No Animate Dead?

[robertliguori]

Not really trolling. There's no reason to put the evil gods in the DMG as opposed to the PHB except a deliberate intention to steer games towards murder and theft for team good as opposed to team evil.

And failing to put some means to animate dead into the DMG at the very least leaves us with undead monsters with no origin. More fluffless crunch.

I am curious what was meant to be accomplished by not archiving the default gods in one place. It's not like A there won't be Initiate of (Evil God Here) feats in additional supplements or B PCs that really dig the Miltonian theme won't either write down Asmodeus on their character sheet pre-emptively or just start worshiping him when they 'find out' in-character about his doctrine.

That being said, I am really curious what kind of combat advantage level-appropriate minions offer to a party, in what numbers, and at what level of numeric cost that makes minions vs. no minions an interesting tactical choice. If you can spend a significant chunk of your change on poison and get a bonus on all attacks for an encounter, you should also be able to spend money to get minions.

 

[hong]

Not really trolling. There's no reason to put the evil gods in the DMG as opposed to the PHB except a deliberate intention to steer games towards murder and theft for team good as opposed to team evil.

See, turning "murder and theft" into something else, that is where this thing called "roleplaying" comes in.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I find it amusing that people are arguing about alignment. 4e has done everything to reduce the importance of alignment to the game short of removing it altogether. This is the first edition of the game where we can play evil Paladins, remember?

The reason Animate Dead (as well as animal companions, familiars and summon monster spells, to name a few) aren't in the core rules anymore is because of the so-called "economy of actions" and 4e's desire to make every character perfectly balanced, even if it means cutting out half of the cool things players could do in previous editions of the game and leaving spellcasters a shallow husk of their former selves. Whether you agree our disagree with the design philosophy, there you have it.

 

[hamishspence]

Evil Spells

Check Vile Darkness in 3rd ed: casting an evil descriptor spell is evil act. A neutral caster can get away with casting a few, as long as they do not do so for an evil purpose, but not for very long

Check Fiendish codex 2 in 3.5: evil spell = 1 point evil act: i.e. not very evil at all, but still evil enough to add to your corruption rating. the fact that summoning an imp is exactly as evil as gating in a Pit Fiend is odd, but thems the rules.

A neutral caster casting evil spells would need to make regular atonements. Especially if they were of lawful alignment (chaotic characters don't need to worry about going to the Nine Hells afterline though.

 

[silentounce]

I find it amusing that people are arguing about alignment.

Isn't that the whole point of alignment to begin with?

 

[Byronic]

It is on page 61, top of the final column

Oh, thank you. I think the more interesting note is that you can muck around with someone elses rituals. I think I'll simply make my own undead ritual using the Lich and Vampire creation as a guide line.

 

[ruemere]

Check Vile Darkness in 3rd ed: [...]

Check Fiendish codex 2 in 3.5: [...]

Sorry, those books are not core/SRD. Also, given example above on Holy Word, reasoning that [Evil] = Evil leads to the conclusion that either rules for [Evil] and other alignment descriptors are different or that it was designer's error.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[theNater]

On Animate Dead: It's out for economy of actions reasons.

On Good vs. Evil: In the 3rd edition D&D world, Good and Evil are natural forces, like gravity and electricity. They can be used to make things happen, they can be notably present or absent in a place, and with the right tools(usually spells), they can be measured. Note that this means that Good and Evil aren't relative concepts under the 3rd edition model. Three amps of electricity is three amps of electricity regardless of the electric field it is or isn't in, and three puppykicks of Evil is three puppykicks of Evil whether it appears in the holy temple of Pelor or one of Lolth's torture pits.

Presumably, an evil act is one which increases the amount of Evil in an area, and a good act is one which increases the amount of Good in an area. This would mean, all other factors being equal, that casting a spell with the evil descriptor is an evil act, as it increases the amount of Evil in an area. However, animating dead to do good deeds could certainly be a good act, if the Good added to the area through good deeds cancells out the Evil brought into the area through the spell. Similarly, torching an orphanage with holy fire would probably be an evil act. However, the good deeds are less good than if they had been performed with different means, and the destruction of the orphanage is less evil than burning it down through mundane means would have been.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry, those books are not core/SRD. Also, given example above on Holy Word, reasoning that [Evil] = Evil leads to the conclusion that either rules for [Evil] and other alignment descriptors are different or that it was designer's error.

Regards,
Ruemere

However, the example of the Holy Word is utterly false. Casting Holy Word is a good act. It has the [Good] descriptor. Killing babies is an evil act. It has the [Evil] descriptor. D ) However, the Holy Word example conflates two separate actions.

OTOH, casting Animate Dead is simply an evil act. What you do with them afterwards is irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that casting this spell is an evil act. That you use your undead (neutral evil) minions to save babies doesn't matter.

Alignment is never retroactive. What you do after a given act in no way changes the alignment of the first act. Casting Holy Word is a good act. End of story. Those you harm with that spell don't change the alignment of that act.

 

[hamishspence]

Srd?

It doesn't have Mind Flayers or Beholders. Would you say they aren't core? I've never liked this "core" "not core" distinction: if its got the D&D logo on it and its published by WOTC , and its not setting specific it should be considered a good info source.

Even things like Living Greyhawk, which heavily restrict what you can use, state that Vile Darkness definitions about what constitutes evil are correct.

Simplest example: if you are playing a multiclass paladin-wizard and they cast Animate Dead, or Trap the Soul, or similar, should they lose their paladinhood? Most DMs would say yes, casting an [evil] spell = an evil act (not a very BIG act by FC2 rules, though)