Good alligned god for a Necromancer?

[Mastikator]

IIRC, balenorn, et al. aren't created using Animate Dead.

Still waiting on the OP to come answer the necessary questions to clarify...

What I don't get is why people are stressing over evil acts. As noted, 5E doesn't have any drawbacks to being 'evil' and exceedingly few ways to know outside of direct observation if someone is behaving in a socially immoral way. WotC has definitely pushed an agenda of moral objectivity with a smidge of 'Do as you wilt, if it harms none' mentality.

It's not a bad plan overall, allowing the gamut of moral structure from puritanism to hedonism at the table level. But equally, that means discussing a general world wide baseline is meaningless and probably harmful, if not to the game, at least to a useful discussion.

A deity is not going to care about what is social morality, they're going to care about cosmic morality. Selune, Osiris, Mystra; they aren't civilians in some village or nation state, they're gods. If they decide that creating zombies is bad for some cosmic reason about putting evil spirits into the material plane, which then is against their morality, then they won't accept you if you make a living doing that. A PC necromancer, or a society may decide that casting animate dead is not a bad thing, the good gods of death and magic aren't going to agree. And they can tell you. In forgotten realms the opinions of the gods is like... science, everyone who looks into it will find the same answer.

[JackPhoenix]

Ehh, no. A creature is "anything capable of taking actions (including plants and undead and constructs)". Hence why Haste and other spells specify "creatures" as thing they can effect.

So by your definition, if you get incapacitated, and thus unable to take actions, you're no longer a creature? What about ships? They can take actions, using GoS rules, but they are not creatures (and no, they are not constructs).
I find your definition... flawed.

[Boci]

So by your definition, if you get incapacitated, and thus unable to take actions, you're no longer a creature? What about ships? They can take actions, using GoS rules, but they are not creatures (and no, they are not constructs).
I find your definition... flawed.

So you have no idea what haste can and can't effect? It says "creature", which you have now insisted and doubled down on as too vague.

If you're quite done nitpicking you try saying what a spirit is, or admit you don't know, and no, its the same as creature, or you can carry on pretending.

[JackPhoenix]

So you have no idea what haste can and can't effect? It says "creature", which you have now insisted and doubled down on as too vague.

How is Haste relevant to anything? Spells target whatever they say they do, that's not the answer to the question of "what's a creature?".

If you're quite done nitpicking you try saying what a spirit is, or admit you don't know, and no, its the same as creature, or you can carry on pretending.

If you've done bringing up irrelevant crap, try saying what a creature is, or admit you don't know. And no, it's not "anything capable of taking actions".

[Boci]

How is Haste relevant to anything? Spells target whatever they say they do, that's not the answer to the question of "what's a creature?".

Haste reads:

"Choose a willing creature that you can see within range."

So if we don't know what a creature is in 5th ed, as you have repeatedly claimed, then we can't know what haste does and doesn't work on.

Is that the line you're going with? You don't know what haste will and won't work on?

[JackPhoenix]

Haste reads:

"Choose a willing creature that you can see within range."

So if we don't know what a creature is in 5th ed, as you have repeatedly claimed, then we can't know what haste does and doesn't work on.

Is that the line you're going with? You don't know what haste will and won't work on?

I'm gonna go with "why the hell are you talking about Haste, and how is it relevant to anything?". You haven't answered the question, and instead tried to move goalposts by bringing up Haste. YOU clearly don't know what a creature in 5e is, because you've failed to answer the question. I do (and the answer is (un)surprisingly similar to the answer to "what's a spirit", that's why I asked).

[Boci]

I'm gonna go with "why the hell are you talking about Haste, and how is it relevant to anything?"

Because Haste's description says "choose a willing creature", and doesn't say what a creature is. So either

A. We know what a creature is
B. We don't how haste works

Those are the two options. There is no option C. And its not just Haste, plenty of spells reference a creature in what they do, like Eldritch Blast, again without saying what a creature is. Creature is clearly a mechanical term, the rules use it repeatedly. Not so for spirit. Trying to argue a rules term is the same as a not rules is just wrong.

This isn't me moving the goalposts, this is me establishing we know what a creature is, unlike spirit, and you being annoyed at this for...some reason.

[JackPhoenix]

Because Haste's description says "choose a willing creature", and doesn't say what a creature is. So either

A. We know what a creature is
B. We don't how haste works

Those are the two options. There is no option C. And its not just Haste, plenty of spells reference a creature in what they do, like Eldritch Blast, again without saying what a creature is. Creature is clearly a mechanical term, the rules use it repeatedly. Not so for spirit. Trying to argue a rules term is the same as a not rules is just wrong.

This isn't me moving the goalposts, this is me establishing we know what a creature is, unlike spirit, and you being annoyed at this for...some reason.

I'm annoyed because you haven't answered the question (just claiming we have the answer to the question). I don't give a crap about Haste or any other spell, unless that spell says what a creature is (hint: no spell does). If you know what a creature is, then answer the damn question instead of being evasive and bringing up unrelated crap.

[Boci]

I'm annoyed because you haven't answered the question (just claiming we have the answer to the question). I don't give a crap about Haste or any other spell, unless that spell says what a creature is (hint: no spell does). If you know what a creature is, then answer the damn question instead of being evasive and bringing up unrelated crap.

It's not evasive, you just don't know what's relevant. I've played and DMed this game for years, and I've never had a problem deciding what a creature is. The fact that I can't define it with words to your satisfaction means way less than you seem to think it does.

By contrast, I have no idea, definition or intuition, for what a spirit is. My intuition would be "a incorporeal creature" and likely an undead. But that's clearly not the case with whatever animates a skeleton, because spells that target or interact with creatures will effect the skeleton but not the spirit animating it, so its not a creature. It strikes me as a fluff term, with no actual rules mechanics, unless I'm forgetting something.

[JackPhoenix]

It's not evasive, you just don't know what's relevant. I've played and DMed this game for years, and I've never had a problem deciding what a creature is. The fact that I can't define it with words to your satisfaction means way less than you seem to think it does.

You haven't defined it at all, much less "to my satisfaction." But you did, eventually, in a really convulted way got close to the answer: The game doesn't define what a creature is, therefore, we must refer to common meaning of the word.
And it's the exact same with a spirit: The game doesn't define the term, therefore, we must use the common meaning of the word. And because the common meaning may refer to different things, depending on context, we must look at the context to determine what the word "spirit" refers to.

It strikes me as a fluff term, with no actual rules mechanics, unless I'm forgetting something.

Correct.

[Boci]

You haven't defined it at all, much less "to my satisfaction." But you did, eventually, in a really convulted way got close to the answer: The game doesn't define what a creature is, therefore, we must refer to common meaning of the word.
And it's the exact same with a spirit: The game doesn't define the term, therefore, we must use the common meaning of the word. And because the common meaning may refer to different things, depending on context, we must look at the context to determine what the word "spirit" refers to.

Nope, wrong. Spirit and creature are not the same, and repeated stating they are doesn't change that. Spirit is a fluff term as you just explicitly aknolwedged, creature isn't. Big big difference for starters.

[JackPhoenix]

Nope, wrong. Spirit and creature are not the same, and repeated stating they are doesn't change that. Spirit is a fluff term as you just explicitly aknolwedged, creature isn't. Big big difference for starters.

I never said they are the same. Stop putting words in my mouth (or at the tip of my fingertips, as the case may be).

[Boci]

I never said they are the same. Stop putting words in my mouth (or at the tip of my fingertips, as the case may be).

You said:

And it's the exact same with a spirit

And you are wrong. It is not the same. Spirit does change based on context. Creature less so. When a spell talks about a creature, or the DMG talks about noticing a creature, they mean the same thing. What do you have in mind that's different here? What is something that IS a creature for being effected by a spell, but ISN'T a creature for being noticed, or vice versa?

[Bohandas]

I think it needs to be distilled to at least 15% alcohol by volume

[Boci]

I think it needs to be distilled to at least 15% alcohol by volume

That is likely the more common meaning of the word than anything ghostly. Guess it depends on your local drinking culture.

[JackPhoenix]

And you are wrong. It is not the same.

What part of "neither term is defined by the rules, therefore we must refer to real world definition of the terms" do you fail to understand?

[Boci]

What part of "neither term is defined by the rules, therefore we must refer to real world definition of the terms" do you fail to understand?

The fact that "creature" is a word we can use a real world definitions for quite easily, but "spirit" isn't. What part of that don't you understand? You do understand that creatures are real things in our world and spirit (probably) aren't right?

You don't need context to know what "creature" means. If you do need context to know what spirit means, well then what "what is a creature?" and "what is a spirit?" is not the same thing, despite you erroneously claiming them so.

[JackPhoenix]

The fact that "creature" is a word we can use a real world definitions for quite easily, but "spirit" isn't. What part of that don't you understand? You do understand that creatures are real things in our world and spirit (probably) aren't right?

You don't need context to know what "creature" means. If you do need context to know what spirit means, well then what "what is a creature?" and "what is a spirit?" is not the same thing, despite you erroneously claiming them so.

Blame English for using "spirit" for covering different concepts.

1: an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms
2: a supernatural being or essence
3: temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or animated
4: the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person
10: distillate
12: an alcoholic solution of a volatile substance

While generally, definitions 1, 2 and 4 are the most relevant and most often used in D&D, Samurai subclass uses definition 3, and False Life (and possibly other instances) use definition 10 or 12.

[Boci]

Blame English for using "spirit" for covering different concepts.

While generally, definitions 1, 2 and 4 are the most relevant and most often used in D&D, Samurai subclass uses definition 3, and False Life (and possibly other instances) use definition 10 or 12.

Yes, and none of the above is necessary when dealing with "creature". So thank you for nicely demonstrating how "What is a spirit?" and "What is a creature?" are in fact not the same issues in D&D 5e.

[JackPhoenix]

Yes, and none of the above is necessary when dealing with "creature". So thank you for nicely demonstrating how "What is a spirit?" and "What is a creature?" are in fact not the same issues in D&D 5e.

Is "a creature" defined anywhere in 5e?
Is "a spirit" defined anywhere in 5e?
It's a simple question, the only answer is yes or no, no bullcrap about Haste or other spells, no strawmans or goalpost shifting.

[Boci]

Is "a creature" defined anywhere in 5e?
Is "a spirit" defined anywhere in 5e?
It's a simple question, the only answer is yes or no, no bullcrap about Haste or other spells, no strawmans or goalpost shifting.

And you're hopeless to know what something is if it isn't defined in the rules?

"Metal" isn't defined anywhere in the rules and neither is "attack", but only one of those causes genuine misunderstandings.

You're basically insisting someone answer "Do carrot and castle both start with c? The answer is only yes or no, no bullcrap about one being a vegetable and the other a structure"


And here's another yes or no question: "Did you need to reach for the dictionary for creature in D&D, like you just did for spirit?"

[JackPhoenix]

{scrubbed}

[Theodoxus]

D&D is a combat simulator with the illusion of being an RPG.

RAW? Yup. Roleplaying, while in the name, isn't actually necessary to run a game. One can RP playing DungeonQuest or Zombiecide or Monopoly. Having played AL for a lot of years, I guarantee 50% of the players aren't there to master their roleplaying prowess. Roll dice, kill things, and get loot. Talking to NPCs and trying to circumvent combat and still succeed at quests? Not so much.

Because good-aligned gods don't want their worshipers to be doing evil acts.

There are no such things. There's a DM pretending to be gods, but if the DM doesn't know, or care, about the written attitudes someone dreamt up for said beings, then it falls pretty flat. Now, if you're playing at a table where it becomes obvious the DM isn't concerned about such things, you can certainly raise an objection (hopefully with kindness and outside the game session) - and maybe they'll be persuaded to start using gods as you'd like. But if the DM/God doesn't smite the good necromancer for worshipping Kelemvor while animating an army of the dead... /shrug.

To re-use my earlier analogy, this is like wanting a character who's part of the Bat-family and going "my character strongly believe in fighting crime and injustice, but they don't see anything wrong with shooting people in front of their kids, and will do so when the opportunity arises".

Because Kelemvor hates Undead as much as Batman hates kids witnessing their parents being shot dead.

The RAW lore, sure. But without knowing more about the specific campaign, this What If... alternate reality Kelemvor might not be like that. And that's ok too.

And here's another yes or no question: "Did you need to reach for the dictionary for creature in D&D, like you just did for spirit?"

There is a difference between 'It's the exact same with a spirit' and 'It's the exact same as a spirit'. Jack is correct, they're both undefined terms in 5E. They're not the exact same thing as you've been implying he said.

[Boci]

There is a difference between 'It's the exact same with a spirit' and 'It's the exact same as a spirit'. Jack is correct, they're both undefined terms in 5E. They're not the exact same thing as you've been implying he said.

As I said: "metal" and "attack" are likewise not undefined, but I've only seem one of those lack of in game definitions lead to uncertainty. So arguing it is the same case with both words would not be correct in my eyes, because only one can (or is much more likely to) lead to uncertainty.

[Unoriginal]

but if the DM doesn't know, or care, about the written attitudes someone dreamt up for said beings, then it falls pretty flat.

Indeed, if the DM doesn't know or care about who a god is, then saying "I worship X god" falls pretty flat.

The RAW lore, sure. But without knowing more about the specific campaign, this What If... alternate reality Kelemvor might not be like that. And that's ok too.

The thing with the What If...? genre is that the resulting stories are a form of dramatic irony.

What if Spider-Man's clone from that one comic book issue had survived? What if Dr Strange lost his loved one rather than being injured himself? What if Scrooge McDuck had read Goldie's letter instead of throwing it away unopened?

The audience knows the answer to how the events went in one set of circumstances, and by exploring a version of the story where that even played differently they are far more aware of what the protagonist gained and lost than the protagonist themselves.

Again I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, I just don't understand what is the interest in having Kelemvor being ok with undead when one of his core component is not being ok with undead.

To put it differently: would anything change if instead of worshiping alternate reality is-ok-with-Undead-existing Kelemvor, this character was worshiping [god invented by the DM], who became god of death instead of Kelemvor in this alternate reality, and who is ok with Undead exisisting?

[Boci]

Again I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, I just don't understand what is the interest in having Kelemvor being ok with undead when one of his core component is not being ok with undead.

It sounds like you're saying "I'm okay with what if scenarios as long as they don't change too much". Which sounds a bit weird since changing a core identity of a character a is a common thing to do in a what if. What if Superman was evil, what if Russia and not America was where the major superheroes lived, what if Bruce died and his parents became Batman and the Joker.

What changes when you use a newly invented character rather taking an established one and 180 spinning a core aspect of them? Quite a bit.

[Theodoxus]

To put it differently: would anything change if instead of worshiping alternate reality is-ok-with-Undead-existing Kelemvor, this character was worshiping [god invented by the DM], who became god of death instead of Kelemvor in this alternate reality, and who is ok with Undead exisisting?

Nope, it wouldn't change anything. Maybe that's what the DM did, but couldn't think of a better sounding name than Kelemvor...

It does remind me a bit of my own pantheon, where the goddess of the dead is perceived as evil by most of the populous. Primarily because she keeps her followers enslaved. But what the non-followers don't know is that everyone who follows her, and lives in her kingdom, are genetically predisposed to be submissive and need an authoritarian to take care of them. They crave her attention and willingly become her slaves.

So, from the outside perspective, she's lawful EVIL. But for her followers, she's LAWFUL good. In reality, she's the embodiment of elemental chaos, trapped on the material plane through machinations of Concordia, and seeking to escape. Everything is a pawn in that driving goal. Should she manage to break free (which is a possible end result of the campaign I'm currently running - though on hiatus), her followers will quickly realize just how expendable and meaningless they are to her.

[Unoriginal]

It sounds like you're saying "I'm okay with what if scenarios as long as they don't change too much". Which sounds a bit weird since changing a core identity of a character a is a common thing to do in a what if. What if Superman was evil, what if Russia and not America was where the major superheroes lived, what if Bruce died and his parents became Batman and the Joker.

The point is that those stories are still based on dramatic irony.

"What if Superman, but evil?" only works if the Superman the audience is accustomed to is not evil. "What if Russia instead of America?" only works if the socio-cultural and political contexts between the two creates different situations. "What if Bruce rather than Thomas and Martha?" only works because we know what would have happened to Bruce in the opposite scenario.

In a What If? story, the What If? has to be the center of the narrative or at minimum the inciting incident to which the characters react to. If I write a Justice League vs the Legion of Doom story where everyone is the same as usual, except Superman is Canadian, then that can be a joke and potentially an indicator of Alternate Reality taking place, but it's not a What If?. If I write a Justice League vs Legion of Doom story where everything is as usual except Superman is a massive, bigoted jerk and there is no in-story explanation (mind control, shapeshifter, etc), then this is just me writing an Out Of Character Superman.

And if my story don't work unless there is a massive, bigoted jerk in the League, why butcher Superman's characterization rather than use a different character or straight up invent one to fit the role better?

A story that is "What if Superman was a massive, bigoted jerk?" could be interesting. A story where Superman is acting like a massive, bigoted jerk but it's foreshadowing for the third-act-twist (ex: the protagonist is actually a disguised Metallo, who killed a new hero and took their place to infiltrate the League, but Superman knew as soon as he saw the disguise and had to wait for the right time to act or the Legion of Doom would win), it could be interesting.

If my story only work if specifically Superman is written out-of-character, then my story doesn't work.

What changes when you use a newly invented character rather taking an established one and 180 spinning a core aspect of them? Quite a bit.

Then what change in "What if Kelemvor didn't hate the Undead" Forgotten Realms as opposed to "the god of Death is DM's creation" Forgotten Realms?

[Theodoxus]

Then what change in "What if Kelemvor didn't hate the Undead" Forgotten Realms as opposed to "the god of Death is DM's creation" Forgotten Realms?

IMO, there isn't sufficient data to make a determination. One would need to know how much of an impact Kelemvor (and by extension, his clerics/followers) are having on both free roaming and purposefully animated undead, as well as what impact they have on the practitioners of necromancy who animate the dead.

Does removing that natural predation cause an unprecedented rise in undead? Probably. But would other forces rally to move into the Kelemvite niche now vacated? Also probably.

What if the god of the dead abdicated, like Mr. Smith Takes A Holiday, wherein people who died just didn't stay dead, but continued going on. Or what if the god of the dead willfully didn't want any more souls (Hades is Full, damnit!), so just reanimated corpses with their own soul and maybe an animating spirit and left them to slowly rot into walking skeletons.

When the dead stop being recycled into the cycle of life, it causes a lot of issues down the supply chain. I would suspect the gods of nature, life, plants, etc. would eventually rise up and offer to overthrow Mr. Dead if he didn't change his ways.

[Ionathus]

My question when I read that is: why did the player wanted their character to worship Kelemvor?

Two thoughts to this:

1. She's intentionally a "reformed Kelemvorite" in a world that also has "orthodox Kelemvorites", which is both a throwaway joke about how religions fragment into denominations, and also a conscious choice to have her character's beliefs be in conflict with other worshipers of the same god. The idea of worshiping a god that might not condone your actions was the entire point of picking Kelemvor instead of Jergal or whatever.

It's entirely possible that her views are displeasing to Kelemvor but she just hasn't done anything bad enough to get herself fully smote yet. She's also not a cleric or paladin, so it's not like Kelemvor is granting her spells every morning in tacit approval of her actions. And he has made his displeasure with her clear on more than one occasion when she crossed a big line (most of her necromancy is just reanimating corpses, but she's brushed up against her own hard rule of "no soul stuff" recently).

"Is necromancy evil?" has been a persistent theme and source of conflict in our campaign since its beginning, when half my players wrote "I abhor necromancy in all its forms" into their PC backstory and a third player rocked up with a good-aligned necromancer PC. From a storytelling perspective, I much prefer to ask questions that lead to interesting conflicts/conversations than I do declaring "this god believes XYZ, no compromise, so you'll have to pick a different god." Can my player create a nigh-heretical believer that Kelemvor tolerates...perhaps even comes to value? I like playing in the uncertainty of that space and prodding the edges of the world. Speaking of...

2. I take a very SCP Wiki "there is no canon" philosophy to the Forgotten Realms when I'm running a table. It's far more important to me that the characters, tone, and internal worldbuilding are consistent than whether our table's worldbuilding matches up with every minor detail from decades worth of comics-style hodgepodge source material.

When we see something we want to use, we take it and make it our own. It stops being, say, "canon" Kelemvor and starts being our table's version of Kelemvor. Which is something that every table in existence does already to varying degrees. Even a DM who pauses the whole game to research and confirm whether or not a PC is allowed to have a certain belief if they worship a certain god in a certain time period will inevitably create "their" version of that god just via the natural mutations of collaborative storytelling.

Ultimately, my player brought Kelemvor to the table along with her character concept, and I liked the vibes, and we ran with it. Maybe our version of Kelemvor isn't a necromancy absolutist like the "canon" version is, but he's still an imposing figure with a mortal ascension story, a complicated connection to the god of magic, an aloof demeanor, a "fair but cold" personality, and a sense of inevitability to his behavior befitting a god of death.

I dispute the claim that he's unrecognizable just because one of his (non-Divine-caster) followers believes that he's okay with "flesh and bone" necromancy so long as you don't try to cheat death or interfere with a soul's journey to the afterlife.

TL;DR:

The RAW lore, sure. But without knowing more about the specific campaign, this What If... alternate reality Kelemvor might not be like that. And that's ok too.