Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 3627261" data-attributes="member: 3424">To a certain extent, I agree with you. Good and Evil should be more than just interchangeable and opposing labels. I think the whole deathless problem arose because the designers hardwired the assumption that undead == evil into the rules (through detect evil, the create undead spells, and the turn/rebuke dichotomy) and then later regretted it. Though it was not explicitly stated anywhere in the rules, you could come up with flavor reasons why creating undead and undead themselves were evil, e.g. creating undead basically enslaved a soul. However, while slavery is generally regarded as evil, dedication, service and self-sacrifice are generally seen as good things. So, when the idea of creatures that had willingly devoted themselves to a particular task or cause even beyond death came up, the designers (not necessarily the same designers) found themselves painted into a corner, and probably decided that it was better to create something new than to change the core rules (in pretty much the same way that WotC came up with better feats in PH2 and the martial adept base classes in the Book of Nine Swords instead of changing the core fighter <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />).Seen from that perspective, the difference betwen undead and deathless is like the difference between a slave and a volunteer. As for the difference between ravages and poisons, the key one to my mind is that ravages tend to be more discriminating since they only harm evil creatures. So, given the choice between a ravage and a poison, a good character probably would choose the ravage as it will not harm innocents, and could be seen as some form of natural justice. However, beyond that, the same morality ought to apply whether you are using a ravage or a poison. If it is considered dishonorable to slip a poison into an unsuspecting target's drink, it should be equally dishonorable to slip a ravage into his drink, too. If it is acceptable to use a ravage in a fight, it should be acceptable to use a poison in a fight as well.</blockquote>

Verification