Frankly, I have no confidence that the new MM will provide blocks that are designed to operate in any medium besides a single combat encounter, so I think keeping these classes in circulation will help provide a foundation for DMs who want to build a more fully fleshed out villain. It’s not about having a mandatory feature, it’s about having the tools so that, if someone who has only picked up the core 3 books after the revision wishes, they have more than a barebones block to use for a campaign’s humanoid arc villain.
I'm having a hard time seeing a case in which this problem you've identified actually interferes with the game. Combat is the most structured part of play for better or worse, and also has the tendency to be a slog if a DM can't efficiently choose among viable options quickly, noting specifically the power swing that you get when a less experienced DM chooses from the trap options littered throughout pre-MMM blocks. I also think it's an easier task to dump an extra load of spells into a post-MMM stat block than it is to pare down the pre-MMM block, but I see room for disagreement.
What I personally think should happen is that the DMG subclasses should be deconstructed for parts, and they should provide simplified abilities inspired by these subclasses as part of a template system for NPCs and monsters to be mixed and matched where needed.
Those seem like the most logical options to me, but I digress. What would another option look like? Hmm... maybe something like...
Sudden Change
Sometimes a character undergoes a dramatic transformation in their beliefs and abilities. When a character experiences a profound self-realization or faces an entity or a place of overwhelming power, beauty, or terror, the DM might allow an immediate subclass change. Here's an example:
An Oath of Devotion paladin failed to stop a demonic horde from ravaging her homeland. After spending a night in sorrowful prayer, she rises the next morning with the features of the Oath of Vengeance, ready to hunt down the horde.
I'm aware of the optional and entirely voluntary rule from Tasha's, yes. It has nothing to do with breaking an Oath as written, especially inadvertently or involuntarily. So yes, I continue to hope that Oathbreaker will remain in 5.0 where it belongs.
By current RAW, every Paladin who breaks their Oath becomes one, regardless of what that oath was or why they went against it. A Vengeance Paladin who chooses to show mercy to their quarry and set aside their grudge will become one; so will a Conquest Paladin who decides the people are better off with representative democracy.
Verifiably false.
BREAKING YOUR OATH
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
Doesn't exactly sound like the language you'd use if every Paladin who breaks an oath becomes an Oathbreaker.
Also, straight from Oathbreaker:
An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin’s heart has been extinguished. Only darkness remains.
A paladin must be evil and at least 3rd level to become an Oathbreaker. The paladin replaces the features specific to his or her Sacred Oath with Oathbreaker features.
So not only is Oathbreaker presented very clearly as a Paladin who changes course straight for evil, but you literallyhave to be evil to take the subclass.
...You literally just proved my point. By RAW, you either become an Oathbreaker or you abandon the entire Paladin class, those are your options in the written rules. (Well, those, or breaking your Oath has no consequence at all.)
And yes, you must be evil to be an Oathbreaker, so a Paladin who breaks their oath the other way (by turning good) gets to stop being a paladin, houserule, or eat poo.
This is incorrect, it's missing from what Quar1on quoted, but if you take the whole section from the Paladin class, it's quiet clear that Paladins may seek Absolution.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
Absolution can be attained in many ways. Breaking a vow from your oath is not.
Yes, obviously if you're absolved then you can resume being what you are. But I'm talking about what happens by default if you're not able or willing to do that.
This is like saying "well, if you die someone can just cast revivify on you." Yeah but you still died. The existence of absolution doesn't make you immune to falling any more than the existence of revivify makes you immune to death.
Just to go back to this point, the Paladin seeks absolution, if they aren't able to achieve it through somebody else, they'd likely meditate on it and find their own way through it and take an entirely solo vigil, the default is not that you suddenly lose your powers and then you suddenly get them back, 5E has moved away from that type of thing since it wildly swings a lot and gets into players and DMs having disagreements over what is and is not something that would be against an oath. Oath breaking, switching oaths or changing class really should only be a resort looked at for when a character truly abandons their beliefs, not because of one contradictory action, it's an over-blown response and can kill the immersion for a lot of people.
People play the game to have fun and while there should be consequences, there needs to be a reasonable and rational amount of consequence. Running from a fight in fear is different from murder-hoboing an entire village but both would be breaking the oath. If somebody murder-hoboed a village, very hard to claim that character likely still follows most of the oaths that are available to Paladin.
Or tl;dr, a DM should use their digression on metering out consequences for actions and not automatically go for the hardest and biggest punishments that they can; unless of course the actions really merit them.
Those seem like the most logical options to me, but I digress. What would another option look like? Hmm... maybe something like...
Sudden Change
Sometimes a character undergoes a dramatic transformation in their beliefs and abilities. When a character experiences a profound self-realization or faces an entity or a place of overwhelming power, beauty, or terror, the DM might allow an immediate subclass change. Here's an example:
An Oath of Devotion paladin failed to stop a demonic horde from ravaging her homeland. After spending a night in sorrowful prayer, she rises the next morning with the features of the Oath of Vengeance, ready to hunt down the horde.
I'm aware of the optional and entirely voluntary rule from Tasha's, yes. It has nothing to do with breaking an Oath as written, especially inadvertently or involuntarily. So yes, I continue to hope that Oathbreaker will remain in 5.0 where it belongs.
Wait, you're dissatisfied with the amount of options for Paladins who break their oaths, so you want to... get rid of one? Your goals aren't very clear.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I feel like Oathbreaker is becoming a bit of a distraction from Necromancer which was what the topic was meant to be about? Necromancer by comparison isn't strictly evil though it can certainly either lean that way, or be viewed that way unfairly.
This puts me in two minds as to where to put it; I find it disappointing in the first place if they're cutting sub-classes just to force a four per class target. Many of the Cleric and Wizard sub-classes only require minor updates so they could clearly just include them, even if it means some classes still have more it's hardly a big deal. So my default stance is to just rail against Wizards only consenting to give us nice things by cutting other nice things.
An "evil options" section in the DMG could be okay as a compromise, though it could do with a better name; I view necromancers more like an uncommon sub-class. It could make sense to group with Grave Domain Cleric if we're not getting that either, not sure what a good name for that grouping might be as there are bound to be others.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Wait, you're dissatisfied with the amount of options for Paladins who break their oaths, so you want to... get rid of one? Your goals aren't very clear.
I want falling/rising to not be tied to a choice of throwing your entire class away, being funneled into one and only one specific subclass, or nothing at all. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
Similarly, I don't want an entire subclass to be designated in the DMG as "this is the one for falling, and that's the only way to actually enter it." If they reprinted Oathbreaker as something else entirely later on, after core - like, idk, Oath of Depravity or Oath of Corruption or something - I'd be more okay with it. Everybody wins that way.
Oath breaking, switching oaths or changing class really should only be a resort looked at for when a character truly abandons their beliefs, not because of one contradictory action, it's an over-blown response and can kill the immersion for a lot of people.
One action, if it's egregious enough, should impact a paladin. Otherwise the Oaths serve no purpose and you might as well be a Fighter/Cleric.
If a Devotion Paladin murders an innocent child, they shouldn't be a Devotion Paladin anymore. What they should become at that point is a matter for discussion, but that change can indeed be the result of a single act. And it definitely shouldn't only happen after the Paladin finishes up the work day and decides to calmly meditate for a bit before going on to willingly choose Redemption or Ancients.
Another thing not mentioned so far (I think) is that a lot of players don't want necromancy to be evil. There is a growing perspective of undead being "friend-pets" rather than you know, enslaved souls, so creating them shouldn't be evil and necromancer shouldn't be an evil subclass.
People play the game to have fun and while there should be consequences, there needs to be a reasonable and rational amount of consequence. Running from a fight in fear is different from murder-hoboing an entire village but both would be breaking the oath. If somebody murder-hoboed a village, very hard to claim that character likely still follows most of the oaths that are available to Paladin.
Depends what you mean by "murder hoboing", a Conquest Paladin modelled after Ghengis Khan would definitely slaughter whole villages unless that village surrendered and payed tribute to him. An Oath of the Crown Paladin sworn to an Imperialist country would slaughter whole villages if ordered to by their commander. An Oath of Vengeance Paladin would slaughter a whole village in order to try to goad the target of their vengeance out of their keep/fortress. An Oath of Ancients Paladin might slaughter a whole village if it was built by cutting down an ancient forest.
Another thing not mentioned so far (I think) is that a lot of players don't want necromancy to be evil. There is a growing perspective of undead being "friend-pets" rather than you know, enslaved souls, so creating them shouldn't be evil and necromancer shouldn't be an evil subclass.
I’m from the camp that by their very nature Necromancers are evil. But I don’t want to start that debate. What I would like to see, and I agree wholeheartedly, that a subclass shouldn’t be “evil” or “good” (I’m glad Paladins don’t have to be LG anymore). Let the player decide how they want to play their character. Any class/subclass can be evil but it shouldn’t be a requirement.
And I’m hoping that they change features and Animate Dead or other spells to move away from “Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature” and makes it more like other summon spells. If you choose, for RP purposes, go grave digging to get corpses, that’s up to the player.
Another thing not mentioned so far (I think) is that a lot of players don't want necromancy to be evil. There is a growing perspective of undead being "friend-pets" rather than you know, enslaved souls, so creating them shouldn't be evil and necromancer shouldn't be an evil subclass.
A zombie is just a smelly friend you haven't made yet!
I think there's definitely room for necromancers to be more ambiguous; for one, some of the undead you can eventually raise are more complex than just some corpse you're using as a resource, and you can always argue that sometimes the ends justify the means. If a town was wiped out, raising some/all of the dead to fight back against who did it isn't unjustified; if nobody's going to provide an army to defend a village, then why not borrow some corpses to make one? Are the villagers really going to be mad if it keeps them alive? Would their ancestors really resent having their corpse used to save their children's lives?
They're definitely very likely to be walking a fine line ethically (in terms of how others view what they're doing) but they can have a perfectly workable neutral or even good alignment, they just don't see the bodies as anything more than raw materials, which is a gross but not irrational point of view.
I would like if it there were more mechanics for having spirits on your side, so you could run a necromancer who actually negotiates with restless spirits for their help, maybe helping them finish their unfinished business at the same time. Currently necromancy is very corpse heavy, whereas spirit summoning could provide a "clean" way to necromance. I guess you could RP this as a part of body raising.
Otherwise mechanically I think necromancy really needs a way to limit the numbers but provide clear scaling in other ways; while smaller numbers of undead can be divided between the party so you're not taking hour long turns while everyone else dies of boredom (only to be added to your undead army), bigger numbers get unwieldy pretty quickly. It would be better if players were limited to a handful of stronger undead, and the DM remains free to introduce the concept of the zombie army separately if they wish as story moments.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
People play the game to have fun and while there should be consequences, there needs to be a reasonable and rational amount of consequence. Running from a fight in fear is different from murder-hoboing an entire village but both would be breaking the oath. If somebody murder-hoboed a village, very hard to claim that character likely still follows most of the oaths that are available to Paladin.
Depends what you mean by "murder hoboing", a Conquest Paladin modelled after Ghengis Khan would definitely slaughter whole villages unless that village surrendered and payed tribute to him. An Oath of the Crown Paladin sworn to an Imperialist country would slaughter whole villages if ordered to by their commander. An Oath of Vengeance Paladin would slaughter a whole village in order to try to goad the target of their vengeance out of their keep/fortress. An Oath of Ancients Paladin might slaughter a whole village if it was built by cutting down an ancient forest.
This is why I said most oaths and not all oaths. It can be justified but most oaths would have difficulty justifying it.
But anyway, distraction from the main topic, which I go back to saying that no class/subclass/etc should be inherently good or evil, being good or evil should be something that individual characters are.
If a town was wiped out, raising some/all of the dead to fight back against who did it isn't unjustified; if nobody's going to provide an army to defend a village, then why not borrow some corpses to make one? Are the villagers really going to be mad if it keeps them alive? Would their ancestors really resent having their corpse used to save their children's lives?
See there is a difference between Animate Dead and Animate Objects - both can be cast on a corpse to make it fight back against the one who slew it but RAW Animate Dead is meant to be evil, while Animate Objects is not because based on the lore Necromancy magic is supposed to be manipulating souls, whereas Transmutation is manipulating materials. So lore-wise raising a corpse as a zombie isn't just borrowing a corpse for a little while it is forcing some part of a departed soul back into the rotting hulk of their body against their will.
I would like if it there were more mechanics for having spirits on your side, so you could run a necromancer who actually negotiates with restless spirits for their help, maybe helping them finish their unfinished business at the same time.
This seems to be more inline with what players want to do, and it would be nice to see some lore / mechanical change to support this. Though that would require more than just a "Revised" edition to fix IMO. WotC need to seriously rewrite the whole concept of Necromancy to adapt to our modern world where there is a high proportion of atheists who tend to ignore anything discussing "souls".
Mechanically Necromancy is just awful, it's not a powerful subclass, the zombie horde is more trouble than it is worth right from the start. It drives me nuts that people scream about how awful Druid is because it has - the option - to generate a giant horde of summons (though at least those summons are actually effective compared to zombies) but then they give Necromancy a pass even though it is even worse. I play online in a party (it's asynchronous and all digital so rolling 16 attacks isn't too arduous) where I'm a Druid and we had a Necromancer join the party and honestly... it's shocking how terrible the zombie army is compared to druid summoning.
Not to get too much into the ethics of it, but. Unless the person somehow consented to you using their corpse as a zombie, it’s evil. There might be an exception if it’s a cultural norm to allow it, but at that point there’s a kind of implied consent as being part of that culture, though individuals might still be opposed. Kind of like opt out instead of opt in.
To put it another way, if a necromancer showed up with your character’s zombified grandmother, how are they likely to react? Even if there’s no soul involved.
So I’m of the camp that necromancers are just going to be inherently evil in most campaigns, and by default, villain materiel in most campaigns. Which puts them in the DMG, by my reckoning.
Update: I was writing my post when Gnomarchy must have been posting, and since my post is 100% necromancy ethics I'll pop most of it into a spoiler tag if people want to drop the subject.
That said, the other thread on the ethics was last active in March so it would mean bumping it to continue it, and whether or not necromancy is evil is definitely relevant to whether necromancer should be in an "evil/villainous character options" or similar section in a book.
RAW Animate Dead is meant to be evil, while Animate Objects is not because based on the lore Necromancy magic is supposed to be manipulating souls
Is there any current lore that souls are involved? The current wording for animate dead only says that the spell "imbues the [remains] with a foul mimicry of life", which I guess means either offensive or like a chicken (perhaps both? 😂)
The class description is kind of similar; it's not focused on the actual morality of raising the dead, only on the societal perceptions of it. But a chaotic good character for example doesn't really need to care what other people think of them, as long as they believe they're still working towards some greater good.
It's ultimately up to your DM whether that stays counting as greater good or flips into neutral evil or something instead, but I would usually argue neutral evil is more like being out for yourself and you don't care who you have to hurt along the way (it's their fault for being in the way). A chaotic good character can get away with a surprising amount as long as they can legitimately argue the benefit of what they did, e.g- my favourite example of wiping out a village to destroy the cult on the verge of opening a portal to the hells and threatening thousands. Any character can justify doing it, but the good characters need to justify why they felt they either had no other choice, or no better choice.
Of course I do fully agree that animate objects is the less likely to get you into trouble, though if you're animating someone else's property the distinction gets less clear; it becomes an issue entirely on whether you value organic matter as more special than inorganic matter (in which you're in danger of getting some "oh no he didn't" looks from any nearby automata/constructs).
Not to get too much into the ethics of it, but. Unless the person somehow consented to you using their corpse as a zombie, it’s evil.
Is it though?
It's not like they're using it for anything; while laws might make different distinctions, from a purely moral standpoint it's no different to using any other property belonging to a deceased person, and that's something adventurers do all the time when they go around grave robbing dungeon crawling every other day, or taking all the equipment from the latest person they've killed for whatever reason.
The only real difference is that a corpse was a person, but there's a very definite past tense on that one unless they died recently enough that revivify or raise dead will still work as after that you're in the clear because resurrection and true resurrection don't require the body. Beyond that the distinction is purely one of perception/emotion; people might get upset if it's someone they knew and/or they'd just rather you didn't do it, but in purely moral terms that makes it more of a faux pas.
On that basis a necromancer could (and should) argue that raising bodies is no different to animating armour; both may have belonged to someone, the armour might currently belong to someone (arguably worse). In some places the law may have something to say about ownership of a body (family, state etc.) but the only person you can argue definitely owned it doesn't really have a claim to it anymore.
You can also argue superior need; if you need the corpses to help save lives, something that most people would consider to be a good act, then they can't really argue that their being offended is more important. It might make you (the necromancer) a horrible, ignorant or wilfully offensive person, but not necessarily an evil one. If a nudist were to save your life, would you argue they shouldn't have done so if you disapprove of their nakedness?
It may be obvious at this point, but I really enjoyed philosophy class and arguing moral positions I don't necessarily hold myself. 😉
Not that it needs to be discussed in detail here too, since the issue is specifically whether it should be in a "villainous" book section, and whether people think it should or not maybe doesn't need to dig into the morality? Though I think it's probably fair to say that the issue seems to be more whether it's unacceptable in most of the Forgotten Realms and beyond, vs. it being unambiguously evil, since WotC seemed to have gone to pains to make it less so. Especially compared to Oathbreaker which is explicitly evil.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
On topic of oathbreaker paladins, "dark knight" is an archetype that fits serving as a paladin of an evil deity. Why wouldn't a god of death of a powerful archdevil of divine power have their own knightly orders? A real oathbreaker should be more of an apostate kind of paladin whose disenchantment, disbelief and denial are a power of its own. If divine power comes from faith in a divinity, philosophy, or ideology, theirs would be nihilism, a faith of sorts in a nameless, formless deity of nothingness and denial, that would let such paladin channel dispelling and suppressive magic.
A real oathbreaker should be more of an apostate kind of paladin whose disenchantment, disbelief and denial are a power of its own. If divine power comes from faith in a divinity, philosophy, or ideology, theirs would be nihilism, a faith of sorts in a nameless, formless deity of nothingness and denial, that would let such paladin channel dispelling and suppressive magic.
That sounds a lot like the domains of Shar, who includes things like nothingness, oblivion and desolation – she also created her own Shadow Weave as a counter to Mystral's Weave, but I think that one doesn't exist anymore.
I think it probably makes more sense to just repurpose Oathbreaker into some kind of Oath of Corruption like PsyrenXY suggested, as it fits that kind of theme and could suit a few different deities or ideals. Personally I don't think breaking an oath really needs to do more than cause you to no longer be a Paladin, until you can see atonement or swear a different oath.
Though it could be interesting if there were an "Oathbreaker" sub-class that is more about seeking atonement in extreme ways, e.g- maybe it can't Divine Smite, instead it can spend its Lay On Hands (with limits) to deal extra damage of its weapon type, their spells could be focused on things like compelled duel to try and force enemies to fight them so they can atone through brave deeds etc.?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
So, regarding the "no subclass should be inherenetly evil"; honestly I'm going to disagree with that for classes whose thematic point/background is to promote and/or emulate certain forms of behavior. A Cleric/Paladin of an Evil god should most likely be Evil or at least well into the south end of the Neutral spectrum. I agree that as nomenclature goes, "Death" does seem to overlap with "Grave", but so do "Arcana" and "Knowledge" or "Life" and "Nature" if we only take the words at face value. As I've said, mechanically the two subclasses run very differently, and they allow for characters (played by either a DM or player) to fill two very different niches of the Cleric spectrum. "Oathbreaker" probably could stand to be renamed to avoid the association that any major violation of an Oath defaults to it (I like the Corruption suggestion someone made), but the underlying nature of the "anti-paladin" really seems like it needs a class beyond Conquest/Vengeance- as by design both of those can be spun as "well-meaning if extreme" to avoid being too necessarily Evil. Plenty of Oaths do weigh heavily towards a Good character of some kind, having one that very actively weighs towards Evil fills a niche.
And yes "Good" and "Evil" do and should still be factors that are in play. Not as proscriptive "this is the box your character is in, and you're playing wrong if you step out of it" barriers, but as descriptive indicators of a general vibe/pattern of behavior. Plus, this is a game with Angels and Devils as a part of the cosmology that I don't think is going anywhere, so within the default premise of this fictional multiverse Good and Evil do exist as quantifiable forces to some degree, which is also where character alignments provide shorthand for how beings who view things/exist on a more conceptual level form first impressions of characters.
I do think that if they put Necromancer in the DMG as a Villainous option, it should also get reprinted as a straight player option down the line. Now, regarding the "creating undead should be morally neutral", I disagree with the idea as a blanket concept. The vast majority of printed undead are Evil beings with an innate desire to destroy life. That's the baseline iteration they're using for worldbuilding. Now, we've already got Summon Undead to help fill the area of a more morally neutral and controlled entity, which is also good.
Finally, to attempt to start to address a point that has been talked about a bit but not seriously focused on, any DMs here want to speak up on a preference for building from printed stat blocks vs class features for major humanoid NPCs? Because the initial idea behind having a few subclasses in the DMG was to provide the building blocks for DMs to design NPCs around certain typically antagonistic archetypes. Curious to know who from exprience feels that having the pieces there helps fill a need.
I’m from the camp that by their very nature Necromancers are evil. But I don’t want to start that debate. What I would like to see, and I agree wholeheartedly, that a subclass shouldn’t be “evil” or “good” (I’m glad Paladins don’t have to be LG anymore). Let the player decide how they want to play their character. Any class/subclass can be evil but it shouldn’t be a requirement.
I'm actually okay with there being aligned subclasses, though I like it best if an aligned subclass can fit at least two alignments. The various Paladins all fit within ranges, some small and some large:
Conquest: LE/LN Devotion: LG/NG Glory: Any Redemption: Any G Ancients: Any non-E Crown: Any L Watchers: Any non-C Vengeance: Any Oathbreaker: Any E Open Sea: Any C
I couldn't picture the Conquest Oath fitting with a Good paladin for example, or a chaotic one for that matter.
Similarly, Necromancers being made to fit into a "Any non-Good" range would be okay with me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm having a hard time seeing a case in which this problem you've identified actually interferes with the game. Combat is the most structured part of play for better or worse, and also has the tendency to be a slog if a DM can't efficiently choose among viable options quickly, noting specifically the power swing that you get when a less experienced DM chooses from the trap options littered throughout pre-MMM blocks. I also think it's an easier task to dump an extra load of spells into a post-MMM stat block than it is to pare down the pre-MMM block, but I see room for disagreement.
What I personally think should happen is that the DMG subclasses should be deconstructed for parts, and they should provide simplified abilities inspired by these subclasses as part of a template system for NPCs and monsters to be mixed and matched where needed.
I'm aware of the optional and entirely voluntary rule from Tasha's, yes. It has nothing to do with breaking an Oath as written, especially inadvertently or involuntarily. So yes, I continue to hope that Oathbreaker will remain in 5.0 where it belongs.
I like it. Much much better than the Oathbreaker.
Just to go back to this point, the Paladin seeks absolution, if they aren't able to achieve it through somebody else, they'd likely meditate on it and find their own way through it and take an entirely solo vigil, the default is not that you suddenly lose your powers and then you suddenly get them back, 5E has moved away from that type of thing since it wildly swings a lot and gets into players and DMs having disagreements over what is and is not something that would be against an oath. Oath breaking, switching oaths or changing class really should only be a resort looked at for when a character truly abandons their beliefs, not because of one contradictory action, it's an over-blown response and can kill the immersion for a lot of people.
People play the game to have fun and while there should be consequences, there needs to be a reasonable and rational amount of consequence. Running from a fight in fear is different from murder-hoboing an entire village but both would be breaking the oath. If somebody murder-hoboed a village, very hard to claim that character likely still follows most of the oaths that are available to Paladin.
Or tl;dr, a DM should use their digression on metering out consequences for actions and not automatically go for the hardest and biggest punishments that they can; unless of course the actions really merit them.
Wait, you're dissatisfied with the amount of options for Paladins who break their oaths, so you want to... get rid of one? Your goals aren't very clear.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I feel like Oathbreaker is becoming a bit of a distraction from Necromancer which was what the topic was meant to be about? Necromancer by comparison isn't strictly evil though it can certainly either lean that way, or be viewed that way unfairly.
This puts me in two minds as to where to put it; I find it disappointing in the first place if they're cutting sub-classes just to force a four per class target. Many of the Cleric and Wizard sub-classes only require minor updates so they could clearly just include them, even if it means some classes still have more it's hardly a big deal. So my default stance is to just rail against Wizards only consenting to give us nice things by cutting other nice things.
An "evil options" section in the DMG could be okay as a compromise, though it could do with a better name; I view necromancers more like an uncommon sub-class. It could make sense to group with Grave Domain Cleric if we're not getting that either, not sure what a good name for that grouping might be as there are bound to be others.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I want falling/rising to not be tied to a choice of throwing your entire class away, being funneled into one and only one specific subclass, or nothing at all. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
Similarly, I don't want an entire subclass to be designated in the DMG as "this is the one for falling, and that's the only way to actually enter it." If they reprinted Oathbreaker as something else entirely later on, after core - like, idk, Oath of Depravity or Oath of Corruption or something - I'd be more okay with it. Everybody wins that way.
One action, if it's egregious enough, should impact a paladin. Otherwise the Oaths serve no purpose and you might as well be a Fighter/Cleric.
If a Devotion Paladin murders an innocent child, they shouldn't be a Devotion Paladin anymore. What they should become at that point is a matter for discussion, but that change can indeed be the result of a single act. And it definitely shouldn't only happen after the Paladin finishes up the work day and decides to calmly meditate for a bit before going on to willingly choose Redemption or Ancients.
Another thing not mentioned so far (I think) is that a lot of players don't want necromancy to be evil. There is a growing perspective of undead being "friend-pets" rather than you know, enslaved souls, so creating them shouldn't be evil and necromancer shouldn't be an evil subclass.
Depends what you mean by "murder hoboing", a Conquest Paladin modelled after Ghengis Khan would definitely slaughter whole villages unless that village surrendered and payed tribute to him. An Oath of the Crown Paladin sworn to an Imperialist country would slaughter whole villages if ordered to by their commander. An Oath of Vengeance Paladin would slaughter a whole village in order to try to goad the target of their vengeance out of their keep/fortress. An Oath of Ancients Paladin might slaughter a whole village if it was built by cutting down an ancient forest.
I’m from the camp that by their very nature Necromancers are evil. But I don’t want to start that debate. What I would like to see, and I agree wholeheartedly, that a subclass shouldn’t be “evil” or “good” (I’m glad Paladins don’t have to be LG anymore). Let the player decide how they want to play their character. Any class/subclass can be evil but it shouldn’t be a requirement.
And I’m hoping that they change features and Animate Dead or other spells to move away from “Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature” and makes it more like other summon spells. If you choose, for RP purposes, go grave digging to get corpses, that’s up to the player.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
A zombie is just a smelly friend you haven't made yet!
I think there's definitely room for necromancers to be more ambiguous; for one, some of the undead you can eventually raise are more complex than just some corpse you're using as a resource, and you can always argue that sometimes the ends justify the means. If a town was wiped out, raising some/all of the dead to fight back against who did it isn't unjustified; if nobody's going to provide an army to defend a village, then why not borrow some corpses to make one? Are the villagers really going to be mad if it keeps them alive? Would their ancestors really resent having their corpse used to save their children's lives?
They're definitely very likely to be walking a fine line ethically (in terms of how others view what they're doing) but they can have a perfectly workable neutral or even good alignment, they just don't see the bodies as anything more than raw materials, which is a gross but not irrational point of view.
I would like if it there were more mechanics for having spirits on your side, so you could run a necromancer who actually negotiates with restless spirits for their help, maybe helping them finish their unfinished business at the same time. Currently necromancy is very corpse heavy, whereas spirit summoning could provide a "clean" way to necromance. I guess you could RP this as a part of body raising.
Otherwise mechanically I think necromancy really needs a way to limit the numbers but provide clear scaling in other ways; while smaller numbers of undead can be divided between the party so you're not taking hour long turns while everyone else dies of boredom (only to be added to your undead army), bigger numbers get unwieldy pretty quickly. It would be better if players were limited to a handful of stronger undead, and the DM remains free to introduce the concept of the zombie army separately if they wish as story moments.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This is why I said most oaths and not all oaths. It can be justified but most oaths would have difficulty justifying it.
But anyway, distraction from the main topic, which I go back to saying that no class/subclass/etc should be inherently good or evil, being good or evil should be something that individual characters are.
See there is a difference between Animate Dead and Animate Objects - both can be cast on a corpse to make it fight back against the one who slew it but RAW Animate Dead is meant to be evil, while Animate Objects is not because based on the lore Necromancy magic is supposed to be manipulating souls, whereas Transmutation is manipulating materials. So lore-wise raising a corpse as a zombie isn't just borrowing a corpse for a little while it is forcing some part of a departed soul back into the rotting hulk of their body against their will.
This seems to be more inline with what players want to do, and it would be nice to see some lore / mechanical change to support this. Though that would require more than just a "Revised" edition to fix IMO. WotC need to seriously rewrite the whole concept of Necromancy to adapt to our modern world where there is a high proportion of atheists who tend to ignore anything discussing "souls".
Mechanically Necromancy is just awful, it's not a powerful subclass, the zombie horde is more trouble than it is worth right from the start. It drives me nuts that people scream about how awful Druid is because it has - the option - to generate a giant horde of summons (though at least those summons are actually effective compared to zombies) but then they give Necromancy a pass even though it is even worse. I play online in a party (it's asynchronous and all digital so rolling 16 attacks isn't too arduous) where I'm a Druid and we had a Necromancer join the party and honestly... it's shocking how terrible the zombie army is compared to druid summoning.
Not to get too much into the ethics of it, but. Unless the person somehow consented to you using their corpse as a zombie, it’s evil.
There might be an exception if it’s a cultural norm to allow it, but at that point there’s a kind of implied consent as being part of that culture, though individuals might still be opposed. Kind of like opt out instead of opt in.
To put it another way, if a necromancer showed up with your character’s zombified grandmother, how are they likely to react? Even if there’s no soul involved.
So I’m of the camp that necromancers are just going to be inherently evil in most campaigns, and by default, villain materiel in most campaigns. Which puts them in the DMG, by my reckoning.
Gonna try and nudge us off the path of talking about the ethics of necromancy. This thread should be good for those conversations.
Update: I was writing my post when Gnomarchy must have been posting, and since my post is 100% necromancy ethics I'll pop most of it into a spoiler tag if people want to drop the subject.
That said, the other thread on the ethics was last active in March so it would mean bumping it to continue it, and whether or not necromancy is evil is definitely relevant to whether necromancer should be in an "evil/villainous character options" or similar section in a book.
Is there any current lore that souls are involved? The current wording for animate dead only says that the spell "imbues the [remains] with a foul mimicry of life", which I guess means either offensive or like a chicken (perhaps both? 😂)
The class description is kind of similar; it's not focused on the actual morality of raising the dead, only on the societal perceptions of it. But a chaotic good character for example doesn't really need to care what other people think of them, as long as they believe they're still working towards some greater good.
It's ultimately up to your DM whether that stays counting as greater good or flips into neutral evil or something instead, but I would usually argue neutral evil is more like being out for yourself and you don't care who you have to hurt along the way (it's their fault for being in the way). A chaotic good character can get away with a surprising amount as long as they can legitimately argue the benefit of what they did, e.g- my favourite example of wiping out a village to destroy the cult on the verge of opening a portal to the hells and threatening thousands. Any character can justify doing it, but the good characters need to justify why they felt they either had no other choice, or no better choice.
Of course I do fully agree that animate objects is the less likely to get you into trouble, though if you're animating someone else's property the distinction gets less clear; it becomes an issue entirely on whether you value organic matter as more special than inorganic matter (in which you're in danger of getting some "oh no he didn't" looks from any nearby automata/constructs).
Is it though?
It's not like they're using it for anything; while laws might make different distinctions, from a purely moral standpoint it's no different to using any other property belonging to a deceased person, and that's something adventurers do all the time when they go around
grave robbingdungeon crawling every other day, or taking all the equipment from the latest person they've killed for whatever reason.The only real difference is that a corpse was a person, but there's a very definite past tense on that one unless they died recently enough that revivify or raise dead will still work as after that you're in the clear because resurrection and true resurrection don't require the body. Beyond that the distinction is purely one of perception/emotion; people might get upset if it's someone they knew and/or they'd just rather you didn't do it, but in purely moral terms that makes it more of a faux pas.
On that basis a necromancer could (and should) argue that raising bodies is no different to animating armour; both may have belonged to someone, the armour might currently belong to someone (arguably worse). In some places the law may have something to say about ownership of a body (family, state etc.) but the only person you can argue definitely owned it doesn't really have a claim to it anymore.
You can also argue superior need; if you need the corpses to help save lives, something that most people would consider to be a good act, then they can't really argue that their being offended is more important. It might make you (the necromancer) a horrible, ignorant or wilfully offensive person, but not necessarily an evil one. If a nudist were to save your life, would you argue they shouldn't have done so if you disapprove of their nakedness?
It may be obvious at this point, but I really enjoyed philosophy class and arguing moral positions I don't necessarily hold myself. 😉
Not that it needs to be discussed in detail here too, since the issue is specifically whether it should be in a "villainous" book section, and whether people think it should or not maybe doesn't need to dig into the morality? Though I think it's probably fair to say that the issue seems to be more whether it's unacceptable in most of the Forgotten Realms and beyond, vs. it being unambiguously evil, since WotC seemed to have gone to pains to make it less so. Especially compared to Oathbreaker which is explicitly evil.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
On topic of oathbreaker paladins, "dark knight" is an archetype that fits serving as a paladin of an evil deity. Why wouldn't a god of death of a powerful archdevil of divine power have their own knightly orders? A real oathbreaker should be more of an apostate kind of paladin whose disenchantment, disbelief and denial are a power of its own. If divine power comes from faith in a divinity, philosophy, or ideology, theirs would be nihilism, a faith of sorts in a nameless, formless deity of nothingness and denial, that would let such paladin channel dispelling and suppressive magic.
That sounds a lot like the domains of Shar, who includes things like nothingness, oblivion and desolation – she also created her own Shadow Weave as a counter to Mystral's Weave, but I think that one doesn't exist anymore.
I think it probably makes more sense to just repurpose Oathbreaker into some kind of Oath of Corruption like PsyrenXY suggested, as it fits that kind of theme and could suit a few different deities or ideals. Personally I don't think breaking an oath really needs to do more than cause you to no longer be a Paladin, until you can see atonement or swear a different oath.
Though it could be interesting if there were an "Oathbreaker" sub-class that is more about seeking atonement in extreme ways, e.g- maybe it can't Divine Smite, instead it can spend its Lay On Hands (with limits) to deal extra damage of its weapon type, their spells could be focused on things like compelled duel to try and force enemies to fight them so they can atone through brave deeds etc.?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
So, regarding the "no subclass should be inherenetly evil"; honestly I'm going to disagree with that for classes whose thematic point/background is to promote and/or emulate certain forms of behavior. A Cleric/Paladin of an Evil god should most likely be Evil or at least well into the south end of the Neutral spectrum. I agree that as nomenclature goes, "Death" does seem to overlap with "Grave", but so do "Arcana" and "Knowledge" or "Life" and "Nature" if we only take the words at face value. As I've said, mechanically the two subclasses run very differently, and they allow for characters (played by either a DM or player) to fill two very different niches of the Cleric spectrum. "Oathbreaker" probably could stand to be renamed to avoid the association that any major violation of an Oath defaults to it (I like the Corruption suggestion someone made), but the underlying nature of the "anti-paladin" really seems like it needs a class beyond Conquest/Vengeance- as by design both of those can be spun as "well-meaning if extreme" to avoid being too necessarily Evil. Plenty of Oaths do weigh heavily towards a Good character of some kind, having one that very actively weighs towards Evil fills a niche.
And yes "Good" and "Evil" do and should still be factors that are in play. Not as proscriptive "this is the box your character is in, and you're playing wrong if you step out of it" barriers, but as descriptive indicators of a general vibe/pattern of behavior. Plus, this is a game with Angels and Devils as a part of the cosmology that I don't think is going anywhere, so within the default premise of this fictional multiverse Good and Evil do exist as quantifiable forces to some degree, which is also where character alignments provide shorthand for how beings who view things/exist on a more conceptual level form first impressions of characters.
I do think that if they put Necromancer in the DMG as a Villainous option, it should also get reprinted as a straight player option down the line. Now, regarding the "creating undead should be morally neutral", I disagree with the idea as a blanket concept. The vast majority of printed undead are Evil beings with an innate desire to destroy life. That's the baseline iteration they're using for worldbuilding. Now, we've already got Summon Undead to help fill the area of a more morally neutral and controlled entity, which is also good.
Finally, to attempt to start to address a point that has been talked about a bit but not seriously focused on, any DMs here want to speak up on a preference for building from printed stat blocks vs class features for major humanoid NPCs? Because the initial idea behind having a few subclasses in the DMG was to provide the building blocks for DMs to design NPCs around certain typically antagonistic archetypes. Curious to know who from exprience feels that having the pieces there helps fill a need.
I'm actually okay with there being aligned subclasses, though I like it best if an aligned subclass can fit at least two alignments. The various Paladins all fit within ranges, some small and some large:
Conquest: LE/LN
Devotion: LG/NG
Glory: Any
Redemption: Any G
Ancients: Any non-E
Crown: Any L
Watchers: Any non-C
Vengeance: Any
Oathbreaker: Any E
Open Sea: Any C
I couldn't picture the Conquest Oath fitting with a Good paladin for example, or a chaotic one for that matter.
Similarly, Necromancers being made to fit into a "Any non-Good" range would be okay with me.