflict pain on others for their own fun and profit, truly represent Evil, in my opinion.

Death on the other hand, is a natural stage in life. I've sat with elderly relatives, holding their hands as they passed away in palliative care in hospitals, and there was nothing evil about the process. Death in these cases was a welcome end to their illnesses - they were "ready to go" and were not afraid of death.

So, if death itself is a natural process, I look at the "why" behind the "death event" -- e.g. the act of murdering an innocent person is obviously Evil. Taking perverse pleasure in another person's pain or death is Evil. Killing a sadistic demon to prevent it from harming to innocents- not Evil. (Just my opinion.)

Death clerics as they exist in our homebrew campaign = not necessarily evil. Their focus is on performing last rites, speaking with the dead, exorcise, removing fear, etc. Balanced off, they are worse with any spells that involve curing or elements (earth, air, fire, or water).

I haven't heard of Dr. Hare, but those thoughts seem pretty close to my own.

Actually, one of the reasons I really fell in love with the concept of the Raven Queen in 4e is because she was the first death deity I had seen in Dungeons and Dragons who was kindly. Sure, she wasn't the nicest person around, but before that the only death deity I was aware of was Nerull, who makes zero sense even as a god to me. I've been porting the Raven Queen into all my settings, because it is a more realistic view (in my mind) of the complexities involved with how we view death and loss.

I also twisted Shar into a goddess in mourning, but that is neither here nor there I suppose.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Your recollection is wrong. It was, "You can call it Wizardsbrew if you want to, but it's still equivalent to homebrew, so same difference." Or something to that effect.

The bold is the same difference. Call it wizardsbrew, official setting or cockadoodledoo, and they will still all be functionally the same as homebrew. They will all, homebrew included, be settings that use most of the core rules, but alter some rules to be different than the default.

Don't see a functional difference between what I said and what you said.

You are still saying they are equivalent, they are the same. But, they are different words for different things referencing a difference that has nothing to do with function.

A difference you acknowledge.

I would expect them to play functionally identical to how they play in their normal uniforms. Would fans get upset? Sure. Would that make them something other than the Pittsburg Steelers? Nope.

"Get Upset"? They would riot. Think about why. There is no "functional" difference, and yet there is a difference because it is making people upset to see their team in the colors of their enemy. So the two cannot be fully equivalent, they must mean something.

You keep trying to ignore that the word has a meaning that it is meant to signal. You want to focus on "function" when the word was never coined to describe function. You might as well use pressure to describe the temperature of an item. Sure, pressure can be a component to effect temperature, but that isn't why we talk about pressure. It isn't meant to describe the difference in temperature.

Strawmen don't help you in a discussion. I never said that there was no difference at all between homebrew and wizardsbrew(official setting).

And yet, more than once on this site, people have been confused by you claiming something is homebrew, because you are referring to an official setting.

So if you acknowledge the difference, please stop confusing the two terms.

The blood war and all the neutral alignments prove you wrong. There are in fact 9 sides and not all of them are at war.

They do not. The fact that demons and devils are at war does not prevent the good and evil split from being two sides at war.

During WWII The East and the West were at war, so were the Allies and the Axis powers. Same war, and within that war, if my history serves me, two allies (USSR and Germany) went to war within that war.

And trust me, law vs chaos is a far worse argument to even attempt than good vs evil. It is a mess.

Is it? I see nothing in D&D which says that killing in self-defense is evil or that all killing is evil. Murder, sure. Killing, nope.

Killing in self-defense, according to the debates I have seen here, is neutral, not good. Why is it acceptable? Because you are defending life. So removing life is only neutral if it is in the defense of life.

Which makes it stand to reason that the removal of life is the evil act.

Unless you are an evil race, then creating life is also an evil act.

This is wrong as well. In fact, it's the exact opposite of what is true. The objective sources of good don't care if it's an elf, a human, a goblin or a moose that is engaging in a good act. What is being done is what is important.

Is it?

A human gives birth, this is a good or neutral act (because humans are by nature unaligned).

A goblin gives birth, and this is highly likely to be an evil act. Because goblins are evil (at least the adults) and bringing evil into the world is an evil act.

And it is definitely evil for the Neogi or the Chromatic Dragons to give birth.

Same act (giving birth) and the objective source of good calls one side evil. So, it cannot be the act itself which is good or evil, but the individual committing the act.

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Chaosmancer

Ok. You're good at demolishing perfectly good examples to suit your needs with sophism and giving evil intentions where there are none. So let's do it RAW.
RAW. Can the spells I mentioned be used for good? I say yes. Find the examples yourself. You're an intelligent person you'll think of something eventually.
RAI. Can the spells I mentioned be used for good? I say yes. Find the examples yourself. You're an intelligent person you'll think of something eventually.

RAW. Can Animate dead create good zombie and skeletons? No. Not according to the core rules. You're an intelligent person. You know it is case. Just admit it.
RAI. Can Animate dead create good zombie and skeletons? No. Not according to the core rules. Again, you're an intelligent person. You know it is the case. Just admit it.

Could you use the evil things created by the spell to do good things? Sure, you're an intelligent person. I'm sure you'll think of something. And I know a few devils that will applaud you wholeheartedly because they know that hell is paved with good intentions and they will wait for the fatal and inevitable mistakes.

So you refuse to defend your position and instead want me to defend it for you?

Sorry, not going to happen. That isn't how a debate works. One person doesn't get to just declare they are right and then ask the other side to prove it for them.

You want to say those spells can be used for good? Either prove it or admit that you cannot prove it.

I also greatly enjoy how you wish to throw the "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" line around. You know, there is a common interpretation of that line that the meaning behind it is that people may have good intentions, but fail to act upon those intentions, for a variety of reasons.

Do you suppose the devils also applaud the necromancer who is too scared of being labeled evil to use his powers to protect a village, leaving to all the residents being killed by a horde of monsters?

Do you suppose that, in a fair universe, the person who commits a personal evil, to save a great number of people, would find his sacrifice used to drag him into eternal torment? Well, I shouldn't ask, you've made it clear that you think the RAW of DnD demands exactly that. The act is evil, because it is evil. Just like the birth of evil humanoids I'm discussing with Maxperson.

 

[PrandletheBold]

I also have control length vary depending on whether the undead are ones you created yourself (in which case the once-a-year renewal applies) or whether they're ones someone else created and-or you met in the wild, in which case control doesn't last nearly as long.

Ditto. There's a huge difference in duration between (A) the undead you create yourself, and (B) those which were either animated by other casters or came into being by other means. In the case of "B", control over the undead lasts for essentially just several rounds.

 

[Helldritch]

On the contrary. I gave fine examples but you twisted them to your need with sophism and twisted logic and extreme distortion from the original intent of said examples.

I simply asked you to prove me your point with RAW and RAI from the core books. Which you did not because you know you can't and won't ever be able to prove your point for the core books are on my side.

I see no need to give any examples out of the core books simply because they are easily twistable to your need. So I will stick to what is written in the core book and assume that I am perfectly right in that the game assumes that any spell can be used with good or evil save those that create evil creatures right from the bat. Find me something that proves me wrong from the core books themselves or otherwise you will prove that I was "dead" right.

 

[Maxperson]

Don't see a functional difference between what I said and what you said.

Of course not. Understanding what functional means isn't your thing apparently.

You are still saying they are equivalent, they are the same. But, they are different words for different things referencing a difference that has nothing to do with function.

Equivalent =/= the same. Sorry man. You're just wrong about yet another thing here. 4 quarters are the equivalent of a $1 bill. 4 quarters are not the same as a $1 bill.

They do not. The fact that demons and devils are at war does not prevent the good and evil split from being two sides at war.

Are they at war? Seems to me that the only war is between the Demons and Devils. They are opposed for sure. Opposed is not the same as war.

And trust me, law vs chaos is a far worse argument to even attempt than good vs evil. It is a mess.

Regardless of how messy, each alignment is its own side. CG and LG don't agree on how to go about things.

Which makes it stand to reason that the removal of life is the evil act.

If you want to make it so for your game. The game does not say this, though.

Is it?

Yes.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

Over time, I've given four different warnings to this thread. Folks keep on being rude.

Clearly, this is not a subject folks can keep respectful. Thread closed.