Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cruentus" data-source="post: 8572007" data-attributes="member: 7034645">Fortunately, for the folks I play with and DM for, we all have set out what a setting's social norms are, or what is acceptable and unacceptable as it pertains to magic, most often including enchantment/charm, and necromancy.&nbsp; So what the rulebook says as RAW doesn't mean a thing and isn't really worth the paper its printed on. If you tried to play DnD 5e exactly according to the RAW, I daresay it wouldn't be a particularly fun experience.&nbsp; And I'd argue that arguing 5e RAW actually goes against the whole &quot;Rulings not Rules&quot; as posited by the developers.&nbsp; If DnD is about rulings, then what the book says about necromancy being &quot;not good&quot; or alignment mattering (or not) is left up to rulings (and the DM, and session zero, etc.).&nbsp; Arguing anything else is arguing just for the sake of it, particularly when the end result isn't going to change anything for anyone.&nbsp; The OP asked why, was answered with both sides of the equation in the first couple pages, and then it has devolved into 20 pages of yu-huh, and nuh-uh.&nbsp; And having just finished playing a Necromancer who tried to toe the &quot;good&quot; line AND use necromancy, yeah, it didn't work real well.&nbsp; I could try to rationalize it any way I wanted, but using it made everyone around me uncomfortable (the party didn't care), but I also had to be very careful where and when I did, because the NPC's certainly would have taken exception.&nbsp; And that went so far as trying to use magic to raise dead or resurrect someone, NPCs reacted negatively to even the suggestion of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cruentus, post: 8572007, member: 7034645"] Fortunately, for the folks I play with and DM for, we all have set out what a setting's social norms are, or what is acceptable and unacceptable as it pertains to magic, most often including enchantment/charm, and necromancy. So what the rulebook says as RAW doesn't mean a thing and isn't really worth the paper its printed on. If you tried to play DnD 5e exactly according to the RAW, I daresay it wouldn't be a particularly fun experience. And I'd argue that arguing 5e RAW actually goes against the whole "Rulings not Rules" as posited by the developers. If DnD is about rulings, then what the book says about necromancy being "not good" or alignment mattering (or not) is left up to rulings (and the DM, and session zero, etc.). Arguing anything else is arguing just for the sake of it, particularly when the end result isn't going to change anything for anyone. The OP asked why, was answered with both sides of the equation in the first couple pages, and then it has devolved into 20 pages of yu-huh, and nuh-uh. And having just finished playing a Necromancer who tried to toe the "good" line AND use necromancy, yeah, it didn't work real well. I could try to rationalize it any way I wanted, but using it made everyone around me uncomfortable (the party didn't care), but I also had to be very careful where and when I did, because the NPC's certainly would have taken exception. And that went so far as trying to use magic to raise dead or resurrect someone, NPCs reacted negatively to even the suggestion of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification