Necromancer Paladin's page

Starfinder is a setting where you have undead priests of sarenrae, since Sarenrae doesn't believe undead are irredeemable, and there are even undead PC races.

I think it's important to realize that starfinder is a different setting to golarian made by different writers with different tones in mind so some things are going to be different.

As far as I could see, James Jacobs main reason behind wanting undead to always be evil outside of niche circumstances in Golarian is because he prefers for undead to always be an element of horror, because of how big a horror fan James Jacobs is. But starfinder uses undead in more than just horror contexts, it has whole planets of undead who are just average people. It has heroes and allies who are undead.

As for "pharasma doesn't like it" "it disrupts the natural process of souls", that doesn't imply it as something actually morally bad. Pharasma is a Neutral god, not a Good one.

If it ends up not being in the gmg I'd just use the rules from unchained.

Is it really? If all my mortal life I have lived for destruction and proving my worth through conflict, what good are the good planes for this kind of person?

If I am truly Chaotic Evil to bone, the Abyss is the real heaven. Demons love the way it sucks. Downside, you are abyss worm and that kinda sucks. Upside, the outer plane supports every single desire you have and you are given free reign to do whatever you can in your power.

Being Chaotic Evil does not equal enjoying: "being weak regardless of my previous skill, constantly hunted, eat filth, and probably be violently murdered at best".

There is no "punishment" in the final judgement, because all planes are equal in suffering and bliss.

This is blatantly false, even if you're the associated alignment, going to one of the Fiendish Planes is a horrific experience with no redeeming features.

I wonder why this is even a problem? In the end it counts what you do with your undead. Using an minor evil spell to do a good deed, should be in the end a good deed (we are not talking about Soul Bind here). "But you don't have to do necromancy which is inherently evil!" Yes it is inherently evil, but its not evil to the degree that its by default damning.

Actually in the later RPG-line books, they put in the rule that every three castings moves you a step closer to the evil alignment. So it's damning regardless of your motives or actions.

By forcing a corpse to be animate and obey your commands, you are denying it the respect a formerly living person deserves and desecrating its corpse.

Alternatively you could be disrespecting the formerly living person by ignoring their wishes.

That is the definingly Evil act, the desecration of the body.

So desecration of the body is an evil act now? Better make anyone who uses the trophy subsystem from Ultimate Wilderness evil.

Would you want to see the body of your deceased loved ones used for some magic-user's amusement?

Why are you assuming it's for "some magic-user's amusement"? Skeletal undead don't even look like the person so you wouldn't even recognize them to begin with.

If the answer to that isn't no, you need more help than I'm qualified to give you.

I know multiple individuals (including a few family members) who wouldn't care about being reanimated as undead. They have the view of "Well if I'm dead I don't really care what happens to my body, so anyone can do whatever".

Then the culture is evil. Evil is not a subjective thing in Pathfinder and other games with an alignment system, it is an objective individually existent force based on cosmic nature. Certain actions are Evil because the Multiverse itself reacts negatively to them.

Yes. And yet you were giving a cultural reason (thus subjective) for something to be considered objectively evil, which is ridiculous in my eyes.

As far as I'm concerned, creating mindless undead is a form of desecrating a corpse. Bodies should be laid to rest in the way considered proper by the deceased's religion, not forced to stagger about and obey commands from a wizard. Desecrating a corpse is an evil act, regardless of that corpse's actions in life. It has been considered a grave misdeed in every culture in human history, so why wouldn't that hold true in a fantasy world? Yes, I can see a very few specific instances in which it may be considered tolerable to raise a zombie or skeleton (using them to fight off a greater threat, using them to train people to fight undead), but even then it would be considered an act of desperation or absolute necessity, not a normal every day occurrence.

And what if the culture is pro-undead?

Ah yes, because the edition where no matter your ancestry or class you have methods to customize your character through Ancestry/Class/General/Skill Feats so that you have choices every single level is obviously going to remove character customization.

Yes.... because the edition where they're specifically limiting everything to a specific setting is totally the one where it'll be universal?

One thing that should be noted in this discussion is that Paladins aren't just "Holy warrior" class in 2e, it's "The Master of Armour" class.

It'd be very annoying and very dumb if you can only be a master of armour if your lawful good and never lie.

The Golarion already has non-LG paladins in it from 1e RPG-line.

you will reek of evil as a lich regardless of your alignment.

That was true in 3.5e but not in Pathfinder. A good lich will have a massively strong Good Aura in Pathfinder if you follow the rules for the Detect Alignment spells.

Ask your GM to ignore the animating undead = Evil rule, or cast Protection from Evil often.

If alignment was prescriptive instead of descriptive than it would be impossible to ever change your alignment non-magically. -.-

I'm not really sure if this is true. Because there's basically nothing you can do in a world with subjective morality only that you couldn't do in an alignment world like Golarion either.

Well there is the whole, being a paladin who can do stuff normally regulated to alignments that aren't Lawful Good. For example, a Paladin who animates the dead, be freedomy, a paladin who tortures to get information, having a non-good party member with the aim of redeeming them, or simply a paladin abit more cut-throat than good-alignment allows. And it still be recognizably be a paladin. Still has the code (not just any code, but the code of being a paladin with the alignment specific text removed). Still smites evil. Still detects evil. Still is powered by their noble convictions.

On the other hand, you don't have to play a paladin as the shining star of lawful stupidness either.

No one is suggesting that paladins have to be lawful stupid just because morality is objective.

And what does detect evil really means in a world where a lot of evil persons exist that didn't ever break any law?

Evil people who don't break laws existed already, many lawful evil individuals live for that sorta thing. Subjective actually makes it possible to have detect evil that only detects people that broke the law.

Yeah there are beings of absolute alignment. But as I see it, those beings are an additional layer to an otherwise morally subjective cast of people, not a replacement.

No one is suggesting that characters with alignments all fit into a specific mind-set/personality based on their alignment. But they aren't morally subjective... They are objectively a certain alignment, in a universe were people know it's objective, and where you can get amulets which tell you "Don't do that because that's evil" whenever you consider committing an action that is Evil regardless of whether you know if it's evil or not.

It's cheesey as hell, but there is no rule saying that you cannot make more than one undead from one creature.

It's just... sorta unfeasible in general to spend so much effort on one dead body (outside of the Create Greater Undead spell), so there isn't much reason for putting in extra conditions since it's such a niche case.

I mean, even if you go with the idea of it not being a "corpse" after a certain level of taking body parts away, one way I've seen people theorise creating undead from one person was to cut off the finger of someone who is dead, raise that person from the dead from the finger, animate their corpse, repeat.

Some GM's might say a torso isn't enough to animate a zombie, but few Gm's would argue that a body lacking a single finger is enough to prevent reanimation.

This argument demonstrates why the alignment system is dubious.

Yeah... there's a reason why I use the subjective morality rules rather than alignment.

Didn't JJ say they were always evil?

He said they are always evil, except for ghosts and rare unique individuals if it tells a good enough narrative but generally he thinks that undead should always be evil because he prefers that narrative. But it is important to note that JJ does not have influence over the RPG-line, JJ's views only apply to Golarion and sometimes his views conflict with the rules of the default game (another example would be clerics working different to Golarion).

Especially since a flesh golem still requires animate dead

And involves torturing an elemental.

Its a description of a ghost.

That's like saying a description of iron ore is a description of a sword....

Don't use the rules to be pedantic.

I wasn't using the rules to be pedantic.... I just was correcting the assumption that phantoms are undead, which is a position of fluff and rules... Phantoms and ghosts are very different.

The description of a phantom implies that either they are undead who just sort of shrugged that aspect off or they kind of escaped the natural process by which most ghosties become undead.

Phantoms aren't undead who aren't linked to the plane of negative energy at all, they are outsiders who have a link to the negative energy and ethereal planes. The description of phantoms isn't vague, it has them as souls that haven't become undead yet and are fighting to avoid being dragged into the negative energy plane which would turn them into undead.

In Blood of the Night it reads

I'm pretty sure there is a Golarion book that says all undead are evil except for ghosts and rare unique individuals who might become neutral and even more rarely good. Undead Revisted I think. But that's a golarion houserule like clerics needing to worship a deity.

Technically there are undead that aren't intrinsically linked to the undead plane but they aren't called that term.

Only creature's like that I've heard of are deathless and those don't exist in Pathfinder.

That's a general statement, and like almost ALL general statements, there ARE exceptions. Undead are generally one of them for this one. As are creatures that are of an alignment subtype.

Except it lists it's exceptions..... It's a general statement that then immediately says the exceptions. Undead is not one of the exceptions. If you want to houserule it to affecting undead at your table that is fine, but RPG-line undead fall under the general rule (Note: Golarion has campaign-setting text that overrules this if you are playing in Golarion).

I can't find this statement. Could you link to it?

The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.

According to the Bestiary you undead can change their alignments just as easily as a humanoid can.

I thought things with a exoskeleton can become a skeleton as well

Not through animate dead, the spell says "The corpse must have bones."

Though they can become skeletons as long as the animation isn't from the spell animate dead, since the template itself only requires it to possess a skeletal system (which an exoskeleton is). Though, there is no sign a mimic possesses an exoskeleton.

dose it keep its adhesive ability?

I think Skeletons and Zombies would retain adhesive because of the line "It retains any extraordinary special qualities that improve its melee or ranged attacks.".

Yes it's a valid target, as nothing prevents it from becoming a zombie as long as it is mostly intact. Whether or not it can become a skeleton would be dependent on whether or not your GM thinks mimics have bones.

Take fire elemental, swap fire subtype with negative energy affinity, swap fire damage for negative energy damage.

Just before the spell would end; cast Dimensional Anchor at caster level 9 on it, create a magic circle against evil or chaos, create a calling diagram with magic circle, start casting planar binding. Part way through the last minute of casting, the demon will return to the abyss for less than a minute (not really much they can accomplish or communicate) giving them a tiny glimmer of freedom (one of the major focuses of chaotic creatures), but then it's suddenly taken away and they return to your service.

This is why I play without alignment.

But Pathfinder already has optional provisions for removing alignment, although despite many alignment flame threads, including several that included posts that complained about alignment and wished it gone, I have only once stumbled upon a thread on these messageboards in which some posts mentioned actual use such provisions.

They work rather well, just be careful with having paladins and antipaladins in the game since sometimes their loyalties lead to them not coming across as many "evil" enemies as they're used to.

Those are not out yet.....

Yes they are.

Ugh, wish the site was working so I could get the ghosts and ghoul classes.

Just a note, Bards aren't alignment restricted in Pathfinder anymore.

Huh, I've been houseruling that since 3.0 so I never noticed. Neat.

Interestingly if [Evil] = Evil act then you can highlight the distinction between "evil in a cosmic sense" and "evil in a mundane sense" by having people who have alignments that are a step away from their true personality because they happened to keep using aligned magic. Show how you can do acts of Team X without intention, but count as team X because those are the rules of the cosmos.

Or have a member of an alignment restricted class like a bard or druid using aligned magic to try and retain their powers despite their personalities or actions.

That's quite a stretch. I've yet to encounter a player who had a spellcaster capable of summoning demons yet so naive that he couldn't understand what a demon really is.

I've had one. Sorcerers... perfect excuse to play a spellcaster who doesn't actually understand the ramifications of toying with the worlds physics on an minutely-basis.

At least this situation is in better than in 3.5e, where you could actually conjure demons and then just cast a spell to make them become good.

Yeah, I know this thread advanced about a hundred posts while I was out teaching chess, but I have to respond to this.

I apologize to everybody on this thread. I thought the CONTEXT of my post was clear. I think most of you got it. Necromancer Paladin seems to have been the only one I've see so far that didn't, so I'll spell it out for him.

The post I made was specifically in context to a deity preventing his clerics from casting spells with an opposed alignment descriptor. You know, since this thread is all about spells with alignment descriptors.

Had this thread been about those sneaky mean bastard deities who refuse to grant spells to their clerics because the spells are not on the cleric's class list, well, I would have been incorrect in what I said. But since the thread was all about alignment descriptors, I think my original post that Necromancer Paladin failed to grasp stands well enough on its own, within that context.

... I knew all that already -.-

It seems you have misunderstood me. I was saying that "Just because it isn't granted to clerics of good gods =! it's evil" just that is isn't provided to clerics of good god. Clerics in settings wouldn't even know it's on the cleric spell list anymore, since they never had it. To the clerics in the game, there is no difference between the god not giving you a spell because of alignment and not getting a spell because it's from a domain that you didn't your god doesn't provide. Why doesn't a good cleric get prestigitation? Because it just happens to not be provided by their god. That's all. That a good god not providing a spell doesn't mean it's an evil act. It just means the god isn't giving you that spell.

It comes from Paladins doing double smite damage against them. Also I was under the impression that outsides and true dragons where tied to fate itself and could not change alignment even slightly. Apparently I was misinformed on that part.

According to bestiary the only creatures that have difficultly changing alignment are non-sentient and planar creatures, and even then it says about how there are outsiders of non-standard alignments but they are rare and generally outcasts.

I think paladins probably get extra smite against them because it's Knight vs. Evil Dragon.... I mean, undead also don't have to be evil, but dev's sometimes forget that.

Actually, the bestiary says aligned outsiders can change their alignments. It's just immensely rare. I can understand paladins being very suspicious and assuming that it is a trick though.... since... well... who would think that it's being honest.

If a demon is repenting it means someone magically altered his alignment.

Not true.

Same for a chromatic dragon.

Where did people get the idea that true dragons are tied to their alignments? I've seen people say it everynow and then in alignment discussions but I've never seen a source.... Either way, that's not how it works in PFRPG. Chromatic dragons can change their alignments as easily as a kobold or orc or goblin or gnoll or gnome.

You may not know every detail but you will know the alignment. Listen to yourself, you're basically asking me how is Good good and Evil evil at this point.

No. Asking how the individual knows that x specific thing is Good/Evil/Unaligned when there is no observable method without casting detect evil/good/see alignment or dying.

People have changes of heart all through out their life all the time.

You'll note I specifically asked about how B) was possible outside of a "person changing their alignment through non-magical means" that anyone can do. I am asking how you think B) is possible when it comes to you saying " b) their mindset and ethics and morals will start to "warp" and they'll either stop because having your outlook quickly change would frankly be rather shocking".

No one would think "I'm Chaotic Good" but they might think that "I am distrustful of power because it is so easily abused and I want to stick up for the little guy because that's the right thing to do."

This is made even worse by the fact a CE individual could also think "I am distrustful of power because it is so easily abused and I want to stick up for the little guy because that's the right thing to do." I think it'd be pretty hard for people to guess their alignments without external stimulus or extreme action.

If they just do it to ping as good or constantly just for fun dies then either a) nothing will change or b) their mindset and ethics and morals will start to "warp" and they'll either stop because having your outlook quickly change would frankly be rather shocking, or they might like the new way they feel and think and keep at it, slowly and actually changing their alignment.

Where are you getting the impression that b) is possible outside of a person changing their alignment through non-magical means?

Note: the game does not have rules for going into shock the first time your character kills a person in their life either.

Generally people don't then say that "first time you kill someone You Have to go into shock" and act as though it is a rule of the game though... And while going into shock isn't in the rules, alignment and alignment descriptors are. And the descriptor rules do not suggest such a thing.

We joked he was barred from summoning babaus ever after because the Babau society was protesting against his sending of babaus to do menial tasks.

The babau society sounds like a place with a lot of jelly and backstabbing.

1) By the logic all arcane and psychic magic must be evil.

Oh no wait it's good.

Oh no, it lawful.

Or wait, it's Chaotic.

That's why I argued against it. I think such an argument runs on flawed logic.

3) If he keeps casting evil spells and risks going to an evil afterlife then he's not Neutral.

Why is that different from "If he keeps casting good spells and risks going to an good afterlife then he's not Neutral."? Sincerely wondering.

4) You say ping, I say high, basically the residual effects effects of using aligned spells.

I was not aware you considered the entirety of the alignment system a high... That is a rather humorous take on it I must say :p

5) It's always been like that, if not outright stated than heavily implied throughout the history of this game for as long as I can remember.

I... think that might have been something from some GM you've played under, because I've never heard of that at all and it doesn't seem to be anywhere it he rules.

Hell, Abbadon, Abyss - Planes of Evil.

Fiends - races made out of Evil.

Heaven, Elysium, Nirvana - Planes made out of Good.

Angels - races made out of Good.

I'm sure all here agree that of that Pathfinder runs of objective morality with cosmic evil and good and law and chaos being literal things, but I believe the intention was a request for the source of "Someone who's never cast an evil aligned spell before who did so would feel a wrongness with it if they weren't Evil themselves."

1)AGAIN, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SPELL NOT BEING ON A SPELL LIST, AND BEING BARRED BY YOUR GOD FROM CASTING A SPELL THAT IS.

Not when it comes to the argument of "If your good god won't let you cast it, it must be evil". That is that reply was to.

2) It's the default for Pathfinder and no one said otherwise to my knowledge.

Actually, the default for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is rules neutral. Golarion has alternate rules in some places, such as clerics being required to worship a god to get spells or undead having to be evil except in very rare cases.

3) It doesn't.

According to the arguement of [Aligned Spell] = Aligned Act, yes it does. That interpetation has it that if you cast enough [evil] spells, you will drift to the evil alignment. So a perfectly neutral person repeatedly casting protection from good throughout his life will end up in an evil aligned afterlife.

5) According to you since you keep bringing up the "ping as Good".

Ping as good is in reference to people casting Detect Good/Evil/Alignment spells. Ping a good doesn't mean some sort of high... alignment change isn't a temporary thing unless you change your course of action.

edit:

Someone who's never cast an evil aligned spell before who did so would feel a wrongness with it if they weren't Evil themselves.

Wait. Is this an actual thing? I've never heard of it before. Such a thing would have very large ramifications.

Let's not let the thread turn toxic.

I do personally hope that it doesn't turn toxic.

Remember, Good isn't pragmatic. It's hard to justify using Evil spells based on reasoning of "they work better". So it's not so much that the Evil spell "contaminates" you, but more that you're making little choices that pile up and, eventually, your character doesn't care so much about being Good and Noble and more about how well he performs in combat. Alignment and Action ought to be reciprocal for good roleplay; the alignment on your sheet doesn't dictate your actions but it also isn't just an inert element. Moral tension can make for very good roleplay if handled well. Maybe decide if your character really is devoted to being NG or if he's starting to slide into TN territory; and roleplay accordingly.

What if your character is unaware of the descriptor of the spell? I've seen sorcerers with very low spellcraft that wouldn't know such things.

1)Yes there is. If a Good aligned Cleric researches a way to cast a divine prestidigitation they can do so. There is no way for a Good aligned Cleric to research and cast Blasphemy however.

*replace prestigitation for any spell a good cleric can't cast*

2) If no non-evil deities have the Community domain in setting the I'd be inclined that communities in that setting are evil. Not the case in Golarion.

We are not talking about golarion. In golarion I'm pretty sure it's an evil act to cast an evil spell, I mean, it's James Jacob's setting and CampinCarl9127 has already shown James Jacob's views on the matter (though in PFS it is houseruled so that isn't what happens). So we must be talking setting neutral based on the rules.

3) No, magical masturbation will not get you a free ticket to heaven.

So why does doing the exact same thing ethically get you a free ticket to hell?

You don't do good actions because you're Good, you're Good because you genuinely do good actions.

Or, because you want to Ping as good :P

5) Then they do a quickie to get a Good high. That's it.

According to what?

For PFS you are fine, The casting of the spell is explicitly not an evil act

And the rules tell us how the spells interact with alignment, so we know what protection from good does vs a good foe and a non-good foe. Nowhere does it state that casting [evil] spells is an evil act.

It's fluff/house rules/setting specific when you state otherwise, not a rule.

This is just perfect. Even in PFS it isn't evil :P

1) oh duh me, because it's not on their spell list. But not being on one's spell list is completely different than being barred from casting spells that are.

In setting, there isn't really any difference. They just aren't able to cast them. Nothing suggests it's because doing so is an aligned act.

3)That is a confusing statement that is at odds with itself. Saying that Good Gods don't use Evil powers doesn't mean it's Evil? That's asinine.

No, that's like saying because an Evil god has the domain of community in a setting and no good gods happen to have that domain, that communities are evil. Just because a non-good gods are the only one with access to it, doesn't mean it's evil. It just means they don't have power over friggin demons.

Another question. Say my neutral character wants to get into a good afterlife, so he regularly casts protection from evil over and over and over, and does not do any other acts in regards to Good or Evil. Will he get into a Good afterlife or a Neutral afterlife?

or actually start to turn good and might reflect on what he's done as he develops morals.

Alignment does not alter a characters personality or mindset.

If a player if just spamming good spells to scribble a G on their character sheet with no regard to their characters mindset or motives they're a f&~!ing moron and deserve to slapped.

Actually it's pretty in line with most of the evil characters I've played... There is a good degree of benefit from detecting as good when your evil.