D&D 5E Evil characters material not going to be in the PHB

[The Human Target]

Not reading through 10 pages of comments, but I can't believe that people are FOR not having evil rules in the PHB. How could MORE OPTIONS for people be a bad thing? Simply ignore them if you don't like it. It sounds pretty selfish to me actually, basically I can't have those rules in the PHB because you don't like it, and want an entire fanbase to be subject to those opinions.

That "unselfish" PHB of yours would be 1,456 pages long.

 

[Umbran]

No need to artificial limit options ...

Well, there is pagecount - not an artificial limit, but a real and physical one. It is not possible to have *every* option anyone can ever want reside in what we think of today as a PHB. It would make the book unwieldy and terribly expensive to be that large, not to mention the limits on development time, not to mention the economic drive to have some things for supplements.

So, some choices have to be made as to what is included, and what isn't.

 

[Mallus]

Cooperation is weakly related, if at all, to the D&D concept of good.

Absolutely... and D&D is full of examples of evil people/beings cooperating. Evil cults abound, as do guilds full of assassins and thieves. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a supplement describing unionized slaadi - the "Frogfellows Local 151" or something similar.

(I'm going to have to use that in my AD&D campaign: "The Union of the Frog")

Thinking more about this, while I've seen evil and/or thoroughly amoral PCs in play, I can't remember a single one who relied on morally-aligned mechanics to represent said evil.

 

[Kobold Stew]

<snip> So sure, throw some basic evil spells in the PHB (like cause wounds), allow for evil characters with a brief description in the PHB and DMG <snip>.

This would be enough for me, honestly.
* Magic has to be shown to be available for all (the spell list in the PhB should also be the spell list for evil wizards the players fight)
* If alignment is implemented (and I see no sense of its abandonment), then all choices must receive comparable space, even if it's brief.

The real test, in my view, will be Necromancy spells. Historically the game has been terrified of the word, and that has led to various unreconciled tensions in the test packs for Next:
* cure spells by common sense should be labeled as necromancy, but they aren't.
* some necromancy has implied or explicit judgmental connections with evil alignments (e.g. Animate Dead: "Animating the dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use this spell frequently").
* an implied Mage school choice is coming, which then excludes "being a Necromancer" from Clerics (who will instead be "clerics of Death"?) -- needless duplication.
* An early playtest (081312), back where then game had Specialties (i.e. planned feat chains… remember them?), there was the option of being a Necromancer. It was brilliant, in that it was independent of class or alignment: any LG spell caster could take it and have an animated servant as could a spell caster of any alignment.
* That same Specialty had, as its first-level ability, Aura of Souls, which (by my reading) was the worst-conceived fluff text for an ability yet presented (yes, worse than Damage on a Miss!): the Necromancer can "capture the fleeing life energy of a creature" and "destroy one of these spirits" in order to gain advantage, once. Literal soul-destroying, as a first-level ability. Sadly, rather than fix it, Necromancy has since been kept from the play tests completely.

All in all (and I'm just talking about 5e materials), it's a pretty schizophrenic attitude to Necromancy. I'm not just here to complain. Here is, specifically, what I'd like to see for Necromancy in Next.:

1. All healing spells (and their opposites, cause wounds, etc.) be labeled as Necromancy (and have opposite effects on the undead).
2. Judgmental language associated with using necromancy spells be removed from spell descriptions. This includes all flavour-text. Sure, Necromancers will tend to be evil, but the game shouldn't prevent players who want to be good from using these spells. (I don't want to see a return of "[evil] descriptors" and the like).
3. There be a feat that optimizes the use of necromancy, available and useful to both clerics and mages, but also Rangers (what better undead-hunter?) and even Paladins. i.e. Anyone dabbling with life-magic (including healing). For example: A feat that allowed +1 on any die rolls associated with Necromancy spells, or that treated any necromancy spell as if it was cast using a spell slot one higher.
4. I can already improvise a relevant background ("Death-cult-raised" or whatever) -- but something that gave relevant skills (Arcana, Insight, Survival?) would be cool.

Not everyone will want to be a Necromancer, of course, but being one should not commit you to an alignment or a class choice. All of this would support evil characters in play (and provide tools for the DM to introduce them), but also help provide awesome choices for neutral and good characters as well.

Finally, I've seen the concerns about space: implementing all of these suggestions would take no more than an extra column of space total, I figure.

 

[Stormonu]

(I'm going to have to use that in my AD&D campaign: "The Union of the Frog")

Well, we've had Union of the Snake since the early 80's...

I think deliberately removing evil options from the PHB may be a bad idea. A lot of early D&D allowed for characters who were morally gray (or worse), and this could be seen as attempting to invalidate a playstyle. At least it smacks of 2E's mantra "You WILL be good guys", which I was never fond of.

 

[Mallus]

Well, we've had Union of the Snake since the early 80's...

I'd be lying if I were to say I wasn't deliberately making a Duran Duran reference...

At least it smacks of 2E's mantra "You WILL be good guys", which I was never fond of.

I wasn't, either. But even if they go they go that route with Next, practically-speaking, how can the rules dissuade you from playing evil? Sure, the books can say "Don't be evil". Will that stop certain players from wanting to play Walter White the Methomancer

I seriously doubt it.

(and that's a good thing, in my book)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm pretty much in the "if it is of use to the PCs, it should be in the PHB" camp. Taking the "evil" options out makes for a logistical mess, can lead to discussions of whether those options should be available to PCs*, and smacks of running in fear from the hyper-moralist elements of (mostly) American society.








* I am NOT making that up. I have been in campaigns where the DM wouldn't let PCs take General feats they qualified for if they were from a source like the MM. Better to nip that idiocy in the bud than to give it a garden.

 

[DMZ2112]

I think this thread is really missing the point; issues of morality and playstyle aside, reference books ought to be internally consistent in terms of content types just for the sake of simplicity.

Not if they use the inevitable online compendium-style toolset, they won't. It's really easy for me to look up spells right now. I type the name into a box, and the spell's description magically appears on my screen!

I'm not saying it's a good decision (and I'd be surprised if it ended up happening), but as you describe it the only DMs who would be inconvenienced are the ones who make a habit of flipping through books to find spells. I think the age of that is passed.

Well, I never paid for a DDI subscription during D&D4, and it was practically required. D&D5 doesn't look like it is going to have the same geometric complexity, so I'm definitely not going to be paying for a subscription to DDI during D&D5.

Frankly, I wouldn't pay for a subscription to D&D on principle. I buy the books -- that is my "price of admission." Even the original full-price DDI plan, with the virtual tabletop, was a colossal ripoff when compared to other online services.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Not reading through 10 pages of comments, but I can't believe that people are FOR not having evil rules in the PHB. How could MORE OPTIONS for people be a bad thing? Simply ignore them if you don't like it. It sounds pretty selfish to me actually, basically I can't have those rules in the PHB because you don't like it, and want an entire fanbase to be subject to those opinions.

Your question is an important one. Presenting more options can, in fact, be a very bad thing, for one or more of the following reasons.

1. Option paralysis can make it difficult to make decisions, particularly for inexperienced players.
2. The more material you place in the Players Handbook, the more intimidating the game becomes.
3. Specialized options make it easier to build characters that are not befitting a particular campaign.
4. Some options have ramifications that inexperienced players and DMs may not be aware of.

Alternatively, you can create thematic modules, and put options there. It makes complexity an opt-in experience, and it allows the developers to provide contextual advice regarding a particular module. The downside, of course, is that it requires looking more places for your options. That is unfortunate. Though a good electronic tool can solve that issue.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm pretty much in the "if it is of use to the PCs, it should be in the PHB" camp.

Pagecount is a real world limitation. It requires some things being left out of the PHB. It's not really a subjective opinion - they have no choice in leaving some things out, if they want this edition to succeed, because it cannot succeed if they charge what Monte Cook charged for Ptolus (a book that was of adequate size to include everything that the PCs use).

So if you choose to put extensive coverage of evil PCs in the PHB, you're also choosing to leave something out of the PHB that someone else wants, just as much as you want extensive coverage of evil PCs in the PHB.