the Loli Brigade's page

The evil aura could be an issue later on not so much with your party really as usually, it depends how much compromise players are willing to make. Some npcs especially outsiders/magical beasts will never ever associate or grant aid to a party working with someone with an evil aura or in sometime worst cases even attack you on sight. Like for example, you will not even get close to a herd of pegasi to ask for help with someone with an evil aura.

Ah. I didn't think about magical creatures. I guess I would have normally lumped them together with normal NPCs. Thanks, I'll keep that in mind and add it to the list of things to be aware of.

Similar to some others, I don't think the character you want to play is Neutral, but I'm going back to your OP:

the Loli Brigade wrote:

... all she wants to do is abuse every pleasure life (and the afterlife) have to offer. She isn't aligned evil, and she knows there are lines that can't be crossed (while pesky LG PCs/NPCs are watching) even if they tempt her every step of the way.

Now, I play a True Neutral worshipper of Urgathoa, and I have to say that this seems more like a NE character. Not *strongly* evil-aligned, but more than likely over the dividing line. I suggest embracing that (along with the Champions of Purity text about lesser evils) when you negotiate with do-gooders. Devil you know and all that.

I've said it a few times in other posts, but I do exaggerate, and when I was making this thread I was still in the beginning steps of figuring out how all of this alignment working with evil auras reacted with each other. I've only played one module with this cleric and I think I played her much less extreme them I had first imagined. I want to try this character the way I want her to be, but I also don't want to ruin the game for everyone else. I'm going to be poking and prodding at what my character can get away with. I don't mind if an act is straight evil, but try to balance it out so her alignment doesn't shift and she is taken from me.

Another thing, which probably goes back to the whole black and white aspect of Pathfinder, I understand that there are strictly evil things people can find "pleasure" in like cannibalism or killing people to get off. Those kinds of things my character is aware of but still hesitant to try herself. Now there are plenty of other things that you can get pleasure from, like overindulging in food and drink, getting pleasure from doing nothing and lounging in a bed of silk and feathers, or more extreme things like self-inflicted pain or abusing drugs or magic. Just throwing examples out there.
Its not like the abuse of EVERYTHING you can get pleasure from is evil. Urgathoa is all about living to get the most pleasure you can while you are alive. Though including vile acts like desecrating bodies to bask in the still warm innards of your freshest kill, but not excluding lazing around on your couch while chin deep in a bowl of ice cream while you watch hours of anime. People have different likes and dislikes. Say your character whom you believe more neutral likes stamp collecting and wine. You are probably never without a glass of the stuff as you venture the entirety of markets for the one stamp you still have yet to find from the year XXXX with the special printing of Arodan punching Asmodeus in the nads. Your character is probably having the time of his life, ignoring the rest of the world while spending all day drinking stopping to eat from the nearby eateries garbage of recently tossed out pork. Who cares if it may be a little rotten, the Pallid Princess has strengthened your stomach to resist diseases anyway. Oh boy, you just can't imagine life any different. The thought of having to die one day and no longer enjoy free pork, wine and your stamps just makes you want to cry right then and there. But that's why you turned to Urgathoa. There may be others out there like you whom love stamps that can help you along to make sure you get the most, no more than that, above and beyond the worldly pleasures from these stamps and this wine. Your life is devoted to this, nay, your existence! It doesn't have to stop just because you have been released from your mortal coil. Urgathoa has proven it is possible to collect stamps even after life! Imagine, never having to stop collecting stamps or drinking wine. You can forever fill those pages of your collection books and drink every kind of wine from around the Inner Sea, years, hundreds of years, even after you have died. Doesn't that sound exciting? Doesn't that sound like it is what you believe you were put here to do?
Urgathoa has indeed chosen you while you were still in your mother's womb. May the Pallid Princess forever, after death, lead you down the true path of pleasure, of existence!
Urgathoa is labeled evil because she does like, and enforces even the most disguising and vile "pleasures" you can imagine. She also is the bringer of undead, as she was the first to escape Pharasma's gates to continue to enjoy the pleasures of the world even after death. So it is the aspiration of her followers to want to eventually die, but continue to exist and sate their lusts as undead beings.

I've gone over this with my friend (the one whom made me want to post this thread to prove that even evil aura'd clerics can still be played without being a detriment), during WotR which he is GM of. A totally different topic, but it is relevant, I think.
In Wrath of the Righteous, I play a Holy Tactician Paladin of Iomadae. In her character background (which we rolled) she was a mass murderer. Now, not of normal women and children, but she raided an underground child slave circuit and cut down every evil being, not giving them a chance to surrender. I play her with this motto; Evil is an incurable disease that can only be purged from the world by her sword. Now, Iomadae teaches that:

"She would rather convince evildoers to surrender

their arms in honorable surrender than cut them down in
the midst of battle, but she is fearless and willing to fight
for what she believes in."

Being left to interpretation, surrender is indeed an option for evil. However, being fearless in displaying your beliefs and willing to fight is also in her favor.

"She does not deal with

evil deities or fiends of any status..."

Giving evil an option to surrender is to offer them a deal, to let them live if they change their ways. Again, being left to interpenetration as is anything dealing with any beliefs. Which, from my characters point of view, she is within her rights as a Paladin of Iomadae to strike down obviously evil enemies. Evil aligned people that have been dealing with demons, demons themselves, evil brothers of anti-paladins, or child slave traders.

Now, would my overzealous Paladin pick out my cleric in a crowd and attempt to kill her? No, well not without witnessing evil acts. She would definitely approach her and demand she leave or keep an eye on her given the circumstances. But that is just my WotR Paladin, because she has the background and personality to make that a valid approach.
I have another Paladin from Carrion Crown whom worked with Dhampir, Werewolves, and clerics of Pharasma. If she were to detect my Cleric, she wouldn't give it a second thought and kept on her way to wherever. Mindful of the evil yes, but unless they were threatening the people around at that time then she wouldn't care.
Its all about characters and how they are played. The GM also has a big hand in how your character is influence because they control the world around them.

tl;dr Not everything should be Black and White, play your characters how you want them to be played, interpretation of rules, texts, conditions can be different, but that's the fun in it.

Alright, played the new Season 5 PFS with my cleric last night. It went pretty good, the RP was fun with my Cleric of Urgathoa and even though my friend whom is against an evil character in the party wasn't GM, he didn't complain about her. So, so far so good. Intimidating Minotaurs as level 1 as pretty cool and saved lives!

Actually those acts shouldn't shift alignment instantly. The rate at which they turn you in a direction is really determined by the DM. What makes it even more awkward is that the player could just continue acting like a saint despite having their alignment shifted. A single atonement can change you back too.

I use a lot of over exaggerations, but you understood my point. It does all come down to what the GM feels at the time. I hope most consider the situation and characters drives when making these kinds of decisions. If you are playing a Lawful Good Merciful Healer Cleric and that character is the local doctor of his hometown as well as spiritual guide for young kids, wanting to always make sure he goes out of his way to help anyone, especially children of all races, in need. If he came across a dying child after defending a town from raiding Orcs, and in the fight he had used all his spells. The child is far from saving and is dying very painfully and slowly. Would that character leave the child to die? Would he attempt to comfort him? Would he put him out of his misery? Is that considered evil if the dying resists being mercy killed? What if he doesn't resist and asks for it, is that still evil? It will all come down to what the GM feels he would like to address the action the PC takes. Some may look at it as only black and white, others could call it a gray area. Hell, some might say mercy killing is good and leaving him is evil.

MrSin wrote:

NoncompliAut wrote:

the Loli Brigade wrote:

...character with what I want to do. Which is to make a character that intimidates enemies and cuts them down with a scythe....

If this is really all you want, have you considered a Warpriest, from the playtest? Worship Erastil, who is, among other things, a farming god, use the scythe instead of a longbow, as the class allows w/o penalties, and then just be intimidating through RP and skills. This obviously will require a drastic change in your character's personality, but it is certainly doable mechanically. I understand if this doesn't work.

Warpriest is worse than just playing a straight cleric or inquisitor though. Changing to Erastil would (maybe) also change your weapon focus, and your character pretty drastically.

No, the revised warpriest is not limited to favored weapon for the weapon focus.

If the OP wants something that could be a "Warrior or Barbarian," then warpriest is bound to be more powerful than an NPC class. Really, warpriest could use any god for intimidate+scythe, I just thought Erastil would have the most reasons to accept a scythe, but some other god (Calistria?) might fit the character's personality better.

Weirdo did a good job at replying to this for me. What I don't want is a warrior or barbarian. Unless you have a really fun character in mind. I see those classes as cookie-cutter; "I want to one shot NPCs and be a badass", always taking power-attack and focus weapon at level 1, max strength, stat characters with no fun RP elements. Not to say there can't be fun ways to do it. It is just that when we played Skull and Shackles we had two arcane casters, three warrior-barbarians, and a divine. The three warrior-barbarians would completely wreck mobs, the divine healed them when they did get low and the two arcane (one being my Ice Witch) ended up being useless. My character ended up just putting ranks into engineer and siege weapons so that ship combat would go smoothly. Only a few times was my character actually needed in dungeons, mostly just detecting magic and buffing. Lets just say it wasn't the most fun campaign.

NoncompliAut wrote:

If the OP wants something that could be a "Warrior or Barbarian," then warpriest is bound to be more powerful than an NPC class. Really, warpriest could use any god for intimidate+scythe, I just thought Erastil would have the most reasons to accept a scythe, but some other god (Calistria?) might fit the character's personality better.

She doesn't want a warrior or barbarian, she's saying a warrior or barbarian would be mechanically stronger but wouldn't fit the concept, and she's frustrated that the evil aura (and the cost of masking it) is mechanically punishing her for her concept. A worshipper of Erastil or Callistra isn't fitting the concept.

Yes, thank you. I want my character to have a darker view on what she sees as "pleasure". Calistria does blur with Urgathoa with the aspect of pursuing pleasure, but Calistria isn't dark enough to emphasize the tragic character I want to play.

the Loli Brigade wrote:

BUT the main thing that the Inquisitor would be lacking is the fact that the character I have in mind is a misguided cleric that desires pleasure too fill the holes life has made in her.

I don't see why you couldn't play a misguided inquisitor that desires pleasure to fill the holes life has made in her. There's not a whole lot of conceptual difference between a cleric and an inquisitor - it's mostly a matter of methods. But if you're aware of the option and don't think it fits, that's fine.

It's not like I can't its just not what I want. An Inquisitor to me would be more fun to play as a Hellsing-esque character, hunting evil in the name of good. SOMETHING LIKE THIS. Also, yes, Inquisitors have the knack of being disconnected from their deities. Taking aspects they believe in to heart and disregarding the rest. With a Cleric, the character is more devote, dedicated, attracted too; worships, and lusts after with spiritual vigor that is both hard to break and reflected in everything they do. My character NEEDS Urgathoa, she wants her favor and her admiration. She needs it as its the only thing she has in her life which has been dedicated to serving her. The only problem is, she is still conflicted subconsciously about her "alignment". It'll be interesting to see how her story will go in the coming adventures. Maybe she can be redeemed, maybe she will fall deeper into the darkness. This is why I play Pathfinder. Its like writing, acting out, a book. You never know what will happen to the characters you grow attached too, hoping for the best but expecting the worst. Loads of fun.

Dasrak wrote:

Quote:

Would she still be picked out of a crowd and hunted down for her evil aura?

By and large, we're talking about Paladins here.

We always wind up talking about Paladins. I'd bet this thread wouldn't even be on the boards if it wasn't for the class with the detect Evil radar sense and a hard wired set of compulsions.

There are very few campaigns that would not be improved by the class' deletion.

Paladins are one issue yes, but they aren't the only one. I for one think Paladins are fun characters that can really benefit both sides of the board. The thing that bugs me is the conflict between good and evil all together. Pathfinder seems to have a very black and white view on alignment. A good cleric can't use an evil scroll of healing to save a dying child unless he is ready to have an alignment shift. A good deed is overshadowed by the fact he is using an evil means. Making the means not justify the ends in way of spell casting, yet good pcs can use evil allies to fight a greater evil. Using evil as a means to an ends yet not suffering an alignment shift, even paladins are within their code to have evil allies, they just have to make atonement afterwards.

Mojorat,
Wrath of the Righteous isn't the campaign that this cleric will be in. I am running a Holy Tactician Paladin of Iomadae whom is focused around commanding the mass combat and buffing with the mythic powers in smaller combat. Mythic powers kick so much ass by the way! WotR is a great campaign so far.

Since we are caught up on the books we have in that campaign, we are going to start a smaller set of games, most likely just doing PFS mods using the PFS format with our own house rules. These mods are where I plan to play this Cleric of Urgathoa. I was just taking quotes from the WotR campaign as an example of yes; there are indeed gray areas in Pathfinder.

Alright, back from work!

awp832 wrote:

the Loli Brigade wrote:

What better than an Anthropophagolagnia, Anthropophagy, Erotophonophilia, Sadistic, Necrophiliac (just to list a few) cleric of Urgathoa..

okay, I had to google a few of those and dude..... This is NOT a neutral character. That's blisteringly evil. How you could possibly think that sentence could ever describe a character that is of a neutral alignment is beyond my comprehension.

I think it was a joke :P

It certainly was, though she will have her twisted quirks. I am going to play her as a newcomer to the Pallid Princess' cult. She is open to anything, yet still afraid to try anything truly diabolical. However, things are subject to change as the game begins.

Given the other sources mentioned above, I would have to go into reading the other material to figure something out. I personally as a stickler for noting alignments like this would try to steer your character's story arc towards eventually being redeemed, probably as a cleric of Shelyn.

With what I have in mind, character wise, I wouldn't be upset nor surprised if this happened. Although, as a player I want to make the non-evil evil cleric thing work. To prove that this RP can be more than just black and white when it comes to choice in what you want to play. As I said somewhere up there, I find it upsetting that a game where you build characters from the ground up will limit you on what you can and can't play, especially when they offer so many resources to make such interesting and diverse characters.

Weirdo,
Inquisitor has crossed my mind. The Stern-Gaze would be awesome in increasing the intimidate factor I want to play out, and they have the domain-spells. Though with character traits, campaign traits, racial bonuses, and other traits I can make a pretty beastly intimidation roll at level 1. The domains are there as a Cleric and she can channel as well as give people the ability to heal from negative if needed. BUT the main thing that the Inquisitor would be lacking is the fact that the character I have in mind is a misguided cleric that desires pleasure too fill the holes life has made in her. I'm not so big on making characters that are only focused on the fighting and skill checks, but ones that are memorable and fun to play.

I think im confuser. " ....a cleric of urgathoa must be within one step.." i thought the whole discussion was about a neutral cleric. That is within one step.

Look as far as urgathoa goes she has neutral clerics its perfectly legitimate within the rules and golarions information supports it i really dont see the issue there.

The paladin stuff isa wholly seperate issue. But any paladin that just detects and smites wont have his paladinhood long.

It is a discussion about Neutral Clerics of Evil Deities, I was just reiterating the rule of clerics being within one step (ie NE Urgathoa; Clerics can be NE, CE, LE, or TN < The one we are talking about).

The issue is that there are (seemingly) no real rules that clarify whether or not Neutral Clerics with an Evil Aura can be a logically playable character without taking the campaign and tossing it aside because the Chaotic Good Archer, Neutral Good Cleric, and Lawful Good Paladin will have nothing to do with you or your company because of your Aura. Though it has turned more into an interesting discussion, I am still trying to find points of reason to give to my GM to let him consider laxing on her Black and White look at alignment and how they clash with each other.

I think the main point here is that if your GM is of the "rules are rules" mentality, and of the "anything evil will automatically be destroyed/shunned/feared/reviled by anyone non-evil" (which isn't actually a rule at all) then there's nothing you're going to be able to do.

I'm actually surprised no one has yet brought up the entire nation of Cheliax, whose rulers worship (and derive power from) Asmodeus yet is populated by people of all alignments. And merchants/diplomats/adventurers from all over the Inner Sea willingly interact with Cheliaxians.

I was waiting for someone to bring this up so I can put out a point I made with my GM.

We are as far into the Wrath of the Righteous as we can get, and many times he has mentioned that; "The Crusade will take anyone that is willing to offer help." Being that Crusades are not strictly made of Paladins (just the important figures). With that, I brought up the idea: If Demons and Devils hate each other, wouldn't the Paladins accept the help of the followers of Asmodeus? The Paladin's Code of Conduct does not flatly prohibit them from allying themselves with Evil, as long as it is in the cure of a Greater Evil. Devils are also Lawful, so they will not act out and mindlessly kill people like demons do, so the threat of the Paladin finding the alliance too damaging to their Code (though not 100%) is small. Especially against the Worldwound. Paladins just need to make atonement for their allying with evil.
So, in my interpretation of this, a Paladin would ally himself with a lonely cleric with a weak aura if they prove that they are devoted to stopping the greater evil in that campaign. Hopefully the GM won't make the Paladin actually need the spell Atonement for the sake of the game.

Alright, off to bed.

Weirdo,
"The paladin would just as likely attack a lonely level 1 cleric with a smite evil on sight just as likely as it would a level 11 Babau that's eating babies" Was a bit of an exaggeration, both my friend and I know that alignment is what matters to Smite. However, it does seem like he doesn't believe in gray areas. Reading a lot of what the devs are posting about evil and good aligned things, as well as the use of spells, IE using an evil spell for the sake of good seems to have a lack of gray area too. Which is where I can see where my friend is coming from since he is the type that will read and understand everything in the most literal way.
I'm sure my fellow friends would be fine with my character in the party, and I agree about the Pharasma Cleric and Sarenrae Paladin. It will eventually come down to some of the party and I talking to him when we finally group up to run our new campaign. I just wanted to see if there were any clear rulings or addendums that he would understand.

Mojorat,
I've read the Faith of Corruption solely for understanding Urgathoa better. A lot of her aspects are just as romantic as they are evil, in a twisted way, granted. However, as a cleric, you have to be one step. I could easily make a Warrior or Barbarian of Urgathoa and probably make a better stated character with what I want to do. Which is to make a character that intimidates enemies and cuts them down with a scythe. The idea of a cleric doing this fascinates me more. I like to believe that RP games like Pathfinder are more about having fun interesting PCs rather than cookie-cutter Barbarians with a Greatsword power attacking with 18 STR at level 1. I find that being unable to play an evil character somewhat against this idea that made me begin playing Pathfinder in the first place without having to jump hoops upsetting.

ChaiGuy,
I know, Undetectable Alignment, can help, but that is a use of one of my spells per-day. It is like punishing players that want to play a neutral character with an evil aura. Paladins go through the same issue with their code of conduct, except that they don't make every friendly PC hostile after detecting your alignment. Sometimes it is better to die defending your party from a horde of demons than it is to die because the NPCs that are supposed to be helping you hesitate. It doesn't help that Paladins have really strong special abilities.

Luthorne,
Yeah the GM makes the ultimate decision, but that's my problem. My friend that is giving me a hard time about this issue is one of our GMs. The main reason for the thread is to get examples or other opinions on this matter to try and convince him this can be done without as much trouble as he thinks it will cause. The thing about Paladins too, especially of Iomadae is that they would rather evil surrender its causes and reform than straight up kill them (Unless you are my paladin in the Wrath of the Righteous whom believes evil is incurable).

Overall, I'm not extremely versed in the rules of Pathfinder and I'm not 100% on how things are meant to be played. I'm just trying to find a way to make this work without making my character a detriment to the party.

Orfamay Quest,
My friend is a very rules oriented gamer. When it comes to how things are written, even if they are guidelines to let you shape the RP the way he wants, he will take the most literal route. Same thing with NPCs, especially paladins which I believe he thinks are all cookie-cutter in their responses to things evil. The paladin would just as likely attack a lonely level 1 cleric with a smite evil on sight just as likely as it would a level 11 Babau that's eating babies. Pretty much, what I'm trying to do with this thread, is try to either find a solution to this problem in the books or get enough people to say: It's alright to let things slip for the sake of having fun.

Ciaran Barnes,
This "argument" has come up before between my friend and I. I wanted to make this character back when he ran Council of Thieves but shot the idea down saying that it would cause problems with the main group of NPCs you are supposed to be helping. Though I believed, after playing it, they would accept almost anyone in helping them.

MrSin,
Yes you may. You see, I usually play Paladins in every campaign we play. Save for the Pirate campaign where I played a witch that was fascinated by siege weapons. Having scanned the Gods and Magic book to understand Iomadea better (as all my paladins serve her), it was the Pallid Princess, Urgathoa, whom caught my attention. As most of my characters have a dark secret they are struggling with or trying to atone for, even as paladins, the thought of playing a character that is blatantly twisted seemed like fun. What better than an Anthropophagolagnia, Anthropophagy, Erotophonophilia, Sadistic, Necrophiliac (just to list a few) cleric of Urgathoa whom begins every combat situation by intimidating even the strongest looking opponents with promises of showing them the true pleasures of the afterlife by way of her scythe. Though, for the sake of maintaining alignment/in case there are strongly opposed PCs in the party, I'll probably tone down on the more extreme end of her list of pleasures.

I have only ever played in home campaigns with a group of my friends, and we are about to begin a new campaign. To cut a long story short, I want to play a Cleric of Urgathoa. My friend whom is one of our GMs, keeps shutting down the idea, saying it it would be impossible as her evil aura will cause too much problems for the party. (Not in those words exactly)
Not wanting to play a straight up evil cleric, I've stated her our to be true neutral, though she will still have the evil aura given to her from Urgathoa.
Now I want to just get a few opinions on the matter. Even though this cleric has an evil aura, all she wants to do is abuse every pleasure life (and the afterlife) have to offer. She isn't aligned evil, and she knows there are lines that can't be crossed (while pesky LG PCs/NPCs are watching) even if they tempt her every step of the way. Would she still be picked out of a crowd and hunted down for her evil aura? Would interactions with Good NPCs be impossible because of her aura and not her alignment? Would the Cleric or other PCs be able to make diplomacy to convince NPCs that even though she follows an evil deity she is not evil herself? Could the game play as normal without having to stop to make rolls at every "friendly" npc encounter? Would RP even be an option with Paladins she may come across?

Well, I am going to sleep. I'll be back in seven hours to see what everyone has to say, so if you have a question, don't expect a quick response. Thanks!