No Animate Dead?

[Old Gumphrey]

Yeah, it's an evil act, but my character used it for good time and time again, and in all other respects was a good character. That doesn't make me evil. That makes me neutral. I never said it wasn't an evil act. I said I shouldn't be disallowed from performing evil acts for good purposes if I think that's something a physically weak heroic character would do.

 

[The_Pugilist]

The post wasn't created to discuss the absolutism of morality in the rules as written. I understand the disagreements and I have dealt with the aftereffects of making the creation undead a neutral act although that is a discussion for another day. I'm just looking for the crunch and I am hopeful that it will be good. Thanks again.

 

[silentounce]

you need to read up on basic 4e theory.

Go to the wizards site and find the economy of actions article. It explains why this edition doesn't have leadership/monster summoning/animal summoning/ undead raising stuff.

This is definitely one decision I completely disagree with. But, I guess that's just a personal thing. Maybe it's because one of my regular characters is a cleric/summoner/mystic theurge. There's also a necromancer in that party. But we're experienced gamers and we know how to run things without ruining other people's fun. And as a DM, I've never minded players with animal companions, henchman, or the like. I guess it's because D&D has a strong miniatures based skirmishing tactical element now. Yes, I know that this is what D&D came from. But 4e is heavily based around this. It would be hard to play 4e without a mat and miniatures without a lot of houseruling or maybe even useless powers, not to mention that it would be more difficult. 3e wasn't as bad in this regard and we never used a grid/hex mat when playing 2e. Sometimes we used minis just for a visual, but you know what I mean. Yeah, 2e and 3e were both turn based as well, but I don't know, maybe it's just because I'm an experienced gamer... never had a problem with the economy of actions issue.

 

[VannATLC]

Er, Gumphrey? What?

I wasn't talking to you. I'm not sure who you are talking to. There is even *less* preventing you from doing it now.

With the addendum that, as per the article, it runs against core design issues. If you've got a workable method to get around that, or simply don't care, then so be it.

 

[Graf]

This is definitely one decision I completely disagree with. But, I guess that's just a personal thing. Maybe it's because one of my regular characters is a cleric/summoner/mystic theurge. There's also a necromancer in that party. But we're experienced gamers and we know how to run things without ruining other people's fun. And as a DM, I've never minded players with animal companions, henchman, or the like. I guess it's because D&D has a strong miniatures based skirmishing tactical element now. Yes, I know that this is what D&D came from. But 4e is heavily based around this. It would be hard to play 4e without a mat and miniatures without a lot of houseruling or maybe even useless powers, not to mention that it would be more difficult. 3e wasn't as bad in this regard and we never used a grid/hex mat when playing 2e. Sometimes we used minis just for a visual, but you know what I mean. Yeah, 2e and 3e were both turn based as well, but I don't know, maybe it's just because I'm an experienced gamer... never had a problem with the economy of actions issue.

I support and respect your right to disagree with it, think it's dumb, modify the game, continue to play 3.x, argue about it, etc etc

I'm just trying to point out that it's not a morality thing. It's a game design thing. A very specific, very broad, very clearly laid out design decision that's been applied thoroughly to the entire system. Heck, they're so locked on to it that they're holding up releasing familiar rules because they want to make sure that they do in in a way that doesn't violate the "economy".

You can dislike/repudiate/etc the decision, but people who seem intent upon pretending that it doesn't exist is a bit... well, I'm just thinking that they're not participating the conversation because they want to be constructive.

 

[Korgoth]

I'm amazed that they left Animate Dead out of the game. That seems so foolish. It's a staple of D&D and they have the perfect mechanic to moderate its use: rituals (which cost money and have other requirements).

And anybody who says "Well just make it up yourself" is required to send me a money order for $5 US.

 

[Dausuul]

In 3e, animating dead by RAW was an evil act. Full stop. You can try to argue it around all you like, but that whole [Evil] tag on the top of the spell name made using it an evil act. It wasn't morally ambiguous in 3e, it was 100% evil.

This isn't actually true. Nowhere in 3.X does it state that casting a spell with the [Evil] tag is an evil act in and of itself. [Evil] is a descriptor that limits who can cast it (i.e., good-aligned gods don't give you access to animate dead) and dictates its interaction with certain other effects.

You could argue that casting such a spell ought to be considered an evil act, and that's a reasonable interpretation--presumably such spells are like the One Ring; using them is inherently corrupting no matter how good your intentions. But the rules are not explicit on that point by any means. All that the rules have to say on the subject of what constitutes evil is this:

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

So by a strict reading of RAW, animate dead is not evil unless you consider "oppressing" to include mindless undead minions.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

So by a strict reading of RAW, animate dead is not evil unless you consider "oppressing" to include mindless undead minions.

Nope. Read this

Necromancy [Evil]

That means the spell is evil. End of discussion. If your character casts this spell, by RAW, your character is committing an evil act.

In 3rd edition, alignment is not relative. It is intricately tied to the mechanics, and while I agree with Aria's sentiment that it should be interpreted as relative, it cannot be for this simple fact.

 

[Dausuul]

That means the spell is evil. End of discussion.

Nope. That means the spell has the [Evil] descriptor, which has various game effects. Those game effects do not include changing the alignment of the caster.

Find me the rule that says casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is an evil act. It's a common interpretation, but it is not expressly stated by the rules and one could legitimately interpret otherwise.

 

[s-dub]

I'm fairly sure that the DMH or the PHB states that casting a spell with the evil descriptor is an evil act. There wouldn't be much point of the tag otherwise.