Brinymon DeGuzzler's page

Good is evil and evil is good and apples fly and fish write poetry because it is my world and I wanna play a good evil lich fish so there ... bleh

Can't you people just play PFS at home?

Ascalaphus wrote:

But for personal use, I'm not that dedicated to "all undead are evil" as a principle. Vampires and ghosts in particular, but even some liches and mummies, I can see as being non-evil. Not necessarily ideal son-in-law material, and usually evil because being that kind of creature challenges your ethics, and because evil people are more likely to end up that way, but not ontologically compelled to be that way.

I am actually running a game where there is a whole country run by Vampire Republicans who only care about money and are ruthlessly profit driven. The entire ruling class of the country became Vampires simply so that they could enjoy their wealth forever.

Yeah, and you can have the Democrats be mindless zombies the slowly infect and destroy everything that they come into contact with.

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

It is from a Book I have that details 3 early versions of Arthurian Legends. Namely the Roman Version, the Celtic Version, and the early Anglo-Saxon Version. What I listed above actually is a constant in those 3 versions.

What book?

I can't find the Cover... it is an old book... (Print date is late 1800s)

How Convenient

My story is from the other side of the table. GM'ing to a group of D-Bags. Right out the starting gate they start attacking and killing friendly NPCs that were obviously vital to the plot line. So, being the nice guy that I am I let it slide and just introduced more powerful NPCs to keep things moving. What happens then? They complain that the CRs are to high and they still didn't get it that it is wrong to attack an 8 year old girl for defending herself with an iron skillet after they broke into her house... (that is just one of many instances) needless to say the campiagn ended abruptly with the goal never even coming close to being accomplished.

It is from a Book I have that details 3 early versions of Arthurian Legends. Namely the Roman Version, the Celtic Version, and the early Anglo-Saxon Version. What I listed above actually is a constant in those 3 versions.

What book?

.

A barb/sorc with high cha could intimidate the heck out of people. throw on dazzling display and you for AoE intimidate that rately misses.

Thanks. You totally gave me an idea for a HB campaign. Each player makes two seperate characters. They play one and can swap to the other after an appropriate time of meditation (not sure how long)and then back a gain 2x/day. The only thing that has to remain the same on both characters are the general stats, Height, weight, gender, alignment, so on. I am thinking that the are alternate selves from seperate time lines that got fused together and have to ultimately return themselves to their proper places before they tear apart the fabric of the universe. or something like that.

I like clerics as well. The builds that can be done are practically endless (just like almost anyother class in PF). I prefer channel clerics but you can also tank them out to do heals during battle, you can buff them up to do relatively decent damage, and get heals to boot.
Multi-class a cleric with barbarian, paladin, fighter, or what ever.
I hade a cleric rogue once (back in 3.5). I would Hide&Move silent and bounce around the battle field healing the whole time and it never got boring.

Additional Lich Information from Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Undead Revisited
"It is not merely force of will that propels one to lichdom, nor is it the simple desire to avoid death, though these are certainly factors in the mindset of the would-be lich. Instead, those who would follow the path of the undying mind must seek out tomes of forbidden magic and lost lore. Though the initiates might not be evil when they begin, the process under which they become liches drives them slowly into the arms of corruption—the focus they must develop drives out all other concerns, including the civilized needs of friendship and love."

....

All liches are evil. The process, the power, the choice of undeath over life. One can not choose a path of negativity and expect to come out unscathed.

Make them sign a co-pay agreement form

intent is everything.

Clerics that specialize in Channeling are the BeesKnees. You can nerf Wisdom (if you don't care for spells) and boost Charisma and Channel like a mofo.

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

Zark wrote:

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

Zark wrote:

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

You can be an Atheist cleric

Not if your GM says no.

There is also the 'No Devotion' option.

Not if your GM says no

Then the GM is a dick and those kind of restrictions would be why nobody plays clerics.

I have seen a group where noone plays a bard because the GM makes them sing songs in order to use the bard performance ability. Stupid restrictions makes people not want to play.

That restriction is common to several published campaign settings. It's not unreasonable for a GM to impose it on a custom campaign setting either. If you can't live with that sort of minor setting based restriction you may not be cut out to play a social game like Pathfinder.

THat sounds strangely similar to what my parole officer told me.

@BlueStorm.
Interesting perspective.
It really doesn't sound so bad.

Thanks.
lol

Vicon wrote:

When you read between the lines, he's chiseling for a mechanic to change memorized spells on the basis of your character knowing better -- which he himself admits is completely whack, because such casters don't need any help being more powerful than they already are. The pungent scent of gorgonzola pervades.

I took it differently. I figured the point was that a Wizard could prepare a whole lot of specific spells because out of game he knows they will be helpful, while in game its debatable whether the caster would know to prepare those.

It gets harder and harder not to "meta game" the more experienced a group is. I mean your asking a group to basically play dumb when they come up against something they know about but their characters have never fought. This goes against our basic nature and is hard to balance.

Normally I ignore it as a DM unless its a blatant use of out of game knowledge that the character would have no knowledge of. Stuff like Fighting a Red Dragon and knowing to use cold should be a pretty easy check for instance, because every Bard in every Inn probably has a story or two of how the heroes of old killed so in so dragon. Knowing what to do against a Black Pudding though... I don't see a ton of Bards singing an epic tale about a Black Pudding.

Shows what you know.

THere are no "best" domains and you can still strip an Atheist cleric of their powers if they violate their alignment. Playing true neutral isn't easy.

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

Zark wrote:

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

You can be an Atheist cleric

Not if your GM says no.

There is also the 'No Devotion' option.

Not if your GM says no

Then the GM is a dick and those kind of restrictions would be why nobody plays clerics.

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

You can be an Atheist cleric

Not if your GM says no.

There is also the 'No Devotion' option.

My players tend to pick Oracles and Witches over Clerics due to the restaurant menu problem that prepared casters have.

Also, there's this whole "gotta RP the religion" thing that doesn't gel with my players well - they tend to be rabidly Chaotic Whatever and few deities, if any, float their boat (Cayden being one exception).

You can be an Atheist cleric

In essence creating your character is "metagaming" by your definition. So, if you want to remove "metagaming" completely, then only use pregens.

Hmmm... How about turn undead? That is effectively torture to sentient undead, isn't it?

Navarion wrote:

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

Rape undead? you are sick?

Oh come on, Vampires and humans having sex or something equivalent is faaaaaar older than Twilight. Dhampires have to come from somewhere.

In the Balkans there are legends of dead husbands returning from the grave to feed on their wives and impregnate them. They are called vampires. I have at hand relations on those legends written in the late XVIII century, but the legends are much older.

So yes, sex with the dead returning from the grave is a old legend.

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

Rape undead? you are sick?

You are saying there is something that is wrong even if you do it to the opposite team?

It is the motivation behind the torture. I have yet to hear of a person raping someone or something for the greater good.

Argentina? "We do it to fight Evil Communism."

Ex-Yugoslav, used as a method of Ethnic cleansing?
Plenty of African states?

I don't know if it is a urban legend but apparently even the raping of African slaves in America was justified as a way to "better" their genetic patrimony.

A good number of those people are convinced they were and are doing it for the "greater good".

Faith and belief are powerful things. If the majority of society "believe" and/or have "faith" that what they are doing is considerd "righteous" by their god then who or what deems their actions as evil or wrong?

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

Rape undead? you are sick?

You are saying there is something that is wrong even if you do it to the opposite team?

It is the motivation behind the torture. I have yet to hear of a person raping someone or something for the greater good.

But there is just simply no way to get rid of that smell. Not even tomato juice.

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

Rape undead? you are sick?

You are saying there is something that is wrong even if you do it to the opposite team?

how about gross? is that better?

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

Good and evil is an 'us vs them or them vs us. Depending on which team you are on.

Of course.

And this gives you every right to torture them, rape them, flay the skins from their living bodies, hang them out to dry, and rape both their physical remains and their irredeemable souls once more.

All while knowing with perfect clarity that, cause you are the GOOD guys, you're doing something GOOD.

Thank you SO much for this... breakthrough in philosophical insight.

Rape undead? you are sick?

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

Well then it is a good thing that undead, sentient or otherwise, are not people and do not have the rights that living creatures do. Undead and Demons/Devils are "lost" or unrepentently evil and past redemption. So, their torture does not count as an evil act.

Ragathiel and Adriel exist, as do white necromancers. Risen fiends happen, and fiends made from the souls of innocents happen. Even evil undead are often destroyed specifically to release their non-evil souls to move on to their proper afterlife. And all of that is beside the point. Your target does not change the nature of the act.

Again, torture doesn't leave a mark on only the tortured.

What you're doing is reducing Good and Evil into two teams where the only real distinction is what's on their jerseys. Good and Evil mean more than that or any simple "us vs. them" conflict.

Good and evil is an 'us vs them or them vs us. Depending on which team you are on.

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

Well then it is a good thing that undead, sentient or otherwise, are not people and do not have the rights that living creatures do. Undead and Demons/Devils are "lost" or unrepentently evil and past redemption. So, their torture does not count as an evil act.

Ah, the good old reliable 'XXX have no rights, and so one can do with them whatever one wants' approach.

Young padawan; this way, fascism lies.

You can tell the Lich that is using the souls of innocents to power his unholy relics that it is a good thing that he has rights or else you would have thought of torturing him for information on where he keeps his phylactery in order to put his evil deeds to a permanent end but thank goodness for him you are not a fascist .

Ryu Kaijitsu wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

@scrmwrtr42 Actually my Inquisitor believes that undead *don't* "have rights and to be worthy of the same protections as living "people" or even animals". He sees them as echoes at best, mockeries at worst. But he would never torture an undead, he'd destro- er put it to rest. Then he could use speak with dead on the remains.

One can't use Speak with dead and similar abilities on dead that once were undead

The wording on the spell is a little weird.

Speak with Dead wrote:

You grant the semblance of life to a corpse, allowing it to answer questions. You may ask one question per two caster levels. The corpse's knowledge is limited to what it knew during life, including the languages it spoke. Answers are brief, cryptic, or repetitive, especially if the creature would have opposed you in life.

If the dead creature's alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive. If successful, the corpse can refuse to answer your questions or attempt to deceive you, using Bluff. The soul can only speak about what it knew in life. It cannot answer any questions that pertain to events that occurred after its death.

If the corpse has been subject to speak with dead within the past week, the new spell fails. You can cast this spell on a corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time, but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond. A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all. This spell does not affect a corpse that has been turned into an undead creature.

I can read it as either:

1) You can't cast it on a corpse that was ever, in the past, an undead creature
2) You can't cast it on a creature who is, right now, undead.

If you go with 1, there is also the question of what happens if the former owner of the corpse is currently a ghost?...

I would go with number 2 as it pertains to speak with dead.

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

I am glad that we cleared that up.
So, in conclusion, it is not evil for a good creature to torture an evil creature in order to perform a good deed.
Whew, finally it is settled.

Let's see. Simply put, good people can be pushed until they do evil things or can believe something is a "necessary evil". And do an evil action (i.e. torture). What is hard to understand about it?

One, or at least a rare, evil act does not automatically make you "evil". It would take more than that, well barring a massively evil action anyway. Example, a father tortures a kidnapper to find his kidnapped daughter. Evil act. He has lived an otherwise good life. Evil action, not evil alignment. A professional torturer who does it all the time. Tortures a criminal. Evil action, evil alignment (probably anyway). As for Paladins, they are held to a higher standard. Evil action, no Paladin powers (without Atonement etc. anyway). Again, simple to understand.

I think you judge the action (good, evil or neither). Good intentions are fine, but the road to H3ll is, as they say, paved with them. The intention can't excuse the action. The ends do not justify the means. Again, easy to understand.

You can complicate it endlessly. It's simpler if you remember that good and evil are objective standards in D&D / PF and they aren't synonymous with right and wrong (which would have to be subjective -- what is "right" for a good person is not "right" for an evil one).

My 2 cp of course.

Well then it is a good thing that undead, sentient or otherwise, are not people and do not have the rights that living creatures do. Undead and Demons/Devils are "lost" or unrepentently evil and past redemption. So, their torture does not count as an evil act.

cool

bump

Orcs have no souls? Are they all gingers?

I think that you should get a tiny mount and either enlarge it or shrink yourself when needed. That way your mount is always on your person.

Don't forget that you can get your peg-legs and hook hand enchanted, eventually.

moment of clarity.

Easy Peasy.
Abjuation combined with transmutation should give you all the spells you need to buff/protect yourself.

Other than mage armor that is conjuration.

I am glad that we cleared that up.
So, in conclusion, it is not evil for a good creature to torture an evil creature in order to perform a good deed.
Whew, finally it is settled.

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

Think of the question from a religious perspective. The Malleus Maleficarum written and used in the late 1400's was the go to reference material used by inquisitors on how to "properly" question a witch. Were the inquisitors deemed "evil" by the church or their "god"? Or we're they holy vindicators for the righteous?

Really? You're using a book that helped start a craze of burning innocent people at the stake after torturing them as an argument for something not being evil? I have no words.

That's like arguing that the ritual sacrifice of innocent children is fine because the Aztecs did it. I mean, they thought they were right so clearly it's a good act. Right?

It was fine for the Aztecs. Otherwise I think that they wouldn't have done it.

You people are the ones trying to apply modern real world ethics to a medieval fantasy setting. I was just trying to point out that when one has the backing of their "god", church, and the society at large then who is there to deem that it was evil other than the "victim" (or history/future)?
Yes, in hind sight the burning of "witches" was not good but to the people at the time they fully believed that they were delivering righteous justice in the name of their "god'.

Think of the question from a religious perspective. The Malleus Maleficarum written and used in the late 1400's was the go to reference material used by inquisitors on how to "properly" question a witch. Were the inquisitors deemed "evil" by the church or their "god"? Or we're they holy vindicators for the righteous?

here Zombie rights

IS it really evil to torture one inherently evil being if it means saving the lives of dozens of innocents?

Anyone here read the Cleric Quintet?

KNIGHTS OF THE REALMS

~Inquisition Symphony~

"Yokk tu Malektu be-enck do-tu."

The imp Malektu writhed on the floor in the center of the protective circle. The words of the exaction spell filled him with pain beyond comprehension.

"Speak, imp. Tell me which demon sent you to invade my home."

Malektu's eyes were filled with hate. "I tell you nothing, priest of Deneir!"

"Then your torment will be unending." Cadderly Bonaduce continued the spell of exaction, and the imp howled. Torture, even when inflicted on an imp from the nether planes, pained him. But sometimes, most often with beings from the nether planes, it was a necessary evil.

The young priest had found the imp sneaking around the great cathedral, Spirit Soaring. While Cadderly was well hated by many denizens of the Nine Hells, this imp was not here to harm him nor anyone else at Spirit Soaring. The imp had been looking for something, and Cadderly wanted to know what.

Malektu continued to hurl insults at the priest, threats of greater demons coming in the night to take all that he held dear. The threats were stale in Cadderly's ears; this was not the first time—far from—he had irked an imp.

"If not a name, then tell me what you were looking for, imp. One or the other. Then I will release you." Cadderly added steel to his voice, not giving any indication that the proceedings pained him. He continued the spell of exaction, Malektu's screams escalating into a perverse inquisition symphony.

Eventually, the imp broke. "Yote!" it screamed, amid heaving breaths and agonized whimpers. "I look for yote!"

That had the priest confused. "Yote? The mushroom?"

"Yes, stupid priest! I look for yote for the—" the imp stopped.

"You try my patience, imp. What was the yote for?"

"You say you let me go!" Malektu pleaded. "I tell you and you let me go!"

"The terms have changed. Tell me what the yote was for."

"You lie! Stupid priest lie! I never tell! I neEEEEEEAAAAAGGGHHHH!" Malektu's curses were cut off when Cadderly sent searing pain through the imp. "Tuanta Quiro Miancay!" it screamed through the pain. "Tuanta Quiro Miancay!"

Cadderly's blood ran cold. Tuanta Quiro Miancay, the Most Fatal Horror.

Malektu almost escaped back to whence he came, but Cadderly recovered and held him fast. "Malektu, ehugu-winance! Who is seeking Tuanta Quiro Miancay? What demon seeks the Chaos Curse?" He didn't need to fake the steel in his voice, now. He remembered all too well what the Chaos Curse was. "Answer me, imp!" He spoke the words of the spell of exaction more forcefully now.

The imp was afraid. He'd heard tell of how powerful this priest was, but he didn't truly believe it. Now that he was angry, Malektu was granted a small glimpse of his power. "E-E-Errtu! It's Errtu! And another balor, I know not his name. Gamin, or Gaenen, perhaps. I tell the truth! The truth!"

"Very well, imp. Be gone, and hope that I have no further use of you." He muttered an incantation, and the Malektu was gone."

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

Let me put it this way. I consider torturing undead the same as torturing Devils/Demons.

Is torturing Devils/Demons an evil action?

Yes. Yes it is.

How so?