D&D (2024) Playtest 8: Cantrips

[Chaosmancer]

People willingly take mind-altering drugs all the time. Booze and weed for fun, sleep aids, medicine prescribed by a therapist, herbal supplements to help with concentration, etc. These are all things that Enchantment school can do too in a positive manner.

Very true. Calm Emotions is a great example of this. However, many of those usages you point out can be self-inflicted, to innaccurately use a phrase. Taking a pill or smoking weed is something you can do in the safety of your own home, alone. Enchantment magic must be cast by another person on you, that immediately adds a complication. It is possible to safely and for good reasons give up that control, but it is also ripe for abuse.

You're missing the point, perhaps deliberately so - I never used absolutes. D&D has a bias towards exploring dungeons and fighting monsters - its in the name. The overwhelming majority of spells are aimed at doing just that, and yes, there's even a few exceptions to that rule. Its a general trend, not an absolute. Heck, some spells, such as Arcane Lock, are meant to be used AGAINST the party instead of for them - "This spell is what antagonist wizards use to magically protect locks from rogues." Stronghold / dungeon building, in other words; strongholds are just dungeons for PCs instead of enemies. Prestigitation has been quoted as one of the best adventuring utility spells because it can be used to clean up, light fires, etc. All needs for someone surviving away from friendly civilizations. Mending has its uses for fixing things in ruins.

Enchantment, as it specifically targets minds - what kind of minds do you tend to run into while adventuring? Usually commoners, quest givers and antagonists. For the enterprising dungeon builder, controlling their minions. You generally don't need to use magic against the former two types of people, and you generally want to leverage violence against the latter two. D&D generally is a poor game to mimic political games or helping people with mental illnesses.

And, again, this is a general trend. A bias.

A bias that doesn't appear for other schools of magic. Sure, it is entirely possible that there are hundreds of enchantment spells that are used in the worlds of DnD that are never mentioned in any book or resource. But we can also equally assume that there are hundreds of enchantment spells that are WORSE than what we've seen. After all, we don't see spells for torture in the game, but we know that they must exist.

Making any claim based on facts not in evidence, is a shaky foundation at best.

Most of these very much do have adventuring applications. I mean, hells. Air Bubble is literally a spell designed for exploring hazardous environments. How you can claim that's not adventuring?

Your original post: "I think that you're missing the fact that D&D is a violent game. Of course there's going to be a whole host of violent spells in every school (except Abjuration), because that's what the game revolves around."

So, are we now moving the goal-posts to be anything that could apply to adventuring?

Because, the moment you don't renew the spell... the skeletons and zombies are now NPCs under the control of the DM. You are not the zombies and skeletons. If you want to play an undead character? Hells, I'd be all for it. But your summons and animated dead are not your character. You have magical control over them until the spell ends, same as if you cast Dominate Person on an NPC.

I also find what sounds like disdain towards "flavor and lore" to be out of place. The PHB, MM and DMG all come with default description of how the D&D cosmology works. This is part of that. If you want a homebrew world with different rules, then more power to you. But we should acknowedge that's not the default understanding of D&D cosmology. Here, in any forum, we should default to the cosmology as presented in the book unless otherwise stated.

There's nothing wrong with saying, "I want to use something different than what's in the core books." But this conversation is about why Necromancy (or, in my case, Animate Dead specifically, though there's also an argument that necrotic energy is associated with the Evil Planes) is considered "evil" by default. We're talking about the default assumptions of the D&D cosmology.

There are at least two parts here.

1) They are now under DM Control: Okay... and? Again, from the perspective of the player, who has not read the MM, how could this matter? They have no indication that the SKeletons and Zombies will start attacking people, because they are not supposed to read the MM. Also, don't forget, the Zombie and Skeleton both have statblocks in the PHB too, with no mention of this lore. So, if a player has gone about things in a different manner, or with a different intent, it would come out of nowhere for the DM to suddenly pull this with the "well, in the book I don't let you read, it says this is what happens, so you should have known better"

2) I hold no disdain for the lore and the flavor, so not sure where you are getting that from. However, such things are mutable. Especially the more you know about DnD. After all, there are undead created from positive energy in DnD. They were called the Deathless, and they are sort of back in Eberron, but not officially. So, DnD cosmology absolutely has room for this, because DnD cosmology has had this exist before. This is barely homebrew, it is just using lesser known parts of the lore and canon. And, again, it is a flavor choice. I could play a barbarian whose rage is a battle trance and is actually more of a swordsage, that's just flavor, it can be changed. So can calling upon dark and evil spirits to make bone and meat puppets. It isn't inherent in the rule text, it is an assumption placed upon the rules.

You can choose to default to an assumption of evil, but when the cosmology and lore offer up alternatives all the time, including the very first adventure of the edition having a non-evil undead Banshee... it seems weird to cling to this idea like it is some immutable truth of the default.

The intent of Animate Dead is to raise undead and put them under your control... until the time expires and you haven't renewed the spell. Once the duration is over, the undead don't disolve or lose their animation, the spellcaster just loses control over them. At which point, they revert back to their insticts "in the wild." IE. DM control, as described in the DMG.

The behavior of the undead isn't described in the DMG. And, again, nothing in the spell states that they revert to any instincts. They simply stop obeying any commands you have given them. It is completely possible for them to default to their state when they have no commands, ie, do nothing except defend themselves against attack. That is a perfectly valid reading of the spell. It is only when you take the Monster Manual lore and apply it to this spell, that you assume evil spirits and assume a default state of devouring the living. But that could just be the default state of naturally occuring undead. After all, unlike the spell version, elementals found int he wild aren't defaulting to attacking every living being around them, but the spell enforces that rage where it otherwise doesn't exist. Why can't the undead spell induce calm?

There's a ton of ways. Experiment and see what happens when the time expires during downtime. Make a Study (Arcane) check. Use a divination spell. And that's assuming the DM just doesn't tell you as a player and that your PC would automatically know this.

Please tell me you are joking?

Sure, the DM could just tell the player. Okay. But let's assume the DM doesn't say "this option is evil and creates mass murder machines that are only barely held in check by your magic". How are they supposed to experiment before they get the spell? Why would they study a spell they haven't taken yet, in game, to look for downsides that don't exist in the rules text? I've never had my character take a study action to make sure that Lightning Bolt doesn't have a 5% chance of backblasting through me and dealing all the damage to my character instead of the enemies. Could happen, theoritically, but if you look at the rules, that isn't a possibility. Same with using a Divination spell. What, Augury is going to look 30 minutes into the future and see this spells hidden downsides before you level up? No? It cannot do that.

And let's say the player does figure it out... and then they remember that they can alter any spell and how it works via the rules in Tasha's, as long as they don't change the rules text. And they know about the Deathless. Can't they just... not use evil spirits to make undead? Isn't that blatantly an option for them? It alters none of the rules text, it is just the flavor of the spell listed in a seperate book from the spell itself, which they have full control over.

There's no conflict. D&D has a default assumption divorced from the real world. This is understood by the fact that D&D has magic that we need to treat as real and is a complete bastardization of real world mythology.

What does the real world have to do with the PHB not mentioning evil spirits and ravenous undead, and the Monster Manual saying that's how undead work? That has nothing to do with the real world.

Animate Dead isn't a temporary defender - the undead persist after they're raised. They are creatures of necrotic energy - there's no disputing that. If you wanted something of radiant energy, then maybe, just maybe, you should cast something like Guardian Spirits or some other kind of summoning spell. There's plenty of ways to call down holy beings instead of raising creatuers powered by energy associated with the Hells, Hades and the Abyss.

1) Temporary in that most undead summoned are destroyed in the fight they are summoned.

2) Show me in the PHB where it states that the Undead created by necrotic energy? It doesn't state that. It does say "foul mimicry of life" but that's a fairly vague statement. Water can be fouled by putting plants in it, but that doesn't make plants evil.

3) Undead are not associated with the Nine Hells (That's Devils), the Abyss (that's Demons) or Hades (that's fiends, usually Yugoloths). You are simply adding lore where it doesn't exist.

Why would a god associated with the higher planes grant a spell that requires energy from the lower ones? Perhaps you need to pose as an evil cleric to prevent a greater tragedy. Maybe you need to fake a death to protect a life, and animating a zombie helps with witnesses and smuggling a corpse into a city that you plan to char and leave fully dead before time expires (this actually happens in one of the Drizzt books, as executed by one of the main characters). There's plenty of possibilities.

Might as well ask why a Goodly being has any spells that can harm other people. Sometimes, its necessary for the greater Good.

Or maybe there is a non-evil way to create undead? Why is that not an option? Especially since non-evil undead EXIST. They exist. They are in the game. Why is that lore not good enough to count?

And that's great... for your table if you're so inclined to run things that way. However, that is not the default assumption of the game. Saying "I don't want to use the default assumptions of the game" is cool; no one is forcing you. Trying to pass off your fanon as actual canon isn't.

The books are "inflexible" (they're really not) because D&D fans overwhelmingly voted in favor of having more of this kind of story and lore and in world monster psychology along with physiology. Again, you don't have to use the default lore at your table, but that doesn't change that its still default lore.

Okay, riddle me this. What is the default assumption of Goblins? I'll even go a step more specific. Is the default assumption of DnD that Goblins are humanoid descended from the Feywild, or not? Do they have fey ancestry? The Monster Manual says no. The Player option says yes. Which one is the default?

How about the default assumption for the Drow? Do they all worship Lolth? The Monster Manual says yes. The PHB says no. Which is the default?

You are essentially saying that the Monster Manual overrides every single other source, but only for the undead and only for the Skeletons and Zombies. That seems silly to me. The PHB doesn't forbid the existence of other types of zombies and skeletons, and other DnD lore allows it, so why must we assume the MM lore is the default? Why can't the PHB be the default?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ha you chose to use those animals for your example so it's kind disingenuous to say now "doesn't count" instead of just saying OK turn it into a humanoid group. Is it more or less evil to burn them all alive than to mind control them briefly into forgetting they saw you and turning them back around the other way?

It is not disingenuous to point out that such a spell does not exist.

And I don't know if it is more evil to murder people or take away their free will and force them into a certain course of action. That's kind of pointless question. Like is it more evil to kill someone or steal their life savings and leave them destitute and starving in the streets. Aren't both kind of terrible things to do? Do we need to rank evil on a scale of 1 to 10 to find if something is evil enough to be a problem?

I am not scoring points here, THE PURPOSE OF THE FREE WILL DISCUSSION WAS TO DISCUSS WHAT'S EVIL OR NOT. It wasn't an end in itself.

But you seem obsessed over somehow claiming that murder isn't evil. Or maiming people isn't evil. Or by proving that those things are evil, somehow proving that mind control isn't evil.

Here's a fun thing you seem to be forgetting. Most enchantment spells that give control over someone's mind? Most of them are harder to successfully use in combat. Once you are fighting someone, it is harder to use these spells. So, who do you think the primary target is? The primary target for those spells is... someone you aren't fighting. So, sure, maybe murder and mind control are both bad, but while you can murder during war and it may be less bad, the mind control is harder to use during war, and best used on civilians. Which... isn't the same target group.

And yet you chose to engage in that discussion. And I am saying consistently evocation to burn stuff alive is at least as evil as mind controlling those same things.

Sure, who cares? No one has been on a rant defending the rights of murder. We accept that Adventurers murder for good reasons all the time. And just like I'd look askance at someone using Cloudkill to murder a bar full of people, I'd look askance at someone using suggestion to make someone dance naked in the street. Both are evil. One doesn't have to be more evil and less acceptable than the other.

 

[Mistwell]

It is not disingenuous to point out that such a spell does not exist.

And I don't know if it is more evil to murder people or take away their free will and force them into a certain course of action

For that example?

You'd be pretty evil to not see the difference between momentarily controlling them to leave than to burn them all alive.

Are you seriously saying you don't know the moral difference for that scenario?

. That's kind of pointless question. Like is it more evil to kill someone or steal their life savings and leave them destitute and starving in the streets.

Yes, it is in fact more evil to kill someone than to steal from them.

That's literally a universal criminal law example of a hierarchy of crimes, also found in almost all religions.

Please tell me you're acting like these are equivalents for internet debate purposes and not because you really don't see the difference?

Aren't both kind of terrible things to do? Do we need to rank evil on a scale of 1 to 10 to find if something is evil enough to be a problem?

Yes? That's like...the definition of ethical problems?

But you seem obsessed over somehow claiming that murder isn't evil. Or maiming people isn't evil. Or by proving that those things are evil, somehow proving that mind control isn't evil.

I said they rank equally evil. You're the one who seems to rank mind control as more evil than murder.

Here's a fun thing you seem to be forgetting. Most enchantment spells that give control over someone's mind? Most of them are harder to successfully use in combat. Once you are fighting someone, it is harder to use these spells. So, who do you think the primary target is? The primary target for those spells is... someone you aren't fighting. So, sure, maybe murder and mind control are both bad, but while you can murder during war and it may be less bad, the mind control is harder to use during war, and best used on civilians. Which... isn't the same target group.

This is not the point you think it is, or you didn't finish your thought.

Sure, who cares? No one has been on a rant defending the rights of murder. We accept that Adventurers murder for good reasons all the time. And just like I'd look askance at someone using Cloudkill to murder a bar full of people, I'd look askance at someone using suggestion to make someone dance naked in the street. Both are evil. One doesn't have to be more evil and less acceptable than the other.

Making a person danced naked in the street briefly is clearly not as bad as poisoning a room full of people to death.

You're making me nervous here. Again, is this just a thing you're saying on the net for effect, or are you really not appreciating the difference in ethics here?

 

[Horwath]

Here's a fun thing you seem to be forgetting. Most enchantment spells that give control over someone's mind? Most of them are harder to successfully use in combat. Once you are fighting someone, it is harder to use these spells. So, who do you think the primary target is? The primary target for those spells is... someone you aren't fighting. So, sure, maybe murder and mind control are both bad, but while you can murder during war and it may be less bad, the mind control is harder to use during war, and best used on civilians. Which... isn't the same target group.

Something more usable out of combat does not mean using it on civilians by default.

Here is an example from one campaign.

We needed to infiltrate some location and "liberate" certain items and information in some scrolls.

We could have just killed two guards at entrance, they we not evil, just hired mercs working for evil organization, not knowing they do.

So I just twinned suggestion and told them to go home and take a day off.

this is when using enchantment on somebody is actually a Good thing to do.

 

[Mistwell]

I do think its worth mentioning too that most people find that physical distress is preferable to mental or spiritual distress. There was apparently a psychological study or something about it. I vaguely remember that from college.

Anyways, my point is that its possible that many people will treat a violation of the mind as worse than a physical violation of any kind.

Burning to death vs 6 seconds of mind control?

 

[Yaarel]

Mind magic can be a nonlethal weapon.

What matters is how one uses power.

 

[Mephista]

Burning to death vs 6 seconds of mind control?

Depends on the mind control. Something that causes scarring and long lasting mental trauma? Plus, there's alternatives to being burned to death - knocking someone unconscious is a thing too.

I'm just saying that some people tend to prefer experiencing physical pain to mental pain.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The Bene Gesserit who do use mind control as their tools with "the voice" and are hardly a "good" organization as they've been in the Dune Novels, but they're nowhere near the evilness that others like House Harkonnen, Emperor Shadam, Bene Tleilax, Honored Matres or "The Enemy" Marty and Daniel have been.

There are many situations where using certain degrees of mind control, on a bunch of people will result in less bloodshed and "evil" than using direct violence. Wars are far more likely to start with direct violence.

 

[Mephista]

Very true. Calm Emotions is a great example of this. However, many of those usages you point out can be self-inflicted, to innaccurately use a phrase. Taking a pill or smoking weed is something you can do in the safety of your own home, alone. Enchantment magic must be cast by another person on you, that immediately adds a complication. It is possible to safely and for good reasons give up that control, but it is also ripe for abuse.

You can cast plenty of Enchantments on yourself. Catnap, for example. Bless can target yourself. Stop making things up.

A bias that doesn't appear for other schools of magic.

It absolutely does. The overwhelming majority of published spells are desgined for exploring, dungeon delving and fighting "monsters." I'm going to call BS on this objection. Especially after you made this claim earlier... about spells specifically designed for exploring. Air Bubble was literally published in Spelljammer to mimic space helmets for exploring extreme environments one finds in that setting, and you claim its not exploration. You tried to claim that Pyrotechnics wasn't a violent spell, when its literally a combat spell used to blind opponents.

Sure, it is entirely possible that there are hundreds of enchantment spells that are used in the worlds of DnD that are never mentioned in any book or resource. But we can also equally assume that there are hundreds of enchantment spells that are WORSE than what we've seen. After all, we don't see spells for torture in the game, but we know that they must exist.

Making any claim based on facts not in evidence, is a shaky foundation at best.

"If its not published, it doesn't exist" is such an odd stance to take when it comes to spells. For example: Candlekeep Library is supposed to be filled choke full of wizard spells - the number of spells that the library contains would vastly outstrip the number of actually published spells by several magnitudes. And that's far from the only collection of wizard magic in the game.

I mean, this is something painfully obvious. Do spells just suddenly pop into existance the moment a new book is published? Of course not, they always existed in the setting but were never detailed until the book came out.

I'm not the one making claims in defiance of facts. In fact, you seem to be the one making up fake rules here.

Your original post: "I think that you're missing the fact that D&D is a violent game. Of course there's going to be a whole host of violent spells in every school (except Abjuration), because that's what the game revolves around."

So, are we now moving the goal-posts to be anything that could apply to adventuring?

No, you're just twisting words and cherry picking. I also said that its in the name. Dungeons and Dragons. Exploring dungeons (filled with traps and danger-puzzles, mind you!!!) and fighting monsters like dragons.

Its no secret that D&D is a very focused game.

2) I hold no disdain for the lore and the flavor, so not sure where you are getting that from.

Because you're being dismissive of any that doesn't fit your narrative. You're the one bending over backwards to justify ignoring a core book while trying to claim that non-core books from completely different editions should hold more weight. I mean, hells. Those aren't even skeletons and zombies you're talking about! The spell references the monster stats, and the MM is clear that skeletons and zombies are Evil aligned, and they're made from necrotic energy.

What does the real world have to do with the PHB not mentioning evil spirits and ravenous undead, and the Monster Manual saying that's how undead work? That has nothing to do with the real world.

You're the one who brought up the real world mythology of zombies first, mate.

You know what? I'm done. Have fun with your homebrew lore at your table. I'm out.

 

[Remathilis]

Depends on the mind control. Something that causes scarring and long lasting mental trauma? Plus, there's alternatives to being burned to death - knocking someone unconscious is a thing too.

I'm just saying that some people tend to prefer experiencing physical pain to mental pain.

Aka: