Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6183258" data-attributes="member: 177">Ultimately, there's a point where one must make some assumptions - in math, they're called axioms.  They aren't true or false (though, a system of axioms can be inconsistent), they just *are*.  You do have to choose some base assumptions - if you try to make *no* choices, and allow the GM to do everything themselves, well, then you're not really giving the GMs a leg up, as they have to make all the choices and do all the work that results from those choices.  They might as well just build their own game or campaign, if you're not making choices for them.If we take as a given that, in the game universe, that there are some ways of violating the separation of life and death that are just *wrong*, the rest (like the alignment descriptor on the spell) follow reasonably on their own. Since it is axiomatic, you don't have to justify *why* Animate Dead is morally different from Raise Dead.  You instead accept that they are different, and you think through the consequences of that difference.Arguments of real-world morality may only apply if you're trying to drop D&D's absolute moral/alignment system in favor of moral relativism, or some other moral framework.  That is equivalent to running a game with a different set of axioms.  Which, of course, you're free to do.  There's just some work involved.</blockquote>