Sooooo....I have a LN Inquisitor of Erastil. I would really like to pick Death Knell as my next spell selection, but I somehow doubt this is acceptable for the follower of a LG god. We are partway through the Rise of the Runelords. Any yes, I know the spell description is Necromancy/Evil.
Any arguements I could put forth to my DM about it being for the greater good, crack a few eggs/omlette, the big picture, long-term gain, etc?
Thanks.
I don't think its that evil, particularly if your going to kill the guy off anyway.
That said, how evil things are and how quickly you turn evil for casting [evil] spells vary pretty greatly from GM to GM and group to group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sure wouldn't. You're drinking deep in the soul of another who has no choice to the fate.
If you want it to be not evil, I would say that you could conceivably use Death Knell on other followers of Erastil who, when given the choice, will gladly lay down their lives for the sake of creating a champion to fight Erastil's foes. But that's about it.
I sure wouldn't. You're drinking deep in the soul of another who has no choice to the fate.
If you want it to be not evil, I would say that you could conceivably use Death Knell on other followers of Erastil who, when given the choice, will gladly lay down their lives for the sake of creating a champion to fight Erastil's foes. But that's about it.
Hmmm. Pretty niche. We do have a Ranger follower of Erastil, but I don't think she would willing give up the ghost just to give me a minor strength boost/temp HP.
Sigh. Shoulda been a follower of Abadar.
I advice against using evil spells with a divine character with a LG patron deity.
The idea that energy can be 'good' or 'evil' is ridiculous, you can't quantify abstract subjective concepts like that.
The idea that energy can be 'good' or 'evil' is ridiculous, you can't quantify abstract subjective concepts like that.
You can, you just make it weird when say, you use something objectively evil to make the world a better place and then everyone comes down on you and says "your a bad person!" and people might make up their own reasons as to why it works this way instead of just removing the arbitrary decision it has to be evil in the first place or admitting its just because or arbitrary. Of course stabbing someone with a sword to kill them and using death knell both have the same results, the guy dies, though at least he gets a save on the latter?
Exactly. Dead is dead. How he got dead, not so important. WHY he got dead? Important.
There is the Infiltrator archetype that lets you cast spells opposed to your deity's alignment.
Interesting that a Holy Vindicator gets extra ways to cast death knell, whether or not they are positive or negative energy inclined. Evil spell for a class with Holy in it?
Interesting that a Holy Vindicator gets extra ways to cast death knell, whether or not they are positive or negative energy inclined. Evil spell for a class with Holy in it?
'Holy' is your religion.
'Unholy' is everybody else's.
My advice would be to flavor Death Knell the same way a Sin Eater Inquisitor justifies dining on souls. You're absolving you enemies for their transgressions and purifying their souls so they don't go to Hell/Abaddon/Abyss. Though you need to stretch it a bit farther to fit with Erastil's dogma. Would fit more for a follower of a deity into redemption like Saerena or Iomedae.
Check with your GM to see how divine spells with alignment descriptors work in your campaign. Some GMs don't really care, while others will tell you that casting such a spell could have negative consequences. It depends on how your GM has set things up, and her opinions on alignment in general.
In my campaign, good-aligned gods simply don't grant spells with the [Evil] descriptor to their clerics, so this situation would be a moot point. (Such spells are considered not to be on their spell lists.)
The idea that energy can be 'good' or 'evil' is ridiculous, you can't quantify abstract subjective concepts like that.
Actually, it's no more or less ridiculous than the idea of magic in general. In-game, Good and Evil are both philosophical terms and objective realities.
In my campaign world, spells with an alignment descriptor mean that the spell is charged with the Power of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos.
But, your miles may vary, and the GM is free to set up her campaign world however she wants.
Sooooo....I have a LN Inquisitor of Erastil. I would really like to pick Death Knell as my next spell selection, but I somehow doubt this is acceptable for the follower of a LG god. We are partway through the Rise of the Runelords. Any yes, I know the spell description is Necromancy/Evil.
Any arguements I could put forth to my DM about it being for the greater good, crack a few eggs/omlette, the big picture, long-term gain, etc?
Thanks.
RAW, no.
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: An inquisitor can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
Your deity is LG; therefore you cannot cast [Chaotic] or [Evil] spells.
RAI - I'd say if you think that Alignment means something, you probably can't. If you and your DM think that Alignment is a vestigial system forced onto Pathfinder that makes the game worse for everyone and should just be scrapped ... you're possibly fine.
Exactly. Dead is dead. How he got dead, not so important. WHY he got dead? Important.If dead is dead good players can torture, crucify, impale on spikes or some other means equally deemed cruel.
Importantly, death knell doesn't prolong the death. They just poked them and the guy went "Blargh, will saves! My one weakness! Blehblehblehdead." except you know, less dramatic thrashing and more "Blehdead".
A lot of the things about "Automatically evil because evil spell" ignore whether your actually being evil or not outside of the idea your being evil because evil. Guy dies, one way you expend a spell and get the buff, the other you finish him or he bleeds out.
Luckily its all GM's digression instead of a hard and fast rule, but at the same time that makes it hard to give advice about it. Best I can say is "is it actually evil?" and "Well what would happen otherwise?".
Think I will just take Silence. No moral dilemma there....probably.
Think I will just take Silence. No moral dilemma there....probably.
Silence is a pretty great spell. :-) Keep in mind, as a LN Inquisitor, you are completely fine to do evil actions sometimes. You're not going to fall like a Paladin, unless you actually cross the line into Lawful Evil alignment. And that should be pretty hard line to cross, unless your DM is being a jerk.
The entire game is GM discretion.
GM's discretion is a bit different than house ruling. Saying something is up in the air might be more GM's discretion, but on the other hand skill focus gives 3 skill points unless there's a houserule that says otherwise. One is left in the books to interpretation, the other is a static value. Its a lot easier to talk about things based on no houserules unless told otherwise, otherwise I might have to argue that this spell is [good] so I don't know why we're arguing in the first place and that its silly that you didn't just change its alignment.
The spell says you take someone's ebbing life force to fuel your own. This is different than just snuffing out someone's life force which is where the evil connection comes from. You are stealing someone's life force and not just ending it.
Its not really that much different from just snuffing it. For instance if your alternative was to stab them, it would take the same time, possibly longer if you did pitiful damage and they didn't die. Better to put that life force to good use imo.
If you have a chance, take a look at Lythertida and Dammerich, both Good Empyreal Lords with the Death domain. There is no alternate Spell for Death Knell.
|
A paladin challenging to a duel is good. A paladin backstabbing an unarmed foe because they're a rapist is bad.How is challenging someone to a duel a good act?
A paladin murdering someone is bad, but "unarmed foe" is a laughable concept in a game that has monks and sorcerers in it.
Whether "stabbing someone in the back" violates a Paladin's requirement to "act with honour" is a matter of opinion and I think would depend on the circumstances. I've never played in a game where multiclassed Paladin / Rogues were prohibited from using sneak attack, for instance.
@Zhayne
You have told us many times that you don't use alignment in your games but the OP might have alignment in his games, and in a game with alignment good and evil can be quantifiable things. In addition in a game with alignments "holy" means Good and "unholy" means Evil.
@GoldEdition42
I have made some assumptions, if any of them is wrong please correct me.
1) You are playing in Golarion.
2) You aren't an inquisitor of Erastil, you are just an inquisitor that happens to have Erastil as his patron deity.
Exactly. Dead is dead. How he got dead, not so important. WHY he got dead? Important.
Eh, similar arguments can be made about WMDs.
Of course, it doesn't stop me from being completely creeped out by how EASY my grandfather made mass genocide and conquest sound when discussing nuclear weapons. Just drop one, and then just wait out the nuclear and political fallout to clear out. No risk of losing troops, and you leave most of the buildings unscathed, allowing you to easily move in.
I know that I probably should not get on a political point like that...but still, I can think of fairly reasonable justifications for how a tool, with no morality of its own, can warp your perceptions.
Of course, that doesn't quite excuse the other 9/10ths of the spell lists that don't have the evil descriptor but seem just as bad when you think about it. I do remember a long discussion about someone who cast stone call in a crowded market place......
@Zhayne
You have told us many times that you don't use alignment in your games but the OP might have alignment in his games, and in a game with alignment good and evil can be quantifiable things. In addition in a game with alignments "holy" means Good and "unholy" means Evil.@GoldEdition42
I have made some assumptions, if any of them is wrong please correct me.
1) You are playing in Golarion.
2) You aren't an inquisitor of Erastil, you are just an inquisitor that happens to have Erastil as his patron deity.
We are in Varisia chasing stuff around Turtleback Ferry. I am an actual, church-sanctioned Inquisitor of Erastil. So it makes sense that I would not exactly remain within one step of LG if I sucked the last dregs of life out of a sentient creature to increase my power.
Even if it was to help me protect a nursery full of orphaned babies. Under attack from a band of rampaging ogres.....with rabies.
@Zhayne
You have told us many times that you don't use alignment in your games but the OP might have alignment in his games, and in a game with alignment good and evil can be quantifiable things. In addition in a game with alignments "holy" means Good and "unholy" means Evil.@GoldEdition42
I have made some assumptions, if any of them is wrong please correct me.
1) You are playing in Golarion.
2) You aren't an inquisitor of Erastil, you are just an inquisitor that happens to have Erastil as his patron deity.We are in Varisia chasing stuff around Turtleback Ferry. I am an actual, church-sanctioned Inquisitor of Erastil. So it makes sense that I would not exactly remain within one step of LG if I sucked the last dregs of life out of a sentient creature to increase my power.
Even if it was to help me protect a nursery full of orphaned babies. Under attack from a band of rampaging ogres.....with rabies.
It's not that you wouldn't remain within one step of LG. Performing an Evil act won't immediately make you LE if you're LN. LN implies some mix of Good and Evil (but normally Lawful) actions.
It's that your Deity won't grant you a spell with the [Evil] descriptor.
What Cheburn said, since you are an inquisitor of Erastil that means that you get his spells directly from him and he can't grant you a spell with the evil descriptor.
Priests of Pharasma can death knell without it being an evil act.
Erp, I was thinking of worshippers of Fandarra using the "Sacrificial Dagger of the Blood mother".
Sooooo....I have a LN Inquisitor of Erastil. I would really like to pick Death Knell as my next spell selection, but I somehow doubt this is acceptable for the follower of a LG god. We are partway through the Rise of the Runelords. Any yes, I know the spell description is Necromancy/Evil.
Any arguements I could put forth to my DM about it being for the greater good, crack a few eggs/omlette, the big picture, long-term gain, etc?
Thanks.
It can be arguably for the greater good and is inline with inquisitors being nasty for the greater good but the problem is that it is an evil descriptor spell.
It taps into supernatural cosmic [EVIL] as a power source to power that spell. Doesn't matter if it is done for good reasons it is still a dark side power not granted by Jedi Master Erastil.
This is why animating skeletons using animate undead is not possible while using animate object to do functionally the same thing is fine. One uses cosmic [EVIL] in conflict with the source of your divine power.
Rulebook is really clear on this one : you can't cast evil spells when you worship a good diety.
The good news is: you can do a lot of other cool stuff like shooting arrows to cure people and cast hunters blessing on your party (nice buff spell). See inner sea gods for more information about worshipping Erastil.