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

[Flamestrike]

No. If the rule is wrong then it's not a legitimate rule.

You must be a hoot to play with.

 

[FrogReaver]

You must be a hoot to play with.

And how exactly do you get that after a few posts on a forum?

 

[Flamestrike]

And how exactly do you get that after a few posts on a forum?

You're unilaterally declaring rules as being 'wrong' and therefore illegitimate. Just because you personally dont agree with the rule, doesn't make the rule wrong.

For the record, 5E makes it very clear that (by default) undead are created using 'evil, black, foul, dark unholy' magic. Undead are also almost universally (certainly in the core MM) evil monsters.

It also takes the rather uncontroversial position that intentionally creating a horrible evil monster, using aforementioned 'unholy black magic' is not a Good act and only something that evil people do with any sort of frequency.

Again, if you disagree with that statement above, feel free to do it differently in your own games you run.

Personally, I wholly agree with those positions. Someone who goes out of their way to learn forbidden, unholy black magic (that animates the dead using 'the dark side' turning those corpses into evil baby eating killing machines) and then defiles the dead and actually uses that dark magic to animate those deceased people into evil unrelenting monsters, would have a very VERY hard time convincing me they were a 'morally Good' person.

Of course, in real life I take the position that the ends almost never justify the means. A person that strives for a 'good' outcome (lets say... world peace), but uses 'evil' means to get there (murder, torture, genocide etc) is evil with a capital 'E'.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[FrogReaver]

You're unilaterally declaring rules as being 'wrong' and therefore illegitimate. Just because you personally dont agree with the rule, doesn't make the rule wrong.

And just because you personally agree with it doesn't make it right.

If you had bothered to ask the issue with the rule that makes it illegitimate - it's that the rule is obviously a setting specific rule and any such rule will always give way to the realities of the setting being played in.

It'd be like having a rule saying the sky is blue, but you playing in a post apoclyptic world where that isn't the case. You are not breaking the rule in that case - the rule was illegitimate to begin with as it was written as if it's authority were applicable to all settings when such is not the case.

 

[Flamestrike]

And just because you personally agree with it doesn't make it right.

Agree or disagree with the rule, the rule exists. It doesn't stop existing just because you dont like it!

Unless its your game of course, in which case you can ignore whatever rule you feel like.

If you had bothered to ask the issue with the rule that makes it illegitimate - it's that the rule is obviously a setting specific rule and any such rule will always give way to the realities of the setting being played in.

It'd be like having a rule saying the sky is blue, but you playing in a post apoclyptic world where that isn't the case. You are not breaking the rule in that case - the rule was illegitimate to begin with as it was written as if it's authority were applicable to all settings when such is not the case.

Dude, 'Clerics' are setting specific. There are probably worlds out there without Gods or divine magic. Ditto Monks, or Artificers or any class. Im sure someone is running that game somewhere. But that doesnt make Clerics 'illegitimate'. The game defaults to Clerics and Deities existing, just like it defaults to undead being horrible evil monsters, animated by unholy forbidden black magic.

Are Clerics illegitimate?

 

[FrogReaver]

Agree or disagree with the rule, the rule exists. It doesn't stop existing just because you dont like it!

Unless its your game of course, in which case you can ignore whatever rule you feel like.

An illegitimate rule has no bearing on anything.

Dude, 'Clerics' are setting specific. There are probably worlds out there without Gods or divine magic. Ditto Monks, or Artificers or any class. Im sure someone is running that game somewhere. But that doesnt make Clerics 'illegitimate'. The game defaults to Clerics and Deities existing, just like it defaults to undead being horrible evil monsters, animated by unholy forbidden black magic.

Are Clerics illegitimate?

Depends on the context. If you are asking are Clerics illegitimate in all setting whatsoever then the answer is no. If you are saying that the Cleric class must be included in all settings because it's in the rule book then I'd say that would be an illegitimate rule. (The PHB doesn't actually say all classes must be included in every setting though. Instead it says "Twelve classes—listed in the Classes table—are found in almost every D&D world and define the spectrum of typical adventurers." PHB 45)

 

[Flamestrike]

An illegitimate rule has no bearing on anything.

You: ''There is no rule in this game that says that!''
Me: (Points out the rule in the book)
You: ''The rule is illegitimate, and therefore does not exist. See; I was right all along!'

The rule does exist, and it is as legitimate as any other rule in the rulebook.

You can of course run a game where creating undead is NOT evil, Monks and Druids dont exist, Paladins must be good aligned, and attack rolls are made on 2d10 instead of a D20 if you want.

Doesnt make the d20 attack roll, Paladins, Clerics or Monks or evil Necromancers illegitimate in anything else than your own game.

 

[Lanefan]

And just because you personally agree with it doesn't make it right.

If you had bothered to ask the issue with the rule that makes it illegitimate - it's that the rule is obviously a setting specific rule

If it's in the PH, that kinda makes it the default like it or not and regardless of setting, which means...

and any such rule will always give way to the realities of the setting being played in.

...that having it give way is always an intentional house rule.

It'd be like having a rule saying the sky is blue, but you playing in a post apoclyptic world where that isn't the case. You are not breaking the rule in that case - the rule was illegitimate to begin with as it was written as if it's authority were applicable to all settings when such is not the case.

The rules also say Tieflings can be PCs but that's also not applicable to all settings and-or tables. Doesn;t make the rule any less legitimate, or any less the default.

 

[FrogReaver]

You: ''There is no rule in this game that says that!''
Me: (Points out the rule in the book)
You: ''The rule is illegitimate, and therefore does not exist. See; I was right all along!'

There is a rule. I've acknowledged that. The question is on it's legitimacy. In this case it's a setting specific rule masquerading as if it applies to all settings. That makes it illegitimate.

The rule does exist, and it is as legitimate as any other rule in the rulebook.

Being in the rulebook does not make a rule legitimate.

You can of course run a game where creating undead is NOT evil

Which is why that rule is not legitimate.

 

[Lanefan]

There is a rule. I've acknowledged that. The question is on it's legitimacy. In this case it's a setting specific rule masquerading as if it applies to all settings. That makes it illegitimate.

Being in the rulebook does not make a rule legitimate.

Which is why that rule is not legitimate.

If this is the hill you've chosen to die on then so be it, but it sure ain't the one I'd have picked.

Either all the rules are legitimate, or none are; and valid arguments can probably be made both ways.

The non-defendable and thus hopeless position is that some are legitimate and some are not.