|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Blindness is great, even at level 15, especially against casters. With Persistent Spell you can also give it a decent chance of working or just force another save or suck with a quickened version.
It is great, with spell focus and the metamagics to enhance it but he has none of those metamagics. He has Dazing and Empower, neither of which apply to blindness and he has 3 other ways to blind someone.
Resist Energy for instance would be a nice choice.
You can drop fly you have enough ways to get around and your party should all have ways of their own by level 15.
You have glitter dust, blindness deafness and sleet storm so you don't need pyrotechnics as well. I would drop it over the other's simply because of the required fire source. You could drop blindness to if you don't have heighten the chances of something failing it's save are slim.
We have PC alignment, a tool used by the Player and the GM which is used mostly for RP to guide a charaters actions and motivations. Then you have Mechanical alignment, Creature subtypes, Spell Descriptors, DR/Align, and more class abilities then I can count. I don't need the game to hold my hand and tell me why something is EVIL. Just like I don't need it to tell me why druids lose spells for 24hrs after putting on metal armor and not 5min or a year. It's apart of the game we chose to play.
They rules don't say using a Mechanically Alligned effect is a hit to that alignment. But if casting an EVIL spell isn't an EVIL act then a Pally could raise a ZOMBIE horde to fight off demons and not lose status. Make a ritualistic sacrifice for the "Greater Good" and still not lose alignment.
An Erinyes could try to assend again, a Vampire might be resisting his urge to feed and kill, a Drow might turn his back on everything he was ever taught, Someone might find themselves in a state of unlife and lack the drive to kill, but these are all against the norm and the CORE of the game.
Your free to change these as you wan't and I encourage people to do so but calling the game inconsistent solves nothing and gives us nothing.
The game didn't put an evil stamp on it so unless your doing this things to be evil, its not evil. Might not be good but its not evil.
Casting Animate Object on a corpse. NOT inherently EVIL.
Mechanical Pear wrote:
What about using Necromancy in the manipulation of life and death, Healing and doing damage through life drain or something like that. As opposed to using undead minions?
NOT EVIL. unless your using EVIL to do it, or for an EVIL purpose like for the sake of causing pain. You could even use INFLICT to heal an UNDEAD minion you got through the use of COMMAND UNDEAD. Still not evil.
Wail of the banshee - not evil
Harm - not evil
Circle of death - not evil
Command and Control undead - not evil
inflict/cure - not evil
Ghoul Touch - not evil
Enervate - not evil
Bestow Curse- not evil
Magic Jar - not evil
Blight - not evil
Finger of Death - not evil
Horrid Wilting - not evil
Soul Bind - not evil
Energy Drain -not evil
A persons perception of something doesn't change what it is.
Regardless of your PERCEPTION of fire it will always be fire and a zombie will always be a zombie.
The same stands true for the 4 Alignments. Regardless of HOW they are used or WHY they are used they will always be what they are. When the book calls them out to be. When they don't it's up to the DM. If you disagree with that then play your way.
In the Book of Exalted Deeds you could play an Exalted Undead. Make a spell that does that using GOOD energy and not EVIL energy and go roll some dice.
Doomed Hero wrote:
Wrong.That's kind of like saying the demon is eating a sandwich so the sandwich must be evil.
and then positive energy would have to be GOOD and then the evil priest couldn't heal themselves.
Negative energy isn't evil it drains life and in turn powers unlife. but not all undead have to be evil. even the detect evil spell says "Aligned Undead"
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Fair Enough. I have lots of those myself.
We also use that houserule with the exception of Undead, Dragons and Outsiders.
A zombie unless directed is incapable of good only evil. A skeleton can wield weapons and armor they
While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor
If they lacked the ability of choice how would they choose which weapons and armor to wield? If zombies can't choose then why do they travel in packs? Instinct maybe. Perhaps it the EVIL of the SPELL that created it? Either way they still commits and spreads evil.
Not just evil actions. But actual Evil. You can wield it to power spells much the same you could with fire, you can have creatures made of the stuff like demons.
With each evil mortal soul that finds its way into the Abyss, the ranks of the demonic hordes grows—a single soul can fuel the manifestation of dozens or even hundreds of demons, with the exact nature of the sins carried by the soul guiding the shapes and roles of the newly formed fiends
Water doesn't choose to be water but its still water.
and may not have chosen to be evil but it's still evil.
A tiger may be cruel but they could also come to befrend a character and fight for them without being forced. They are equially capable of both good and evil ACTIONS but lack the mind to know whats good and evil and with out that intent or the "Essence" of evil then it's not evil.
Evil isn't an idea in the DND world it's just as real as the air your character needs to breath. An Evil undead is more Evil than most living creatures.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Wrong.They are Mindless. There only driving force is to be EVIL. Otherwise they would just stand around all day waiting for orders but they don't do that.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Neutral evil represents pure evil without honor and without variation
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
The system doesn't. That's OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Zombies may not be aware what there doing is evil but they are still driven to do so.
EDIT, The word devour is in the stat block so you got me there.
A carnivore meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, caro meaning 'meat' or 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an animal that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue, whether through predation or scavenging
And when you die or someone takes control of your undead and they seek out and kill everything they can find? That's the risk you take and thats ONE reason why it's evil.
Let them fall and Solid Fog or Summon 1d4+1 Horses, Air/Earth/Water Elementals, Giant Ant's all get the job done.
There will always be equal or better option than Animate Dead. And if there isn't you had to sink resources to have Animate Dead available.
If you need to save the world with EVIL it is still EVIL first, then you saved the world, second. If your a Pally you still lose status.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Casting an Evil spell is Evil.(And do you really have no other choice other than Animating a Corpse? You could just as easily summoned a creature to do it. Or used Command Undead a creature that was already undead.)
What you do after is up to you. Could be Evil could be Good. You might even save the world.
But CASTING the spell. Is evil. Someone turned into an undead can not be brought back to life w/o 7th circle magic and only then after you destroy the undead. It's that EVIL.
Yes. You 'could' have an undead that is good. The bestiary doesn't. And I don't see where you can change the undeads alignment in the rules. That is up to the DM.
Show me a good undead. Not an undead that 'could' be good.
Yes. Exactly I am. Objectively.
Objective Morality wrote:
Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2."
Good and Evil are sometimes Objective in Pathfinder. There are literally rules for it. If you don't want to follow them then feel free.
I never disagreed with that either. What I'm saying is that there is not a spell that creates a non-evil undead that a PC can cast. In the rules.
I can see a ghost for instance not being evil. And if there was a spell that created a non-evil ghost and the spell wasn't an evil spell than it wouldn't be evil.
But Animate Dead, Created Undead, Summon Monster(Evil) and Summon Undead are all evil. And make Evil creatures. Objectively because the rules say the spell is. What you do after that could be evil or good. If you wan't it to be not evil make a new spell.
If I were a crippled old man and I used an Undead Minotaur to save a village I could be Good aligned.(Subjectively) If I used the Animate Spell to do it I would have committed an evil act to get there. (Objectively)
Its not a bold claim its in the book. I infact quoted it. If mindless unded were incapable of moral action they would be neutral. Why would a zombie actively seek to slaughter people if it were incapable of taking that action?
Show me a non-evil undead you CAN create. Then you could houserule that specific instance were not evil.
Your not using the essence of evil to do it. The action of the spell won't be evil the act of killing babys would regardless of what you used to do it.
Fire isn't 'mindless' it's not even a creature.
Animate Dead creates evil and as such is in evil spell.
If you create EVIL for any reason it's evil. You could have all the intentions of saving the world with that EVIL but it wouldn't matter.
Lets say you die and your undead minions are suddenly set loose upon the world. Will the innocent victims be any less dead because of your intentions? Not a chance.
Evil and Good are just words but in the Pathfinder and DnD settings is has essence and directly affects the world in many ways. And when a character brings more of that into the world they are committing to using evil because it's convenient for them. Which is at best a Neutral. Or because it's EVIL and so are they.
So Yes playing a good Necromancer that raises undead is impossible. But there are many non-EVIL Necro. spells that you could use instead. Like Command Undead. Not Evil.
PRD GOOD wrote:
PRD EVIL wrote:
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
PRD NEUTRAL wrote:
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral.
Creature incapable of moral action are Neutral. Undead even mindless undead that are evil are capable of moral action and are evil because of it.
it's right under the CR table.Edit. -- also Ghouls feed on the living not zombies.
committing evil for its own sake
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior
1) The rules don't say it's not. Having rules and not having rules are two different things. Nowhere in the rules does it say I can't invent my own Gender. That doesn't make it a rule. Lets not argue about what the books doesn't say.
2) There are discussion's and then there are threads like these.
3) I never, not once, said all undead were evil. Please don't say I did. And what your saying about changing a monsters alignment has to be done by the DM, and is beyond player control.
In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment
In the end alignment comes down to a GM. So arguing over alignment rules it pointless. (doesn't matter because nothing good will come out of it...)
If you wan't to talk about interesting ways to make non-evil unded then we can discuss that instead. But people have been talking about the objective morality of Pathfinder or just morality, and everyone has a different opinion or set of beliefes on the matter and as such you have the option of leaving it up to the DM or making hard rules for it.
That. Really? No. Really?
Right, that was half a joke and half me being snide.
To be Clear...
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
The Very First Thing I said was that is wasn't so why bother asking?+ the other stuff that had nothing to do with the book.
Here is a paizo source
PRD Zombie wrote:
Alignment: Always neutral evil.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral
Humanoid, Farm Animal, undead taco? Always Neutral Evil. Evil Spell. Evil Creature. Always Evil. (Is it because your creating a slave, or because it might be an abomination? It doesn't matter it's still Evil.)My mind simply can't fathom in what uni this is not evil.
Good clerics can not cast evil spells for any reason. (Barring UMD which would spark a whole new thing so let's not)
That Celestial bloodline Sorcerer has no rule barring it from being evil or good. It doesn't matter. You can summon good and evil things congrats.
This isn't from Paizo material but it sure is useful.
Ye Old 'Book of Vile Darkness" wrote:
And another wrote:
Casting evil spells is evil the puprose and end result mean very little. There is a reason good clerics CAN'T cast these spell regardless of intent and end result.
The spell is evil therfore it is an evil act to cast it. (Period) You can't say it any simpler than that.
Because it was brought up wrote:
Here is a case where intent matters. Eating dead flesh for survival is not evil. Eating it for the 'luls' is. The game doesn't explicitly say it is good and or evil like it does with some spells so you look to intent.
Making dragonhide armor is like using human hair to make a wig. Desecrating the dead not evil unless the intent(to be evil) is there. Once again because the game does not explicitly state that it is evil.
No, you can't have either. You can only have ONE bond. Period. Harry Dresden is not a Pathfinder character, he's a Television character.
Arcane Duelist gets a bonded weapon and only a bonded weapon, if you took elderich heritage before 5th level and nabbed a familiar you would have both.
I was giving some advise a moment ago and while I was double checking the PRD I noticed something odd.
"A character with at least 5 ranks in Knowledge (geography) or Knowledge (local) pertaining to the area being traveled through gains a +2 bonus on this check."
Who says Pathfinder doesn't have skill synergy?
I've played in a 3.5 game that takes place in a swamp, around a small village. We were a cleric, fighter, and rouge. None of us had survival so we had to stock up on supplies and hire a NPC guide everytime we left the village to avoid getting lost. The NPC was with us for so many random encounters that she ended up leveling and taking a ranger level.
Things to keep in mind for wilderness travel.
1) Food and Water. (DC 10 to feed yourself for a day, not to hard but slows you down so if your on a timeline it could cause some problems, also you could require K. Nature or a second Survival check to avoid dangerous food and water sources)
2) Getting Lost (Survival again, the interesting thing to note here is Poor Visability. Way back in the movement section of the book states on a table that Poor Visibility doubles movement costs. So you end up spending a lot more time in the wild.)
3) Enviornment. (Lots of neat little rules that often get overlooked such as the Stealth and Detection Rule which is where you get the poor visibility distance.)
4) Disease. (Not exactly fun on it's own but creaturs can spread Diseases with Natural Attacks so if you have a beast with clear signs of a Disease it can make your PC's rethink how they handle the encounter)
5) Population. (You will want to create your random encounter charts, I suggest you stay small. A few Animals, Insects, Magical Beasts, Indigenous people [For my swamp game it was cannibal elves], etc. Have a chart for level 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, etc. Keeping the list small gives the PC a feel for what lives in the area, with new things appearing slowly as they level or as a non-random encounter.)
You can't use immediate actions while you are Flat-Footed and you are Flat-Footed until you have acted in the initiative order. That means most of your rerolls and spells like feather fall can't be used until your init.
Uncanny Dodge might fix the problem.
Eidt: However you could theoretically use the immediate action before init is rolled, because that would still be outside of the combat. You could then target the init dice.
3.5 had synergies to Diplomacy. +6, = 20.
Strength is never mighter then intellect. Never. Cant break that rope? Use something sharp. Cant lift that rock? Use ropes and pulleys. Intellect created the gun, now the very idea of warrior is so far dead most soldiers dont even understand it anymore. Intellect made the gun to defeat the sword. Intellect always beats strength
You don't need to be smart to use tools only invent them. Children can use guns. If someone has acess to tools and is unable to use them due to lack of intellect than that person probably wouldn't be able to dress himself. Cavemen used tools, and some tools like the pulley require strength to use.
Only really dedicated players that agree with that point of view would choose a flaverful penalized character over the standard or optimised one. That kind of thinking actively discourages players from making fun characters over powerful ones.
Any negative impact on the game because of a players RP choice should be a RP one. Your a seperatist then the people of your religion shun you and the people you once thought of as friends are ashamed of your choice, etc.
A DM should encourage and reward just the opposite. You've taken the time to create a fun character and your DM rewards you by bringing that fluff center stage and making it apart of the story. These are the games I love the most, because even if your not the best in any situation your still important in the grand sceme of things.
Alden Braddock wrote:
I don't really wanna use four feat selections to get aspect to work the way I'm looking for it to so I'm gonna see if my GM will give me two or let me take 1 for all of the effects. Do you think that's too overpowered?
He might let you swap class abilites for it. Get rid of some that don't fit the theme.
Well I guess to each their own. I personally never planned a build and never plan too, though I am one of the few that severly dislikes that nonsense. Balance is completely useless concept in RP, don't ask me why people care about it.
Because there is also a combat system and the more out of balance a party the greater the chance of character death.
It puts more work on the DM to fine tune each encounter to a party like that. You have the 'Strong' characters bored from lack of challenge or the 'weak' characters not holding their own in battle.
It's doable sure, but it's just another thing to get in the way of fun.
-Movie Announcer Voice
"In a world where no system is perfect, one man must seek the ultimate gaming experience. Heros will rise, and Empires will fall but will one critical failure sod the quest? Find out this summer."
- An adventure for 1st to 3rd level characters.