Hugh Neilson Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick It was a necromancy spell' date=' and I believe all of those are Evil.[/quote'] Even Invisibility to Undead and Ressurection? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSword Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Even Invisibility to Undead Not in the SRD, but the other invisibility spells are Illusion and Ressurection? Conjuration (healing) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick It was a necromancy spell' date=' and I believe all of those are Evil.[/quote'] Not when I played D&D, but of course, that was 20 years ago. Lucius Alexander Before I had a palindromedary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Unless they changed it in 4th ed, I do believe that Cure Light Wounds was a Necromantic spell. IIRC, in D&D Necromantic didn't mean "evil death magic", but "Magic dealing with Life/Unlife". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Familicide has that whiff of a spell greenlit by the GM who didn't realize just how extensive it's effects could be on a long-lived species like dragons. This spells reach and breadth makes me think the undead dragonhead might be only one or two generations from Tiamat or some god level creature. V may have just bitten off more than he can chew' date=' even Delta V.[/quote'] I think you are taking the name "Familicide" a bit too literally. In OOts, the bodies of all the dragon's I've seen were black, and the "color" of the dragon was denoted by the eyes & wings. It'd be kinda hard to show expressions on a dragon with a black body and black eyes, so purple was chosen for them. Every dragon pictured killed by Familicide had non-metallic eye color. No Gold, Silver, Bronze, Copper, etc... Plenty of other colors -- purple (black), red, green, blue... So V's dragon wasn't the progenetor of all of the evil dragon's, but "just" an Ancient Black Dragon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick I think you are taking the name "Familicide" a bit too literally. In OOts, the bodies of all the dragon's I've seen were black, and the "color" of the dragon was denoted by the eyes & wings. It'd be kinda hard to show expressions on a dragon with a black body and black eyes, so purple was chosen for them. Every dragon pictured killed by Familicide had non-metallic eye color. No Gold, Silver, Bronze, Copper, etc... Plenty of other colors -- purple (black), red, green, blue... So V's dragon wasn't the progenetor of all of the evil dragon's, but "just" an Ancient Black Dragon. No, casualplayer was insinuating of going UP the chain to Tiamat, not just down the chain to children etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSword Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Not when I played D&D' date=' but of course, that was 20 years ago.[/quote'] It has been made fairly clear they are playing using 3.5 ruleset. Unless they changed it in 4th ed' date=' I do believe that Cure Light Wounds was a Necromantic spell. IIRC, in D&D Necromantic didn't mean "evil death magic", but "Magic dealing with Life/Unlife".[/quote'] Cure Light Wounds Conjuration (Healing) In reading some of the spell-lists I think the Necromancy = Evil may have been a house rule (or a rule brought in from a variant ruleset) we used. Still, the spell was pretty clearly evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick In reading some of the spell-lists I think the Necromancy = Evil may have been a house rule (or a rule brought in from a variant ruleset) we used. Still' date=' the spell was pretty clearly evil.[/quote'] IIRC, the only 0 level Necromantic spell inflicts damage on the undead. Is that Evil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick IIRC in 3.0/3.5 Necromancy spells all deal with death/undeath. So you can have non-evil necromancy spells, just not many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick IIRC in 3.0/3.5 Necromancy spells all deal with death/undeath. So you can have non-evil necromancy spells' date=' just not many.[/quote'] Is it Evil to reanimate dead Nazis/Orcs as Zombies to defend the innocent townsfolk from live Nazis/Orcs? I suppose it is if we have a rule that says "Evil is Objective and this is Evil". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSword Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick IIRC' date=' the only 0 level Necromantic spell inflicts damage on the undead. Is that Evil?[/quote'] asked and answered In reading some of the spell-lists I think the Necromancy = Evil may have been a house rule (or a rule brought in from a variant ruleset) we used. Still' date=' the spell was pretty clearly evil.[/quote'] Is it Evil to reanimate dead Nazis/Orcs as Zombies to defend the innocent townsfolk from live Nazis/Orcs? I suppose it is if we have a rule that says "Evil is Objective and this is Evil". And this is one example that summarizes why we went with that houserule. We have a player in our group that will seek out every exception and there are two ways to deal with it a) heartburn and misery for the GM, steelboot of GM fiat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Is it Evil to reanimate dead Nazis/Orcs as Zombies to defend the innocent townsfolk from live Nazis/Orcs? I suppose it is if we have a rule that says "Evil is Objective and this is Evil". That depends on whether you believe the mere act of creating undead is an inherently evil act - regardless of the intended use; either as an affront to the Gods, or ones own ethics. Do the ends justify the means or is there more to it than that? I do believe that many DnD worlds assume that creating Undead is, in and of itself, inherently evil. But I'm not 100% on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teh bunneh Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick In my own Fantasy Hero world (which started out, once upon a time, as a D&D world), creating Undead for any purpose is inherently evil. Undead are, in fact, the only thing in my world that can be objectively defined as "Evil." Pretty much all the religions (even the ones that perform arguably evil acts, like human sacrifice) agree on that one thing. But that's just my world. Other games have other groundrules. I've played in games where raising skeletons was just a thing that wizards and/or priests could do, no big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnia Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick So, Lord Soon and all those ghost members of the Sapphire Guard protecting the Gate were Evil then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick So' date=' Lord Soon and all those ghost members of the Sapphire Guard protecting the Gate were Evil then? [/quote'] There's a distinction between Divine Intervention (i.e. your God resurrecting you as a spectre) and Creating Undead as a mortal. no smarmy smiley added. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teh bunneh Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick So' date=' Lord Soon and all those ghost members of the Sapphire Guard protecting the Gate were Evil then? [/quote'] In my game, yes. Ghosts are evil and hungry for the living. Rich's world apparently is a bit more nuanced than that. I can't speak for him to say exactly what his rules are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Unless they changed it in 4th ed' date=' I do believe that Cure Light Wounds was a Necromantic spell. IIRC, in D&D Necromantic didn't mean "evil death magic", but "Magic dealing with Life/Unlife".[/quote'] Healing was "Conjuration" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OddHat Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick That depends on whether you believe the mere act of creating undead is an inherently evil act - regardless of the intended use; either as an affront to the Gods, or ones own ethics. Do the ends justify the means or is there more to it than that? I do believe that many DnD worlds assume that creating Undead is, in and of itself, inherently evil. But I'm not 100% on that. Not sure about that. I remember that in 3.5 somewhere there were rules for Good Aligned intelligent unded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OddHat Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick In my game, yes. Ghosts are evil and hungry for the living. Rich's world apparently is a bit more nuanced than that. I can't speak for him to say exactly what his rules are. In my world, Ghosts are hungry for the great taste of Spoo! Spoo: It's what's for dinner! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Not sure about that. I remember that in 3.5 somewhere there were rules for Good Aligned intelligent unded. Could be. I guess it depends on if Rich bought and is using that supplement . . .? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick There's a distinction between Divine Intervention (i.e. your God resurrecting you as a spectre) and Creating Undead as a mortal. Where does using an Animate Dead spell granted to you by your deity fall into that spectrum? Clerical spells come from the deity, after all. Would the God of Sweetness and Light grant an inherently evil spell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Don't 3.x Cleric's lose access to Sphere directly opposed to their deity? I can't remember. Probably not. Perhaps Cleric's Of Shiny Happiness shouldn't be Animating the Dead then.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick There's an undead Paladin in Greyhawk somewhere that rules a nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick It's obvious we have no idea what House Rules are being used in OOTS, and that V is inevitably going to turn out the way Rich wants him . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Y'know, I'm actually trying to remember if Xyclon has done anything this evil. I guess the conquest of Azure City. Maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.