Why is Necromancy evil but Conjuration is not?

[Rafaelfras]

So basically morality in D&D is all about accepting that you are too stupid to think for yourself and that good people need to just shut up and do as their told?

Yeah, That is SO much better.

Being infantilized is almost the exact opposite of what I play D&D for. Honestly at that point I would rather just play FATAL, because atleast that game pretends that its players are mature adults.

No? And there is nothing to do with that
Good people need to uderstand that they have limitations and be humble while trying to better theirselfs and the world around then, while avoilding circular logic and hyperbolic arguments in order to justify the horrible acts that they want to do just because it is easyer and convenient and own the consequences of their actions. Its the oposite of being infantilized.
The fact that there are beings in the universe that understand that better than us, and can point out faulty logic when they see it does not mean you are stupid. You just lack perspective.
The fact that you dont agree with the definitions given, and their justifications does not make then bad or wrong.

[Naanomi]

So basically morality in D&D is all about accepting that you are too stupid to think for yourself and that good people need to just shut up and do as their told?

Yeah, That is SO much better.

Being infantilized is almost the exact opposite of what I play D&D for. Honestly at that point I would rather just play FATAL, because atleast that game pretends that its players are mature adults.

So your position, to be clear, is that no conceivable being in any conceivable universe, fictional or otherwise, may understand more about applied morality than you do, and to pretend otherwise is demeaning?

[Talakeal]

So your position, to be clear, is that no conceivable being in any conceivable universe, fictional or otherwise, may understand more about applied morality than you do, and to pretend otherwise is demeaning?

And this being is also completely incapable of explaining why the thing I am doing is evil and is completely unable to point out any consequences?

[Rafaelfras]

And this being is also completely incapable of explaining why the thing I am doing is evil and is completely unable to point out any consequences?

He is capable to explain both. It was only pointed out that some of those questions are simply as abvious to then as the color of the sky, and some explanations may be beyond your understanding and for some, that understanding will be only reached after death (or not even). Be it because the lack of knowledge or perspective.
Also if we are talking about animating the dead both "why" and "consequences" were pointed out in this thread.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Spoiler: Off-topic response to Millstone85

Show

I get that feeling. For example, MToF made me enjoy duergar lore. They are the descendants of dwarves who went through a traumatic experience with the illithids. Enslaved, experimented on, eaten, all that fun stuff. They lost their faith in Moradin and their love for metalworking as an art, now concerning themselves only with drab survival. And for that, they were rejected by other dwarves. Do they have the potential to be great villains, thinking themselves entitled to every act of vengeance? You bet! Should duergar be always or predominantly evil? That does seem so very limiting.

On the other hand, were you to tell me that fiends aren't, in fact, evil incarnate, and that maybe celestials are the real villains here... I would think that's a different kind of limitation. Your setting doesn't actually have room for fiends and celestials, just very different creatures masquerading as those.

I don't have fiends or celestials...at least not in the sense of a race of such. What distinguishes the outsiders from each other is not their alignment or morality, but their source of power. But there certainly are irredeemably evil outsiders and unreservedly good ones.

The beings that mortals call Angels and Devils (or fiends) are actually one pseudo-race. Angels are those who gain the power needed to sustain their existence from the Great Mechanism in return for being tied to their sworn duty. Each of the Four Hosts of Heaven has a particular duty and that is what the angels strive to fulfill at any cost. Very few angels have duties that directly impact the Mortal[1] Plane, at least the parts where mortals live. Their tasks are to ward the Barrier Between against things from Outside, to maintain order in the elemental planes, and to search out and destroy threats to the order of the universe itself. When they are slain in battle, they are reborn anew (but must spend some time relearning skills). There are very few angels in existence, specifically 2^12 (4096).

Devils (a self-granted title) are the main hosts of the Astral Plane and live alongside the angels. They gain their sustenance from two sources--payment by the gods for tasks performed in the Mortal Plane and whatever pieces of soul-stuff they can bargain with mortals for. When a mortal meets an angel, 99% of the time it's really a devil, clothed in angel's semblance and acting at a god's direction. They're the ones that interface with the Mortal Plane. But this trickle of power isn't enough for them to be comfortable. So they try to get mortals to make pacts with them--the devil does them a favor in exchange for a (non-lethal) portion of the soul. Or the mortal summons them to rampage through the land, from which they harvest the energies of those they kill (essentially feeding, but not in a way that damages the soul itself). The bodies we associate with devils are merely the traditional shells that the summoning spells create for the devils to pilot in this fleshy, condensed world. While many of these devils are evil by mortal standards, there are also noble ones. Each is an individual. They're organized into Territories and Families, led by a Don. Each Territory claims control over a particular theme/vice/virtue. Yes, the parallels to organized crime are intentional. The lesser ones make deals with mortals, but have to kick back a portion of the energy to their superiors, to whom they're in debt. It's a giant pyramid scheme all the way up.

Demons are completely different from either of the other two. They're beings (formerly mortal or not) who have consumed the entire soul of another living being or who have been exposed to too much of the abyssal energies released by this blood magic. Unlike mortals who generate their own energy by learning and developing and experiencing, demons are parasites. They must consume and dominate souls to survive. The world rejects them--the only place that's "comfortable" for them is the Abyss, that now-(mostly)-vacant prison for the Twisted Concepts. Ruled over by Demon Princes, each of whom has an obsession or plan that the rest of the universe finds too dangerous, they're the cult-builders. Less powerful than the gods or the high angels, they're less restricted by duty or universal chains of order. Again, each is an individual. There are many fewer "good" demons, just because the entry requirements are so nasty.

The Twisted Concepts were the original demons. Rebels in a war before time began and before the planes were established, these are incarnations of concepts gone wrong. Hunger (a current incarnation is a giant spider-demon-thing that wants to consume all reality and cover all things in her spawn), broken causality (the living McGuffin of a current campaign), etc. But still, they're individuals capable of growth and change. These were mostly "redeemed" about 200 years ago in a world-altering event that gave everyone free will. The repercussions of that event are still ongoing.

[1] Yes, Mortal, not Material. That's intentional. All those that dwell on the Mortal plane must eventually die; in return they're the only source of power for the entire universe. Their hopes, their dreams, their discoveries, their feelings, their experiences are the stuff out of which the universe is built.

[Talakeal]

He is capable to explain both. It was only pointed out that some of those questions are simply as abvious to then as the color of the sky, and some explanations may be beyond your understanding and for some, that understanding will be only reached after death (or not even). Be it because the lack of knowledge or perspective.
Also if we are talking about animating the dead both "why" and "consequences" were pointed out in this thread.

In that case I would label such a being as evil and deal with it in much the same manner as I would a baatezu; something that can be dealt with but always with the mindset that it is ultimately wicked and manipulative.

I have not seen one bit of evidence presented in this thread that convinces me that casting animate dead, or indeed any other spell, deserves to be an evil act regardless of circumstance.

Although the argument that frequently creating undead doesnt make you evil, rather than only a person who is already evil would even consider it, has significanlty lowered my oppinion of the D&D alignment system as a whole.

[JoeJ]

I have not seen one bit of evidence oresented in this thread that convinces me that casting animate dead, or indeed any other spell, deserves to be an evil act regardless of circumstance.

Who has argued that it is?

[Talakeal]

Who has argued that it is?

I suppose that the casting an [evil] spell is always an evil act is more of a 3.5 thing.

This thread is more about the assertion that only an evil character ever regularly creates undead.

In that case I would label such a being as evil and deal with it in much the same manner as I would a baatezu; something that can be dealt with but always with the mindset that it is ultimately wicked and manipulative.

I have not seen one bit of evidence presented in this thread that convinces me that casting animate dead, or indeed any other spell, deserves to be an evil act regardless of circumstance.

Although the argument that frequently creating undead doesnt make you evil, rather than only a person who is already evil would even consider it, has significanlty lowered my oppinion of the D&D alignment system as a whole.

On second thought, that's not fair, the question was can I conceive of such a setting, not how would I react to it.

I can only really conceive of it in a few select ways:

1: One where outsiders are super intelligent and possibly not bound by linear time and can see all ends. Note that such a setting is less likely to use absolute, black and white, objective morality.

2: A setting where the terms good and evil mean something different, really more of a red vs blue morality, kind of like OD&Ds law vs chaos. Note that in this case the terms good and evil are only tangentally related to our definitins of them, but if there are human like creatures in those worlds they will still have their own notions of good and evil that are much like our own, and the setting using redundant terminology is just plain confusing for players.

3: A setting where human logic and morality are meaningless, and the universe is actively alien and / or malevolent. This is pretty much the result of the 3.5 book of exalted deeds attempting to square the circle and have a moral system that is both true to reality yet still arbitrarily red vs blue, and as I said it is much better for existential horror then high fantasy.

[JoeJ]

Extrapolating from what is explicitly stated about good and evil, let’s see what we get.

Spoiler: Long Post

Show

First of all, among the good alignments, only NG gives us any kind of a handle on what good means. The definitions for LG and CG are completely unhelpful: “do the right thing as expected by society,” gives us zero information about the game considers “the right thing” to be. Equally, “creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect,” does not tell us what a creature’s conscience would direct them to do. But “do their best to help others, according to their needs,” does give an indication that this alignment is all about helping others. Extrapolating from that, the idea that all good alignments involve different takes on helping others seems reasonable.

On the other side of the table we actually have more to work with. LE creatures “methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.” So they take what they want. They’re selfish. NE creatures “do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.” Doing whatever one can get away with, in general English usage, has the implication that one actually does whatever one wants and can get away with – a NE creature who does not like hummus would not eat two pints of it simply because it can. With that caveat, NE is also describing a way to be selfish. And CE creatures “act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.” They feel hatred, greed, or bloodlust and therefore act on it. Put another way, they act out their passions, without concern for what anybody else might feel or want or need. So, again, a way to be selfish.

So it looks like what we’re seeing is that good = altruism and evil = selfishness. That’s clearly not a utilitarian definition of good and evil, but it’s certainly a defensible one. It has the advantage also of defining not merely a binary distinction, but a continuous spectrum ranging from utter self-sacrifice on one end to utter disregard of anybody except the self at the other (both extremes probably being outside the range of what is actually possible for humans). Different creatures can occupy different positions along this spectrum, and a single creature can occupy different positions at different times in its life. And there does, in fact, seem to be a pattern that inhabitants of the upper planes typically help others, while creatures of the lower planes typically help themselves.

Interestingly, the two ends of this spectrum are not mirror images of each other. A creature committed to altruism who feels hatred for others will recognize those feelings as a flaw and struggle to overcome them. What they think they should do overcomes (hopefully) what they want to do. If you try to reverse that, however, you end up with a loving but selfish creature selfishly refusing to do what they really want to do, which doesn’t make a lot of sense. The most you could get that would still be selfish would be a creature who loves others, but loves itself more.

Now as to undead. Zombies and skeletons hate the living, but by the argument above, that’s not why they’re considered evil. A good creature can hate, but it will be something they are striving to overcome. The undead, however, hate and they’re evil (i.e. selfish). Rather than trying to overcome their feelings, they will act on them within the limits of their code (skeletons), or anytime they can get away with it (zombies). Any creature that is fundamentally evil (selfish) is potentially a danger to others, but one that is both evil (selfish) and hates living things is a much more extreme danger.

Now the PHB states that creating undead – creatures who are both hateful and evil (selfish) - is not a good (altruistic) act. Although no justification for this statement is explicitly given, I think it’s a defensible position provided one allows that creating undead, while not good (altruistic) in itself, can sometimes be one step in a larger plan that will produce a good (altruistic) outcome. And I would still maintain, as I have previously argued, that the statement that only evil (selfish) creatures would perform this act frequently is not a statement about the act itself so much as a statement about the world. Specifically, it is a statement that situations where creating an evil (selfish) hateful creature can reasonably be a step toward accomplishing a non-evil (non-selfish) goal are rare. In a non-standard world, those situations may not be rare, and non-evil (non-selfish) spellcasters who frequently create undead might exist, but in the assumed default world, that is not the case.

[Rafaelfras]

In that case I would label such a being as evil and deal with it in much the same manner as I would a baatezu; something that can be dealt with but always with the mindset that it is ultimately wicked and manipulative.

I have not seen one bit of evidence presented in this thread that convinces me that casting animate dead, or indeed any other spell, deserves to be an evil act regardless of circumstance.

Although the argument that frequently creating undead doesnt make you evil, rather than only a person who is already evil would even consider it, has significanlty lowered my oppinion of the D&D alignment system as a whole.

And a baatzu would laught at you saying "yes yes give in to your hatred "
Celestials are not wicked, and to me this is just hubris, "the world is what i think the world should be and anyone who desagree with me is wrong or trying to manipulate me " sounds like a very tyranical way of thinking
Simetimes we are just wrong and the world does not work how we think it does.
You dint saw a bit of evidence because that was not the argument we were making, and you dont seem to be open to any perspective beside your own, to the point of calling an angel evil because he said you are wrong

[Unoriginal]

Now the PHB states that creating undead – creatures who are both hateful and evil (selfish) - is not a good (altruistic) act. Although no justification for this statement is explicitly given, I think it’s a defensible position provided one allows that creating undead, while not good (altruistic) in itself, can sometimes be one step in a larger plan that will produce a good (altruistic) outcome. And I would still maintain, as I have previously argued, that the statement that only evil (selfish) creatures would perform this act frequently is not a statement about the act itself so much as a statement about the world. Specifically, it is a statement that situations where creating an evil (selfish) hateful creature can reasonably be a step toward accomplishing a non-evil (non-selfish) goal are rare. In a non-standard world, those situations may not be rare, and non-evil (non-selfish) spellcasters who frequently create undead might exist, but in the assumed default world, that is not the case.

The implication of the lore is that creating undead risks to create more undead in the long term, without your control

Would "regularly and knowingly does something that can result in the apparition of selfish, murderous beings" be reasoanably onsidered selfish?

Also, JoeJ: thank you. Thank you a lot.

[Talakeal]

And a baatzu would laught at you saying "yes yes give in to your hatred "
Celestials are not wicked, and to me this is just hubris, "the world is what i think the world should be and anyone who desagree with me is wrong or trying to manipulate me " sounds like a very tyranical way of thinking
Simetimes we are just wrong and the world does not work how we think it does.
You dint saw a bit of evidence because that was not the argument we were making, and you dont seem to be open to any perspective beside your own, to the point of calling an angel evil because he said you are wrong

Tyrranical? That's a new one on me.

Its really hard to discuss this without getting into real world religion, but yes, if something that claimed to be an angel told me to do something I knew was wrong and claimed it was for the greater good but couldn't explain why I assume that the angel is either actively deceiving me or representing an alien mindset that has no bearing on my actions, in either case I would not take its word for it.


Lets try a different approach. Say we are playing fatal, where women and minorities are objectively inferior to white men because the game was written by a madman. I would still play a good character as someone who treats women and minorities as being worthy of compassion and respect regardless of what the setting says.

[Naanomi]

And this being is also completely incapable of explaining why the thing I am doing is evil and is completely unable to point out any consequences?

Ok... so I'm going to present a real life example as an analogy. Being a real-life example, I'm going into this with the understanding that 1) It isn't going to be a perfect analogy, though I still hope it is illuminating to the discussion; and 2) That I am in no way applying labels like 'Good' or 'Evil' to real people, just exploring more vague concepts about right and wrong
-----------
Background: I have worked in disability services for almost thirty years in various capacities. Through my career, I have accumulated a good amount of expertise in three domains: life-skills instruction of individuals with profound or multiple disabilities, autism spectrum disorder (in both the high and low functioning end of the spectrum), and (most germane to this topic) severe behavior disturbances (including but not limited to aggression, self injurious behavior, and inappropriate sexual behavior) comorbid with developmental disabilities.

In dealing with maladaptive behavior, I have a diverse tool-kit available... and I need all of it. It is not easy work, even without significant disabilities acting as a barrier to remediating behavior. I get hit, spit on, bitten... I've been hospitalized at least once a year for the last five or six years while at work, and my back will never really recover from some of the injuries I've sustained... but it is important work that is valuable and the successes are invaluable, so it is work that is fulfilling and that I will continue to pursue.

Explaining the need for socially acceptable behavior to individuals with significant communication and cognitive disabilities is often challenging, either because of deficits in receptive social skills (ie: the student lacks the ability to see the harm they are doing to others) or cognitive reasoning challenges (ie: the student cannot connect their behavior to the harm they do recognize). Sometimes we are able to simplify the concepts, use visual supports, or supported language... though often in such cases the reasoning we end up presenting is a *very* simplified version that is somewhat divorced from the kind of ethical argument I might make with a person lacking such challenges.

And there are some cases when I am unable to make that level of realization about behavior possible. Sometimes I have to instead just talk about consequences... explain explicitly that even if they don't see the behavior as wrong, help them understand that they will still get in trouble if they continue it (I like the '5 is against the law' curriculum); or sometimes we just have to rely on straight behaviorism techniques of disincentivizing maladaptive behavior while reinforcing more functional alternative behavior without any real meaningful explanation of the process or reasoning with the student.

Of course, even then there are times when we are not successful in remediating the behavior... where no matter how much work we have done, the behavior persists... maybe there is an impulsive or compulsive element to the behavior we cannot manage, maybe the antecedent or consequences of the behavior are untouchable internal factors we cannot control for, and maybe cognitive and communication limitations prevent successful awareness of the full scope of behavior or the functional alternatives available. In such cases, sometimes risk mitigation is all we are left with... and unfortunately sometimes law enforcement or natural consequences manifest and a person with a significant disability is still jailed, otherwise secluded, or killed. Even when our remediation efforts are successful, sometimes real and irrevocable damage... to bodies, to property, to relationships, to legal status. This is a failure on our part, but one that comes with the kind of work I do.
----------
I cannot help but imagine my interactions with students on behavior issues could easily mirror a Solar and their interactions with a mortal necromancer. The Solar is smarter than the mortal can possibly be (reflected in both WIS and INT stats), but more saliently has direct experience with and understanding of issues of morality that make mortals, even the most enlightened, seem impaired by comparison. They deeply care about the mortal, want him to be better and are willing to invest time in effort in trying to do so, but (like me in my professional practices) there are definite lines they are unwilling to cross in the process.

They may begin with, from their perspective, a simple explanation about why necromancy is Evil. From their perspective, it is an easy argument... both the practical and cosmological influences are self evident. However, it soon becomes clear the mortal does not have the perspective or existing knowledge, so the Solar is forced to simplify their arguments. The mortal is able to understand the more simple arguments, but (perhaps because of their simplification) argues against them, sees them as incorrect or inapplicable. The Solar tries several paths to convince the mortal, but ultimately the necromancer is unable or unwilling to see the Evil they are propagating.

Undeterred, the Solar switches to a consequence based argument... whether or not the necromancer agrees, the Solar can show him how continuing to raise the dead the way he is doing now will result in his damnation in the lower planes. Still, the mortal ignores this... convinced he is acting appropriately and will be rewarded, or angry at the 'unfairness of the system' for being punished in this way.

The Solar realizes that this has become fruitless, and that the ongoing Evil that is happening in the meantime isn't moral to allow to continue, so it decides to do a more direct intervention. It first endeavors to make the behavior unnecessary, driving away the dangers of the borderlands so that the undead army doesn't need to be maintained. When it isn't dismissed, it works to make it unsuccessful: destroying the undead legion every day when it is summoned while leaving the necromancer himself unharmed. At the same time, they use covert magic to shape the behavior of the necromancer... making him feel bad when he does the animation, though the necromancer is so consistent at engaging in his animation routine that there is little opportunity to positively reinforce alternative behavior.

Ultimately, even with such direct and intensive intervention, the Solar is unable to change the necromancer's behavior... it works on risk mitigation, ensuring that others avoid the area and charging local clerics with checking to make sure the repeated necromantic arts doesn't begin raising naturally occuring undead, and he leaves to work on another case. In due time, the necromancer dies and is (via natural consequences, and not as a 'punishment' by any active agency) drawn into the Lower Planes to suffer for the entirety of his afterlife; and the Solar is burdened with the loss and failure, but knows that they did everything in their power to create a better future for the necromancer... but the mortal's limited ability to understand his actions were unsurmountable in this case

[Talakeal]

Ok... so I'm going to present a real life example as an analogy. Being a real-life example, I'm going into this with the understanding that 1) It isn't going to be a perfect analogy, though I still hope it is illuminating to the discussion; and 2) That I am in no way applying labels like 'Good' or 'Evil' to real people, just exploring more vague concepts about right and wrong
-----------
Background: I have worked in disability services for almost thirty years in various capacities. Through my career, I have accumulated a good amount of expertise in three domains: life-skills instruction of individuals with profound or multiple disabilities, autism spectrum disorder (in both the high and low functioning end of the spectrum), and (most germane to this topic) severe behavior disturbances (including but not limited to aggression, self injurious behavior, and inappropriate sexual behavior) comorbid with developmental disabilities.

In dealing with maladaptive behavior, I have a diverse tool-kit available... and I need all of it. It is not easy work, even without significant disabilities acting as a barrier to remediating behavior. I get hit, spit on, bitten... I've been hospitalized at least once a year for the last five or six years while at work, and my back will never really recover from some of the injuries I've sustained... but it is important work that is valuable and the successes are invaluable, so it is work that is fulfilling and that I will continue to pursue.

Explaining the need for socially acceptable behavior to individuals with significant communication and cognitive disabilities is often challenging, either because of deficits in receptive social skills (ie: the student lacks the ability to see the harm they are doing to others) or cognitive reasoning challenges (ie: the student cannot connect their behavior to the harm they do recognize). Sometimes we are able to simplify the concepts, use visual supports, or supported language... though often in such cases the reasoning we end up presenting is a *very* simplified version that is somewhat divorced from the kind of ethical argument I might make with a person lacking such challenges.

And there are some cases when I am unable to make that level of realization about behavior possible. Sometimes I have to instead just talk about consequences... explain explicitly that even if they don't see the behavior as wrong, help them understand that they will still get in trouble if they continue it (I like the '5 is against the law' curriculum); or sometimes we just have to rely on straight behaviorism techniques of disincentivizing maladaptive behavior while reinforcing more functional alternative behavior without any real meaningful explanation of the process or reasoning with the student.

Of course, even then there are times when we are not successful in remediating the behavior... where no matter how much work we have done, the behavior persists... maybe there is an impulsive or compulsive element to the behavior we cannot manage, maybe the antecedent or consequences of the behavior are untouchable internal factors we cannot control for, and maybe cognitive and communication limitations prevent successful awareness of the full scope of behavior or the functional alternatives available. In such cases, sometimes risk mitigation is all we are left with... and unfortunately sometimes law enforcement or natural consequences manifest and a person with a significant disability is still jailed, otherwise secluded, or killed. Even when our remediation efforts are successful, sometimes real and irrevocable damage... to bodies, to property, to relationships, to legal status. This is a failure on our part, but one that comes with the kind of work I do.
----------
I cannot help but imagine my interactions with students on behavior issues could easily mirror a Solar and their interactions with a mortal necromancer. The Solar is smarter than the mortal can possibly be (reflected in both WIS and INT stats), but more saliently has direct experience with and understanding of issues of morality that make mortals, even the most enlightened, seem impaired by comparison. They deeply care about the mortal, want him to be better and are willing to invest time in effort in trying to do so, but (like me in my professional practices) there are definite lines they are unwilling to cross in the process.

They may begin with, from their perspective, a simple explanation about why necromancy is Evil. From their perspective, it is an easy argument... both the practical and cosmological influences are self evident. However, it soon becomes clear the mortal does not have the perspective or existing knowledge, so the Solar is forced to simplify their arguments. The mortal is able to understand the more simple arguments, but (perhaps because of their simplification) argues against them, sees them as incorrect or inapplicable. The Solar tries several paths to convince the mortal, but ultimately the necromancer is unable or unwilling to see the Evil they are propagating.

Undeterred, the Solar switches to a consequence based argument... whether or not the necromancer agrees, the Solar can show him how continuing to raise the dead the way he is doing now will result in his damnation in the lower planes. Still, the mortal ignores this... convinced he is acting appropriately and will be rewarded, or angry at the 'unfairness of the system' for being punished in this way.

The Solar realizes that this has become fruitless, and that the ongoing Evil that is happening in the meantime isn't moral to allow to continue, so it decides to do a more direct intervention. It first endeavors to make the behavior unnecessary, driving away the dangers of the borderlands so that the undead army doesn't need to be maintained. When it isn't dismissed, it works to make it unsuccessful: destroying the undead legion every day when it is summoned while leaving the necromancer himself unharmed. At the same time, they use covert magic to shape the behavior of the necromancer... making him feel bad when he does the animation, though the necromancer is so consistent at engaging in his animation routine that there is little opportunity to positively reinforce alternative behavior.

Ultimately, even with such direct and intensive intervention, the Solar is unable to change the necromancer's behavior... it works on risk mitigation, ensuring that others avoid the area and charging local clerics with checking to make sure the repeated necromantic arts doesn't begin raising naturally occuring undead, and he leaves to work on another case. In due time, the necromancer dies and is (via natural consequences, and not as a 'punishment' by any active agency) drawn into the Lower Planes to suffer for the entirety of his afterlife; and the Solar is burdened with the loss and failure, but knows that they did everything in their power to create a better future for the necromancer... but the mortal's limited ability to understand his actions were unsurmountable in this case

And I posit that if said hyper-intelligent solar is unable to explain to a human why the action is wrong, even in terms of consequences or laymans terms, than, to a human, it isn't wrong.

If humans are unable to perceive the consequences of their actions, than those actions probably aren't wrong.

D&D achnowledges that animals are not evil despite doing actions that would, for a human, be despicable, because the game achnowledges they dont have the capacity to know right and wrong. If humans in D&D are literally incapable of seeing how their actions are evil, and they do not cause any perceptible suffering or negstive consequences even when pointed out to them, I absolutely dont think it is appropriate to label the characters as evil for doing what they feel as right, nor do I think it is appropriate to moralize the PLAYERS and call them names because they are running on real world morality rather than bizarro world morality.

[Naanomi]

And I posit that if said hyper-intelligent solar is unable to explain to a human why the action is wrong, even in terms of consequences or laymans terms, than, to a human, it isn't wrong.

If humans are unable to perceive the consequences of their actions, than those actions probably aren't wrong.

D&D achnowledges that animals are not evil despite doing actions that would, for a human, be despicable, because the game achnowledges they dont have the capacity to know right and wrong. If humans in D&D are literally incapable of seeing how their actions are evil, and they do not cause any perceptible suffering or negstive consequences even when pointed out to them, I absolutely dont think it is appropriate to label the characters as evil for doing what they feel as right, nor do I think it is appropriate to moralize the PLAYERS and call them names because they are running on real world morality rather than bizarro world morality.

So, by extending your argument, people with significant cognitive disabilities who act aggressively in the community are not wrong in that behavior if they are incapable of understanding how it is wrong... and even though there is real negative consequences caused by their behavior, they are unable to perceive it so we shouldn't apply behavior shaping consequences for said behavior, and indeed completely shield them from natural consequences as well... and we shouldn't therefore attempt to remediate it or (if unable to do so) engage in risk mitigation to protect the person and others from that behavior?

[Talakeal]

So, by extending your argument, people with significant cognitive disabilities who act aggressively in the community are not wrong in that behavior if they are incapable of understanding how it is wrong... and even though there is real negative consequences caused by their behavior, they are unable to perceive it so we shouldn't apply behavior shaping consequences for said behavior, and indeed completely shield them from natural consequences as well... and we shouldn't therefore attempt to remediate it or (if unable to do so) engage in risk mitigation to protect the person and others from that behavior?

You can try and mitigate their actions all you want, but no, if they legitimately can't understand the consequences of their actions or tell the difference between right and wrong it is innapropriate to label them as evil and punishing them for their actions is pointless sadism.

[JoeJ]

You can try and mitigate their actions all you want, but no, if they legitimately can't understand the consequences of their actions or tell the difference between right and wrong it is innapropriate to label them as evil and punishing them for their actions is pointless sadism.

The multiverse doesn't punish them, however. It simply sends them to a plane of existence filled with other creatures who have the same beliefs about right and wrong that they do.

[Ghost Nappa]

And I posit that if said hyper-intelligent solar is unable to explain to a human why the action is wrong, even in terms of consequences or laymans terms, than, to that human, it isn't wrong.

Fixed that for you.

If humans are unable to perceive the consequences of their actions, than those actions probably aren't wrong.

D&D achnowledges that animals are not evil despite doing actions that would, for a human, be despicable, because the game achnowledges they dont have the capacity to know right and wrong. If humans in D&D are literally incapable of seeing how their actions are evil, and they do not cause any perceptible suffering or negstive consequences even when pointed out to them, I absolutely dont think it is appropriate to label the characters as evil for doing what they feel as right, nor do I think it is appropriate to moralize the PLAYERS and call them names because they are running on real world morality rather than bizarro world morality.

Spoiler: Spoilers for Tales of Xillia

Show

One of the villains' plots is to use an adjacent world as a power-source. It is explicitly called "The Other World Reactor" Plan. The villains of this scheme are primarily faceless to the player, but their motivations are laid in plain sight and it's hard to see how from the villains' perspective what they're doing is wrong or harmful.

The two worlds cannot directly interact or view each other at this point in the story.

The consequences of the "Other World Reactor" plan is to essentially use the magical potential of a different group of people as living batteries. The party *can* see this and in fact literally experiences it several times. Everyone who experiences the effect suffers for it. It is physiologically draining and potentially lethal if left unchecked. The one character from the world benefiting from the scheme is torn, despite it being half of his motivation for being there in the first place.

To the people of the world benefiting from the "Other World Reactor" plan, failing to push on wards will cause irreparable harm to their world and society as individuals dependent on such power are left without crucial medical services. The populace largely cannot see or perceive any potential harm from actually succeeding; even though their success is based on the unknowing slavery of an entire different planet as a fuel source.

Is such a thing evil? The group that is arguably doing something evil is largely incapable of observing *any* negative consequences of their actions, even though the party (and by extension) the audience is painfully aware of what those consequences are. No one comes back in the sequel to discuss the morality of it (by then, everyone is capable of communicating with each other, a more accessible alternative has been discovered, and there is no real animosity about the situation). However, even though after the fact the aggressive side can see the consequences of its attempted actions, it does not change the fact that until it was capable of observing those consequences none of its members even considered there to be any.

Just because the Necromancer cannot perceive any harm being done does not mean it is not doing harm.

[Rafaelfras]

Tyrranical? That's a new one on me.

Its really hard to discuss this without getting into real world religion, but yes, if something that claimed to be an angel told me to do something I knew was wrong and claimed it was for the greater good but couldn't explain why I assume that the angel is either actively deceiving me or representing an alien mindset that has no bearing on my actions, in either case I would not take its word for it.


Lets try a different approach. Say we are playing fatal, where women and minorities are objectively inferior to white men because the game was written by a madman. I would still play a good character as someone who treats women and minorities as being worthy of compassion and respect regardless of what the setting says.

Thats the point, an angel would not ask you to do something wrong in the first place, because angels don't do that
A being asking you to do something dubious is moving the goalpost, that situation was never in question in any post
Doing things for the greater good is usually how evil people justify thenselfs and again isn't a point being made
As for you other exemple you can keep it to yourself, I have no interest whatsoever going down that train

[Naanomi]

You can try and mitigate their actions all you want, but no, if they legitimately can't understand the consequences of their actions or tell the difference between right and wrong it is innapropriate to label them as evil and punishing them for their actions is pointless sadism.

Woah, no one is saying we sadiatically punish anyone. Disincentivize behavior via behavioristic negative consequences... sometimes, but sparingly and only in conjunction with other methods. Isolate someone for risk mitigation? Also sometimes, when other options have failed or risk to themselves or others becomes too much of a concern that it overshadows remediation.

The afterlife of the Great Wheel is built on Like Calling Like... evil souls are drawn to the lower planes, no one forces them there as any sort of punishment; it is a ‘natural consequence’ In the same way touching fire gets you burned. An angel trying... and perhaps failing... to point the truth of that to mortals who think they know better is benevolence and warning, not condemnation.

[Unoriginal]

Just because the Necromancer cannot perceive any harm being done does not mean it is not doing harm.

The thing is, it's hard to imagine the necromancer not being able to perceive the harm being done.

An undead creator who is unaware of the consequences of their actions won't stay unaware for long. They will either become aware, or dead.

[Talakeal]

The multiverse doesn't punish them, however. It simply sends them to a plane of existence filled with other creatures who have the same beliefs about right and wrong that they do.

No, the punishment in my experiance is usually reserved for the players. The DM will call them names, strip them of their powers, railroad them, or even kick them from the table because they dont allow evil PCs.

[Unoriginal]

No, the punishment in my experiance is usually reserved for the players. The DM will call them names, strip them of their powers, railroad them, or even kick them from the table because they dont allow evil PCs.

And what's the relationship between that and the 5e's default setting lore?

[Naanomi]

No, the punishment in my experiance is usually reserved for the players. The DM will call them names, strip them of their powers, railroad them, or even kick them from the table because they dont allow evil PCs.

Sounds like a bunch of personal stuff that has *nothing* to do with the setting of the game; that could happen under a bad DM regardless of necromancy use; and is less inherent to the system in 5e than any previous edition

[Talakeal]

Thats the point, an angel would not ask you to do something wrong in the first place, because angels don't do that
A being asking you to do something dubious is moving the goalpost, that situation was never in question in any post
Doing things for the greater good is usually how evil people justify thenselfs and again isn't a point being made
As for you other exemple you can keep it to yourself, I have no interest whatsoever going down that train

Look up the ravages and afflictions in 3.5 some time if you dont think "good" in D&D is never at odds with a real world understanding of good.

I am not talking about doing evil things for the greater good, I am talking about things that would be good in real life but are still labelled as evil in D&D. Using poison to painlesly kill a convicted murderer instead of painfully hacking them to pieces with a sword. Summoning a fire immune fiendish animal to pull someone out of a burning building. Working together with demons against devils because the LE devils are a common enemy to both LG paladns and CE demons.

Hell, one time I was playing a paladin and fell because I didnt execute some bandits whom I knocked out after they ambushed me because according to the third edition players handbook a lawful good character is not allowed to showmercy.

[Talakeal]

And what's the relationship between that and the 5e's default setting lore?

Making absolute statements about morality is just asking for arguments, both at the table and on the forums.

[Naanomi]

So... a host of examples that don’t remotely apply to 5e then?

[Rafaelfras]

So... a host of examples that don’t remotely apply to 5e then?

This

Real life stuff

Loved your example I think it was a very good analogy
Also my mom and sister work in the same field as you (my sister work with autistc kids)
Is a beautiful field and I hope it keep ever fulfilling you
It's a job that's not for everyone

[Talakeal]

Fixed that for you.

Spoiler: Spoilers for Tales of Xillia

Show

One of the villains' plots is to use an adjacent world as a power-source. It is explicitly called "The Other World Reactor" Plan. The villains of this scheme are primarily faceless to the player, but their motivations are laid in plain sight and it's hard to see how from the villains' perspective what they're doing is wrong or harmful.

The two worlds cannot directly interact or view each other at this point in the story.

The consequences of the "Other World Reactor" plan is to essentially use the magical potential of a different group of people as living batteries. The party *can* see this and in fact literally experiences it several times. Everyone who experiences the effect suffers for it. It is physiologically draining and potentially lethal if left unchecked. The one character from the world benefiting from the scheme is torn, despite it being half of his motivation for being there in the first place.

To the people of the world benefiting from the "Other World Reactor" plan, failing to push on wards will cause irreparable harm to their world and society as individuals dependent on such power are left without crucial medical services. The populace largely cannot see or perceive any potential harm from actually succeeding; even though their success is based on the unknowing slavery of an entire different planet as a fuel source.

Is such a thing evil? The group that is arguably doing something evil is largely incapable of observing *any* negative consequences of their actions, even though the party (and by extension) the audience is painfully aware of what those consequences are. No one comes back in the sequel to discuss the morality of it (by then, everyone is capable of communicating with each other, a more accessible alternative has been discovered, and there is no real animosity about the situation). However, even though after the fact the aggressive side can see the consequences of its attempted actions, it does not change the fact that until it was capable of observing those consequences none of its members even considered there to be any.

Just because the Necromancer cannot perceive any harm being done does not mean it is not doing harm.

If they legitimately dont know of the other worlds existence then no, it isnt evil. Note however, this situation isnt analogous as someone with knowledge of the other world could easilly explain it to them in terms they could comprehend.

[Snails]

Hell, one time I was playing a paladin and fell because I didnt execute some bandits whom I knocked out after they ambushed me because according to the third edition players handbook a lawful good character is not allowed to showmercy.

Don't play a Paladin in a campaign run by a DM who is not mature enough to handle it. If the DM insists on using alignment to punish a player for fun, the rules are not going to help you. All you can do is try and figure out what kinds of characters the DM likes to have in his campaign, and hope for the best.