Diffan's page

When D&D 5E came out in 2014, it was not an immediate smash. Pathfinder 1E was still quite dominant in the marketplace.

What happened?

Couple of reasons:

#1 Appealing to the Average/Weekend Gamer. This is, I believe, one of the biggest appeals for the game. It's simple enough on the player that his choices need not be in-depth min/maxing calculations where Theorycraft is largely irrelevant and pointless OR it can be far more in-depth if you want - still the disparity of someone who goes full-hog Min/Max and that Casual Person that doesn't isn't substantially high.

#2 It's Easier to Run. Seriously, running a combat encounter is so much simpler from a DM perspective and a lot of that is because there aren't TONS of sub-systems where people are constantly looking up rules and modifiers and adjustments based on a specific spell in it's application to that particular instant...it gets bogged down real quick. 3.5 and 4E (the latter due to too many Interrupts) meant that combat had the potential to turn into a slog, which got worse at you go higher level.

Just look at something simple like a bigger crit range. In 5E, the Champion just crits on a 19. Easy peasy. No additional rolling to "confirm". Now multiply that by 3-4 per character and/or monster. Yeah no thanks.

#3 It's more modular AND your options matter. Lets face it, the VAST majority of Feats in 3.5 (and PF1) aren't great or - at best - simply add a bonus, but it's largely Exception-based. Meaning that you can do X, but it usually a horrible idea that will fail unless you roll high. This feat eliminates that penalty. Meaning these feats are the "exception" to the normal rule. 5E just says "nah, those penalties are pretty dumb, lets ignore them." Like Firing into Melee. In 5e, the monster might provide cover but...that's it. In 3.5 it's Cover plus you take a penalty to attack rolls. More math means less time playing.

As for it being modular, well it's easy to change campaign specifics to make it more lethal or more heroic with very little change to what the PCs or Monsters do.

More dex to damage options. Yes I know this is "controversial".

I still don't see why this is controversial? What, it causes a bump in DPR? Oh heavens no! It makes strength less necessary? Yeah welcome to 3.5/PF where magic trumps everything! Honestly, I lump Dex-to-Damage haters in with those who thought Monkey Grip was too good (still laughing at that one) and how the Vow of Poverty is super broken (yeah, ok...)

I'm just glad we got the Unchained Rogue when we did.

You know all those feats and class features that let you do things that any person could reasonably try? I'd delete them.

I can disagree with this at all, lol. Mundane feats that basically let you not get punched in the face for trying a "maneuver" yea ditch those things OR at least let one feat cover them all under one umbrella.

How about starting here for a base of what people are looking for?

Well when theres nothing really there to begin with, I think its a good base lol. Id honestly take anything that helps facilitates that sort of Character concept better.

Secondly, run it where the enemies have the access to taunt and see how your players feel after encountering. Once more, I feel like taking away player autonomy is going to feel, at the end of the day, not fun. It introduces a challenge, yes, but overcoming it doesn't feel like a victory so much as it does, "Oh, good, that annoying obstacle is gone."

Unless you're suggesting that we also get rid of spells, such as Command, fear, sleep, confusion, or most spells of the Enchantment school then I don't think "player agency" is really that much of an problem. Heck at least with a taunt you're not losing your actions at all unlike many spells where's it's you stand there babbling like an idiot or drop everything and walk stupidity towards the guy commanding you.

I dislike very much the free pass magic always gets simply because it's magic yet Martials have an ability that's not as reliable, usually has caveats, and functions in a limited factor but its considered "broken".

· Goad (complete adventurer)
· Test of Mettle (knight 4th level, PH2)
· Antagonize (PFsrd)
· Boasting Taunt (barbarian 6th level, APG)
· Glowering Threat (fighter 2 exploit, Heroes of the fallen lands)
· Come and Get It (fighter 7 exploit, PHB)

And the list goes on...

Taunts, goading, pulling Aggro, and other distracting or creative non-magical devices have had places in D&D/PF for many many years so lets stop pretending that the notion is crazy or doesnt have precedent in TTRPGs

Once again, Sentinel and the Guardian sphere. If you're wearing a tin can and have a massive pool of hp to boot, most remotely intelligent enemies will ignore you in favor of that squishier-looking person in back casting spells and not wearing armor. But then you challenge them and even give them a bonus to hitting you, while if they try attacking anyone else, they take a penalty to attack and trigger an attack of opportunity from you. Suddenly, ignoring the tin can doesn't seem like as smart of a decision.

It may not be aggro in the sense of forcing enemies to attack you, but you're still forcing them to think about whether it's worth it to ignore you.

Or practically every defender-role character in 4th Edition. There was an article written long ago called "why fighter the Fighter?" and went on to list the dozens of reasons why vanilla flavored Fighters in 3e/3.5 (article was written pre-PF) were never engaged with until all the other squishes were dead or dropped.

Unless you were a chain-tripper or some other AoE-style warrior with tricked out Strength and size buffs (Certain items, enlarge person, Jotunbrud feat, etc) then people were running right past your slow butt to hit the allies. They'd suffer a one-shot AoO and continue on and you'd have to huff and puff to get back to your allies for that one attack standard action.

As for the Fighter itself - I think they're missing the mark in just how versatile the class should be in terms of handling of his tools (ie. weapons and armor). Just as an example - the shield. Every major warring culture in our known history has used a shield at some point. Every one of them knew a shield was a weapon. There is no arguing about it, it's fact. Unfortunately RPGs think this isn't so and PF2e isn't any different because they list it as an Improvised Weapon (history says otherwise).

Or how about the penalties to speed in heavy armor despite numerous examples of the weight being evenly distributed and not really hampering maneuverability OR speed yet here we are again, thinking your classic armored knight walked like a stiff-legged Tin-Man without his oil-can.

Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Rogue

Branch off these with Archetypes:
Fighter/Cleric = Crusader
Cleric of Nature = Druid
Wizard/Rogue = Bard
Fighter with emphasis on hand-to-hand combat = Monk
Wizard that foregoes traditional training = Sorcerer
Fighter/Rogue with emphasis on foraging, tracking, and camouflages = Ranger
Fighter with irresistible surges of wrath and fury = Berserker.

Done.

Igwilly wrote:

The Paladin, as any other class, has changed with time. However, they still are the Paladin. Just as the Wizard still is the Wizard, and the Fighter, and...

"Opening" up the Paladin to other alignments is not "changing" the class, is destroying it by changing their fundamental nature.
A fighter still fights. A wizard still casts arcane spells. Therefore, paladins should still be paladins, even if their abilities change over time.

And this article proposes a terrific approach to the paladin! Paladin fans have much to celebrate!
If you don't like the class, play another ;)

Doesn't work that way.

Part of the appeal of the type of hero the Paladin represents is the exclusivity.

If you open it up, you destroy that exclusivity, and you destroy the class.

So yes. You being able to play an CG Paladin of Milani damages the LG Paladin, because for us it isn't about what we can play. It is about the class's place in the world. You have to understand that.

Then that should be up to the DM to distinguish. If the exclusivity is important, the DM should then have the conviction to implement that on the game/setting/campaign. That's their job anyhow. Why does a designer in Seattle get to dictate what my Paladin does in Pittsburgh??

All of those words are perfectly appropriate to an archetype or prestige class type mechanic - not a base/core/whatever common 'class' as presented as the fundamental building blocks of YOUR character in the core rulebook. What they are doing here is saying that you can make a fighter yours, and make a rogue yours, and a cleric yours - but Paladin? No - you have to play Gygax's paladin.

Gygax's Paladin was actually a sub-path / archetype of the Fighter anyways. With more limitations and unique characteristics than what this and 3e shadows essentially turned out to be

HWalsh wrote:

The Paladin is unique. It isn't "just a class" like many others. It is special. Singular. Unique.

Then it probably doesn't belong with the other classes.

I'd say anything that wasn't Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard is actually unique. The big 4 is the primary basis for all others and they need niché specialities to make them viable concepts.

Diffan wrote:

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Pathfinder wasnt based on everything ever was, even more the core book. It was based on 3.5.

Which had a lot of roots in previous editions and their traditions. Still, is the Barbarian being saddled with an alignment restriction? The Druid or Monk or Bard? All classes in 3.5 that were alignment restricted.

And so they are in PF1? As far as im aware we dont know if they also wont be in PF2.

Or did they already list this for said classes?

If were going to be toted the "tradition" line then they absolutely should be. Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin all had alignment restrictions in PF1. It would make sense to maintain consistency

Ultimately it doesnt matter what other editions are rooted on what, PF literally thrived over 4th edt, which is also D&D. The idea wasnt to make a game about everything D&D ever made, it was made to be made out of 3.5, again even more in core.

The idea is tradition. PF1 is simply a houseruled 3.5 system. 3.5 grabbed ideas from previous editions. The traditions of the Paladin are deep and very setting thematic. A LOT of that was lost in 3e (mainly because the class lost a lot of steam mechanically compared to the Fighter).

So if were keeping tradition, why are we also throwing away very strong thematic aspects that made the Paladin special?

Diffan wrote:

Which had a lot of roots in previous editions and their traditions. Still, is the Barbarian being saddled with an alignment restriction? The Druid or Monk or Bard? All classes in 3.5 that were alignment restricted.

You can take or leave the "Any Neutral," but for the love of Brigh, remove the restriction on metal armour!

It seems as the designers really want to maintain a consistent image of what thematic elements a class exhibits and for the Druid, a fur-clad savage with primitive weapons and armor is the clear definition here. Im sure some waxing poetic about metal and wild-shape will crop up as the reason.

Remember, "its tradition"

Pathfinder wasnt based on everything ever was, even more the core book. It was based on 3.5.

Which had a lot of roots in previous editions and their traditions. Still, is the Barbarian being saddled with an alignment restriction? The Druid or Monk or Bard? All classes in 3.5 that were alignment restricted.

Hey there all,

Now.. I know this is a playtest, and the point is to try out new things, but stripping that Paladin of this core piece of identity felt like changing what it was, making something else. I am fine with doing that through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes, but it seems like we would lose something special if the class went away from its roots.

Then I guess we can also expect Barbarians to be non-Lawful, Druids to be any Neutral, Bards to be any non-lawful, Monks to be any-Lawful, Rangers to be any-good, etc?

What about it's roots in being Human only, or tithes, or having specific ability score requirements? Or only having a specific number of magical items?

These are just as significant in their legacy as the Lawful Good requirement or don't these count?

Honest Question.

If you stray from lawful good, perform acts anathema to your deity, or violate your code of conduct, you lose your Spell Point pool and righteous ally class feature

See, this always bugged me. If you don't act a certain way you become less, lose stuff, etc. I feel a Paladin fall should bring about a gradual change in abilities to reflect that. I mean look at your common "good guy goes bad" tropes - Anikan Skywalker didn't lose the abilities of a Jedi when he turned to the Sith or Arthas losing his abilities til after he gained Frostmourn, etc.

A Paladin falling should see a feature change, maybe his Lay on Hands hurt instead of heal, his spells can't fuel healing prayers but can be use for offensive powers, his righteous ally feature shifts, etc. I feel this better reflects the trope of falling from grace than just the faucet being turned off.

Just because you don't like them does not make them poor design choices.

I can't think of too many exclusion based mechanics that were ever really well received or didn't cause a slew of issues at the gaming table

Diffan wrote:

'Meh' 5th Edition did a better job.

First and only time I have had this thought regarding a class too.

This just feels significantly watered down with only mastery of armor replacing a lot of iconic paladin things.

And the threat to bring rainbow alignment paladins in the game only reinforces that notion that we are getting the, as Wei Ji so elegantly put it, American Pilsner of Paladins.

We haven't see all of the changes but I liked how Smites were tied to spells and burning spells for smites is cool and not a separate thing.

As for rainbow of Paladins, 5e has zero "fail" policies and doesn't strictly enforce a specific alignment. Its all tied to the oath and if you start to "fall", you basically transition to an Oath Breaker.

Also there have been Paladins of different alignments since 1e so..yeah. Not to mention that originally the alignment was design to curb some of their power since they were Fighter+ extra stuff. Now though, its outdated and archaic with no significant purpose but nostalgia.

'Meh' 5th Edition did a better job.

What the hell is a "grey Paladin"?

And neither 4/5e Paladins were weak. Heck the Paladin of Freedom in UA was pretty cool and had some good spells and features.

The Paladins of other alignments in Dragon had some cool concepts too but I'm too lazy to go dig it up to have a side-by-side mechanics comparison right now

Plethora of Paladins....
Anti-Paladin...
Paladins of different alignments from Dragon magazine and Unearthed Arcana...
The entire 4E game...
The entire 5E game...

All of them have Paladins that aren't forced LG and do/did just fine from both a mechanic and lore-based stand point.

4E was terrible. I don't know anyone who liked it. I never played it because I read the rulebooks and they were a huge turnoff. I sat thru some of other people's 4E games and it sounded terrible. Those people quit playing it after a short time because they thought it was terrible.

Pathfinder 2E sounds the opposite of terrible. I'm excited about it.

While I don't know you personally, I enjoy 4E, as do the people in our group. I can't comment on how others play but for the majority of our sessions 4E is done pretty much the same way our 3.5 and PF and 5E games go. There are differences but the game usually takes the same time, though low level 5e is quicker.

For example, using the at-will spell Scorching Burst to melt the ice covering a door or using the Cleave exploit to cut through wooden pillars supporting enemy archers or Sacred Flame prayer to light up a hallway. All of these are "attacks" but used in utility-based ways. I had a Ranger player use Twin Strike to shhot the candles out so it would be easier to sneak down the hallway or Ray of Frost to freeze a small area of water to cross over.

I dunno, maybe we do things differently? We have a blast with 4E (as well as other systems too) and a lot of that comes from the more freeing feeling that system gives us than previous ones.

I found it to be a reasonably enjoyable tactical game, as open to roleplaying as many other RPG options, but not very "D&D like."

I'd say that's an accurate portrayal. While I do see D&D-isms in there, they're not consistent with previous editions. Personally I thought it was a good thing, but I also know that's an outlier opinion.

So far what we've seen of PF2e doesn't have too much of a "4e vibe" for me - about the only 4e-ism I see that I don't like are the free +level to all skills.

Agreed. I'd like to see a more concrete product before judging it fully. I wasn't a fan of the Fighter preview or All About Actions but the Cleric and Rogue ones were intriguing. And mostly not like 4E.

What I don't see and I'm happy not to:

A complete lack of "noncombat" class abilities
Classes not getting anything permanent/distinctive past level 1(i.e. class abilities outside the AEDU structure)
Removal of traditional options like gnomes and druids
All spells turned into damage or healing with minor riders
"Noncombat" spells not usable in combat
Minion enemies that work on their own ruleset

You played 4E a handful of times, so I can only assume you had just the PHB to work with. I assure you, as the game progressed, all of what you stated (aside from Minion rules) is there in 4E.

Stuff that may be 4e-like but I'm still unsure about:
NPC/monster building uses different rules than PCs
Damage being weak compared to enemy hp

I've read a bunch of conflicting things about the last two so I'm reserving judgment for now.

I can only hope Monster math and building is different than PC. Its one of th3 single biggest offenders of making classes compete against one another. Not to mention really dumb rules and requirements on monsters that are just going to often die anyways. Plus the metagaming...oh dear the metagaming.

"The enemy wizard shoots 2 bolts of magic missiles."

Player: "Oh so he's only 4th level tops. He doesn't even have access to 3rd level spells yet!"

SteelGuts wrote:

4e was a boardgame, not a role playing game.

Preach it! (wow, it's like 2009 again!)

If only they actually played it......*sigh*

How about making Spears the amazing weapon they have proven to have been throughout history.

PCScipio wrote:

I played 4e Living Forgotten Realms up to 21st lvl, and I don't recall any encounter lasting longer than 2 hours. Meanwhile, I've been in a Pathfinder encounter that lasted ~10 hours over three gaming sessions.

I don't believe that.

Believe it. I still play 4E and most of our encounters (in paragon tier) are handled in under an hour. Better math from the Monster Manual 3 on, knowing how to play the game, cooperation with other players in terms of combinations that work well, and well designed encounters make for a fun - and fast - pased game compared to some of our mid-level 3.5 and PF games.

Due to the nature of RPGs, any critical failure system will effect PCs (who make more attack rolls than NPCs) far more than they will any individual NPC. This makes players feel incompetent and makes the game less fun.

So...no, this is not a good idea and in no way necessary to make the system work.

Well said. Crit fails always seem to effect martial characters far more than spellcasters and I can't see that as a good thing

"At 19th level, you become a legend with all simple and martial weapons!"

I'd have to see how weapons are sorted, but I'm not sure this feels good. When you are Legendary at every weapon, nothing seems special (Incredibles? =P )

At 19th level though, what's more impressive: casting a spell to gate in the heavenly host or being good at using all weapons...? To me, it sounds painfully dreadful and boring considering how often any one particular fighter uses a multitude of weapons to begin with. Pick a ranged, one slash, one pierce, one bludgeon - done.

*yawn*

Diffan wrote:

"How about attack three times? Go ahead (but you'll take an increasing penalty for each additional attack)."

So....more punitive things for Martial characters...

It's no more punitive than PF 1st edition. Except instead of having to wait for level 6 and spending "3 actions" to get 2 attacks, you can do it from level 1 for 3 attacks.

Heya John Lynch, good to see you buddy! I think PF1 was very punitive to Martial characters, especially in the mid- to late levels of the game. I mean it's why there's a billion Martial/Caster discrepancy threads out there lol.

Apparently soon because they've already talked about how they've removed some alignment restrictions but want to wait until the blog post.

I can only hope.

When will Pathfinder move into the 21st century and realize that alignment-based restrictions are simply silly and pose no basis for balance?

If we're dead set on forcing alignment, then I guess the best case is a base class like a cavalier or crusader with a LG Archetype called a Paladin, a LN version called the Enforcer, a CG version called the Freedom-Fighter or other derivative thereof, etc..

There has been a lot of talk about the future of Paladins so I decided to make a poll. Simply favorite the post you want to vote for. Please wait as I make all of the posts.

1. Paladins should be LG paragons with lawful and good energy coursing through them.

Considering that Paladins of different alignment have been around since 1st edition.....I say let them be any alignment but True Neurtal

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Over all this sounds nice, but can't say I am the fan for a penalty for extra attacks.

If all attacks are at full bonus, then all actions are equally important. Combat becomes move up, full attack repeatedly.

If your later attacks aren't worth much, instead of full attacking, you can attack twice and defend, heal, intimidate, or feint. It's a little more interesting. And, in some circumstances, you might just do one attack so you can fit in a regular spell or defending and healing.

So attacking goes from something cool to basically filling those options with anything else because the penalty is usually not worth the effort.

Could someone explain why iterative penalties are a dumb thing?

The penalty serves as an inherent reason to do more than just full attack. More than anything, Martials need better things to do and this is one step in the right direction.

Whether or not -5 and -10 are appropriate is another matter, but there may be feats/class features that reduce the penalties if you're attacking in a certain way, such as cleaving.

Going by 3.5/PF, the AC of the monster doesnt change. So what happens is your lesser attacks get to a point where the modifier is practically meaningless.

Also why? From a narrative stand point, what does the penalty represent? Do monsters get better at saves the more they resist a caster? Nope. Do casters get worse attack rolls after an initial spell requires a touch attack? Nope. Its exceedingly punitive to weapon-based classes for zero reason. Not to mention the extra book keeping, because a lot of people roll all at once to save time and now you must color code which dice go with which modufier. Its needless and dumb because it lacks narrative, is extra punitive to a subset of characters, requires more unnecessary book keeping, and consumes time.

Tallow wrote:

Diffan wrote:

"How about attack three times? Go ahead (but you'll take an increasing penalty for each additional attack)."

So....more punitive things for Martial characters...

*yawn* Why are weapon-based classes simply hated so much by PF?

Not sure how this is punitive. This is the exact same penalties that iterative attacks get right now. As a matter of fact, you get up to level 11 iteratives at level 1 now.

"Paizo hates martials" is really the silliest take from this. Everyone gets iterative attacks is a great thing.

*sigh* penalties on iterative attacks is a dumb thing, was a dumb thing, and apparently continues to be a dumb thing.

Diffan wrote:

"How about attack three times? Go ahead (but you'll take an increasing penalty for each additional attack)."

So....more punitive things for Martial characters...

*yawn* Why are weapon-based classes simply hated so much by PF?

Not sure how this is punitive. This is the exact same penalties that iterative attacks get right now. As a matter of fact, you get up to level 11 iteratives at level 1 now.

So we get a bad mechanic 10 levels eaelier...yay? For the record, diminishing attack modifiers were bad 18 years ago with 3.0 and continued to stink in 3.5 and in PF.

"How about attack three times? Go ahead (but you'll take an increasing penalty for each additional attack)."

So....more punitive things for Martial characters...

*yawn* Why are weapon-based classes simply hated so much by PF?

Hm, I've only played one session of Starfinder and while it was fun (I'm with my friends so that's not really based on the system) it felt a little....vanilla for our tastes. Kinda like d20 Future. Meh.

Honestly though, Pathfinder 2.0 would need to take a serious look at the system of d20/SRD and figure out if the base is still worth pursuing as a structure. What I'm talking about are the things that have been basically dropped like Full-Attacks, depreciating attacks, feats that are basically worthless or don't scale (Starfinder has quite a few of these), etc. Will LFQW still be a significant issue in PF 2.0? I really hope not.

It's free...

I'm not going to pour through 450+ posts and 10 pages, so with that said...

Alignment-based restrictions are, overall, a terrible idea. At one time they had their place, an attempt to curb what was otherwise seen as some broken stats and mechanics when it was hard to "become" one. Paladins back in AD&D 2e and before were hard to come by because they were hard to create. You needed requirements in specific stats and you had to be human. Back then people were sometimes asked to roll in order (sometimes 4d6, drop the lowest) or sometimes 3d6 in order. So to get the required 13 in Wis, 17 in Cha, etc. was difficult. But when you did they were basically Fighters with benefits.

Jumping to 3e and Pathfinder Paladins are OK but they're about on-par with Fighters. So they lost the requirements for Humans only. They lost the requirements for their stats. Yet retain the Alignment crutch. Why? who knows? Nostalgia probably.

The funny thing is, there have been Paladins of alternate alignments going back to 1st edition Dragon magazines plus the inclusion of the anti-paladin (basically a paladin in black armor who's evil). In 3e we also got Paladins of Slaughter (CE), Tyranny (LE), AND Freedom (CG(.

There's a reason why the next couple of iterations of Dungeons and Dragons has done away with all alignment requirements, it's because they're obsolete and doesn't necessarily make for great role-playing. It forces a particular behavior and stifles creativity.

Or looking at it another way, if Alignment restrictions are a good thing then why aren't all the classes saddled with them to force their stereotype? I mean how can you possibly explain Wizards being chaotic? Doesn't the study of magical forces require some basic discipline? And if you say you can be chaotic and have discipline, then how do you explain the Monk's required Any Lawful. And what about the Ranger, why did he lose his Alignment requirement of "Good"? I mean it made just as much sense for the Ranger to be Good as it did for the Paladin to be Lawful Good. Yet now we can have evil rangers running about.

I have to agree with Isonaroc on this: it's the use that you give to your abilities what defines them as an evil, good or neutral act. An unaligned ability can still be used for evil, but it isn't by definition evil.

Using an evil spell for a good action has two parts: an evil act which is casting and evil spell and a good act that is using it for doing a good thing. But you still have commited an evil act.

The whole point was to contest the idea that an Animate Dead spell has the Evil descriptor. "Manipulating dark energies" is a pretty lame cop-out if it's used for altruistic purposes, just as manipulating fire energies can also have evil outcomes like burning down a orphanage OR have positive outcomes like stopping a war-band of Orcs from killing villagers.

So if a Spell like Dominate has no alignment descriptor because it can be used to compel people to stop hurting themselves and others (ie. the intent and use of the spell determines alignment) despite the gross possibility to do harm to others or make them do things against their will (like killing their family and laughing the whole time) THEN why does Animate Dead have an alignment descriptor when the exact same principal applies? Heck I'd go on to say that even if the soul was "Trapped" inside the body we've already established that compulsion and imprisonment isn't inherently evil (because Dominate)....

Diffan wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Diffan wrote:

What's completely mind-boggling to me is that animated a soul-less husk, akin to a puppet, is considered [Evil] but completely Dominating a person's thoughts to do whatever you damn well wish isn't. Forcing someone's will to do you bidding should always be irrevocably [Evil].

Theres nothing inherently evil with the dominate/charm magic, it's what you do with them that can be evil.

Screwing with undeath and souls is inherently Evil.

Wait, you're saying mind control is perfectly OK? Taking away someone's will is fine so long as it's for benign purposes BUT using the skeletons of Orcs that just tried to kill you to plow the land you live on and doing other mundane tasks is inherently bad? Hahah....ok.

Yep. Because Dominate entirely relies on what you do with it. Just the same as Fireball. Creating Undead... always creates an Undead, which is evil.

Removing someone's will and imposing your own SHOULD be evil because it's 100% wrong on pretty much every moral compass known. There's no basis FOR Undead to be inherently evil, especially when they don't have a soul "trapped" inside.

Diffan wrote:

What's completely mind-boggling to me is that animated a soul-less husk, akin to a puppet, is considered [Evil] but completely Dominating a person's thoughts to do whatever you damn well wish isn't. Forcing someone's will to do you bidding should always be irrevocably [Evil].

Theres nothing inherently evil with the dominate/charm magic, it's what you do with them that can be evil.

Screwing with undeath and souls is inherently Evil.

Wait, you're saying mind control is perfectly OK? Taking away someone's will is fine so long as it's for benign purposes BUT using the skeletons of Orcs that just tried to kill you to plow the land you live on and doing other mundane tasks is inherently bad? Hahah....ok.