No Animate Dead?

[Particle_Man]

1) Imagine that only Orcus can create undead...but he does it a lot! (I would have said Vecna, but that would cause a recursive loop).

2) Or go the Midnight route and assume that all people who die and are not buried with the proper ceremonies will arise as undead. Makes battlefields particularly dangerous.

3) Or be patient. They gotta put something in the future iterations of the PHBs. Looks like the one with the Necromancer in it will make some sales.

 

[Hussar]

This is why arguing RAW is a waste of time and utterly pointless. Anyone that relies RAW as a basis for their argument automatically fails, imo. Creating undead is only evil if the citizens of the campaign setting view it as evil. As with most things dealing with alignment, it's all relative. Animating the dead may very well be a requirement by Imperial Law in some empire. Once the "soul" has gone on to the afterlife, the body is put to use for the greater good of the Empire. Lawful and Good in their views. Evil by the views of their enemies or those who have different beliefs concerning the soul, the afterlife and what remains behind.

Try that argument on the Rules Forum sometime.

We're talking about the game of 3rd Edition D&D. Not Aria's homebrew. Not my homebrew either. I don't play in your game and you don't play in mine. So, trying to argue what happens in either of our games as some sort of standard for the rules is utterly ridiculous.

According to the 3e rules, animating dead is evil. Full stop. There is no relativism in 3e alignment. The rules say the spell is an evil act. An empire based on animating corpses is using evil acts regardless of how the general population views it.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

Try that argument on the Rules Forum sometime.

We're talking about the game of 3rd Edition D&D. Not Aria's homebrew. Not my homebrew either. I don't play in your game and you don't play in mine. So, trying to argue what happens in either of our games as some sort of standard for the rules is utterly ridiculous.

According to the 3e rules, animating dead is evil. Full stop. There is no relativism in 3e alignment. The rules say the spell is an evil act. An empire based on animating corpses is using evil acts regardless of how the general population views it.

Thanks again, for illustrating exactly why arguing RAW is pointless and full of fail.

 

[The Little Raven]

Thanks again, for illustrating exactly why arguing RAW is pointless and full of fail.

Actually, you just demonstrated why debating anything rules-related with you is pointless and full of fail.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

Actually, you just demonstrated why debating anything rules-related with you is pointless and full of fail.

Whatever. Alignment is relative. No matter what the book says. Anyone that says otherwise isn't treating alignment sensibly at all.

 

[The Little Raven]

Alignment is relative.

Morality may be relative, but alignment is anything but relative, as it's an explicitly defined game system. That's like saying "Dexterity" is relative.

And ignoring the only objective starting point in the game (RAW) tells me that you aren't interested in any honest rules debate, since you'll just play the "RAW is meaningless" card.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

Morality may be relative, but alignment is anything but relative, as it's an explicitly defined game system. That's like saying "Dexterity" is relative.

Dexterity is relative. To one person, you're more dextrous. To another, you're relatively clumsy.

And ignoring the only objective starting point in the game (RAW) tells me that you aren't interested in any honest rules debate, since you'll just play the "RAW is meaningless" card.

RAW is meaningless. It's up to every DM to interpret the rules for their own game. Some rules are meaningless regardless of the game. Morality and alignment go hand in hand and both are quite relative.

Regardless of what the book says, alignment is not ABSOLUTE. It is impossible for alignment to be absolute by its very nature. Alignment is 100% relative, no matter what the rules say.

 

[Hussar]

Dexterity is relative. To one person, you're more dextrous. To another, you're relatively clumsy.

That is not the definition of relative. Stats are an absolute scale. All Str 15 characters are equally strong, regardless of anything else. That something can be stronger or weaker is not a relative scale.

RAW is meaningless. It's up to every DM to interpret the rules for their own game. Some rules are meaningless regardless of the game. Morality and alignment go hand in hand and both are quite relative.

Now, I will agree that it is up to every DM to interpret the rules for their own game. I agree with that 100%. However, when discussing the game, with other gamers, we cannot use our own games as the baseline. I could be lying about my game, I could be arguing in bad faith. I could be mistaken. There are any number of things that could cloud the issue.

When discussing the game of D&D, not Hussar's D&D, or Aria's D&D or Diaglo's D&D (the one true game), we can only go by the text. We can discuss different interpretations of the text, but, we cannot ignore the text and substitute our own definitions.

Alignment in 2e was relative. 3e is not. It is very concrete. Under no circumstance is an angel an Evil outsider (barring, of course, changing the creature in question). Animate Dead is an evil spell. That has specific game mechanical meaning. Good clerics cannot cast it, for example. Also note that zombies are "Always NE". By creating undead, you are actually creating evil creatures.

Your campaign is fine. If you want to play that way, more power to you. But, you are deviating from the RAW, and, as such, you're campaign cannot be used as a baseline for discussing the game.

 

[The_Pugilist]

Thanks for everyone explaining why it was removed and that they are working on it. Oddly enough, despite following 4e pretty closely, I HAD missed that economy of actions article. I look forward to some kind of necromancer abilities at some point, but I understand why they are not in the primary and I'm actually pretty cool with the various cleric "pseudo-summoning powers".

 

[VannATLC]

This is why arguing RAW is a waste of time and utterly pointless. Anyone that relies RAW as a basis for their argument automatically fails, imo. Creating undead is only evil if the citizens of the campaign setting view it as evil. As with most things dealing with alignment, it's all relative. Animating the dead may very well be a requirement by Imperial Law in some empire. Once the "soul" has gone on to the afterlife, the body is put to use for the greater good of the Empire. Lawful and Good in their views. Evil by the views of their enemies or those who have different beliefs concerning the soul, the afterlife and what remains behind.

Fail.

The 3e alignment system was explicitly stated to be absolutist.

You can state your 'RAW = Autofail' but its an utterly pointless comment. In this instance, and this argument, RAW is the point. Anytime anything resolved to 'houserule it' it is no longer worth arguing about. Different people use different solutions to what they see as problems. Which aslo differs.

I happen to agree with you, in that I threw out the 3e Absolutism long, long ago. And I'm very happy that it doesn't really appear to have shown up in 4e.
Edit:Ninja'ed

What the hell kind of Size 4 font is giganticus? Sorry!