I was thinking that for the purposes of these spells, creatures with an Alignment subtype should appear more strongly than those that are merely Evil. For instance, an Efreet is a Lawful Evil outsider. However, for the most part, it is made of fire and magic, not evil. It had 10 Hit dice, and thus has an Strong evil aura (as well as a strong Lawful aura.) A Bone Devil also has 10 hit dice, but is made of solidified Evil (and Law), and has the [Evil] (and [Law]) subtype. However, its aura is no stronger than that of an Efreet.
It seems reasonable that the Bone Devil should have a stronger Evil aura than the Efreet.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems reasonable that the Bone Devil should have a stronger Evil aura than the Efreet.
I've long used the houserule that having a subtype adds on degree to the aura. The other way to do it is to add a set quantity of HD-equivalent units for a subtype, so that having a subtype always adds 4 or whatever HD to the calculation.
I've long used the houserule that having a subtype adds on degree to the aura.
That seemed like a reasonable fix. Does that apply to Clerics as well?
Edit for clarity: I mean are clerics treated as Efreet or as Devils, to use the example above.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I've long used the houserule that having a subtype adds on degree to the aura.That seemed like a reasonable fix. Does that apply to Clerics as well?
Edit for clarity: I mean are clerics treated as Efreet or as Devils, to use the example above.
I would only use it for something with the subtype. Unless the cleric is an outsider or has some other template or something that gives it the subtype, I would just use straight HD.
It would be important to only bump them if the subtype agreed with their actual alignment: A bone devil who became NE should be bumped in the Evil axis, but not the lawful one. However, under the 'are affected as if it was the actual alignment' rules of the Lawful subtype, he'd retain the same Lawful aura as the Efreet (rather than being one step up.)
If that same Bone Devil somehow became CE, he'd have a Strong Law aura as well as a Strong Chaotic aura, and an Overwhelming Evil aura.
It would be important to only bump them if the subtype agreed with their actual alignment: A bone devil who became NE should be bumped in the Evil axis, but not the lawful one. However, under the 'are affected as if it was the actual alignment' rules of the Lawful subtype, he'd retain the same Lawful aura as the Efreet (rather than being one step up.)
If that same Bone Devil somehow became CE, he'd have a Strong Law aura as well as a Strong Chaotic aura, and an Overwhelming Evil aura.
Given what those subtypes are intended to represent, and given what the alignment based outsiders physically represent, I'm of the opinion that any change in such an outsider's alignment should correspond to an equivalent alteration in any alignment subtype they possess. A LE fallen archon shouldn't retain its [Good] subtype, but it should gain an [Evil] subtype, and the reverse should be true of a NE fiend rising to NG if it's change in alignment is true. Otherwise its makes a mockery of the detect alignment spells, and just seems counterintuitive at times.
It does sort of screw with the Detect spells, but it makes sense that a fallen angel would be affected by both Holy Word and Blasphemy.
Of course, it also makes sense that they wouldn't be affected by Blasphemy, but that's not currently how the rules work.
But lets put aside reversed alignments for a second: Would a NE Bone Devil lose it's [Lawful] subtype?
But lets put aside reversed alignments for a second: Would a NE Bone Devil lose it's [Lawful] subtype?
I would say yes, absolutely it should lose its [Lawful] subtype. They're physical manifestations of their alignment, and if that alignment does somehow actually manage to change (it should be really rare), they should lose things linked to their old alignment/composition and gain things related to their new one (the alignment subtypes being a good starting point).
In that case, the rules could be dramatically simplified by having an 'Aligned' subtype, which denotes that you have a subtype matching your actual alignment. I mean, all the alignment subtypes have the same rules anyway.
Wait..no...that wouldn't work with my proposed patch to the Cleric aura, since I think that a Cleric's alignment subtypes should matcht he deity, not the cleric.
Related: Giving Undead the [Evil] subtype would also eliminate a line from the table, justify Animate Dead being [Evil], and help put to rest the 'Zombies are mindless' argument.
Attention, Bestiary people!
Related: Giving Undead the [Evil] subtype would also eliminate a line from the table, justify Animate Dead being [Evil], and help put to rest the 'Zombies are mindless' argument.
Attention, Bestiary people!
And I can only beg the same folks to not make undeath (and thus negative energy itself) any sort of automatic evil or even a modifier to an evil aura. If anything, please remove the moral and rules quagmire it induces by just removing undead from the table entirely.
And while you're at it, remove the [Evil] tag from Animate Dead and return mindless undead to being either neutral by default, or possessed of the same alignment as their creator. In fact that last one would settle a number of problems, since it allows for people to smite the undead created by an evil cleric of an evil deity, but doesn't imply anything about undeath as a blanket condition, or the energy source empowering it. Undead being linked to evil would make the Scaeduinar unhappy, so please, think of the Scaeduinar. And I'd rather there be some measure of mortal ambiguity for myself or others to play around with in the future on the topic.
Not being natural (as undeath is often portrayed) is entirely a relative thing, and shouldn't be a measure of objective alignment.
I disagree. I think that creating undead is inherently wrong, and a good aligned caster shouldn't want to do it.
I disagree. I think that creating undead is inherently wrong, and a good aligned caster shouldn't want to do it.
And a creature made of elemental ice might think that fire is irrevocably evil and useless for any purpose but death and destruction. But it's a purely subjective notion. Positive and negative energy are just opposed animating forces (well maybe more nuanced, but that'd be something to explore later in a history of those planes and their natives really) and one side looking at the other will see a very subjective 'that's evil' perhaps, but neither positive energy enpowered "life" or negative energy empowered "life" or "undeath" has any intrinsic connection to objective Evil.
Otherwise you'd see Hell/The Abyss/Abbadon with a closer link to undeath or the negative energy plane.
Of course, mind that anything I muse about here is subject to being completely changed or overwritten in print during Paizo's editing. :)
I don't think that negative energy is Evil. It's just entropy. Undead, on the other hand...
I don't think that negative energy is Evil. It's just entropy. Undead, on the other hand...
Why? I'm honestly curious.
And even in 3.5 you had undead that were explicitely not evil by default (ghosts, archliches, baelnorns, etc). Even just using the 3.5 stats without any incorporation of fluff, there were examples that preclude saying that undeath in and of itself is evil. You can have evil undead, but you can have evil humans too, and one or the other or a culture or situation might lead to a higher incidence of them being evil, but neither is an automatic state.
I find the concept of a good undead to be similar to the concept of a good demon. It's an exception at best.
|
Related: Giving Undead the [Evil] subtype would also eliminate a line from the table, justify Animate Dead being [Evil], and help put to rest the 'Zombies are mindless' argument.
Attention, Bestiary people!
no Evil subtype for undeads :P
I know you believe they are... but skeletons and zombies are unthiniking, they areas evil as Golems...the other partofthe thread I agree, except when saying that the evil of a cleric of an evil god would fall below tothat of a devil... the devil has no other choise but to be evil... the cleric made his choise, "follow the darkper paths of humanity, corrupting what he is a and creation around him for an evil god to enjoy"
Aura of [Evil] should be as poweful as one of an [Evil]Outsider
|
|
I find the concept of a good undead to be similar to the concept of a good demon. It's an exception at best.
why?
from the point of view of looking undeads as monsters,. yes every monsteris evil :P that would include Golden Dragons...Devils and Demons, yes arecreated by the raw energies of theirplanes, but origininaly were based in celestial that fell from grace and become evil...
Ghost for example were neutral, and most of the time retained their same alignments as being alive, justtrying to complete whatever they needed to pass on...
there are myriads of cultures that invoque the spirits of the dead to ask for council or help, many tribes and cultures eblieve their ancient dead guard them from evil...
this would eb ghost or spirits... why should they be evil?
so the greatest paladin is made a vampire by force, and decides that he wants to cure himself and while he is at that hunts other undeads... so he is evil?
actualy in Ustalav there is an ancient vampire looking for a cure for his vampirism... that is cannon...
basically Ross... anything related to necromancy is evil as you point it... which is not the case... yes there are spells that steal life... some of them are gruesome and cruel, but not all... most are not more evil than killing your enemy with a fireball... lets consider this: place surrounded by fire, clothes burn... skin melts... tissue burn... agonizing horrible death... HOW IS THIS LESS EVIL?
Ghost for example were neutral, and most of the time retained their same alignments as being alive, justtrying to complete whatever they needed to pass on...
Except that in practice, Ghosts are usually evil because they are the ones who refused to pass on.
there are myriads of cultures that invoque the spirits of the dead to ask for council or help, many tribes and cultures eblieve their ancient dead guard them from evil...
this would eb ghost or spirits... why should they be evil?
They would be outsiders.
so the greatest paladin is made a vampire by force, and decides that he wants to cure himself and while he is at that hunts other undeads... so he is evil?
While thirsting for the blood of innocents? The transformation into a vampire is like that into a werewolf: It will forcefully change your alignment, by making you view living beings as little more than food.
actualy in Ustalav there is an ancient vampire looking for a cure for his vampirism... that is cannon...
That is what we call an exception.
basically Ross... anything related to necromancy is evil as you point it... which is not the case... yes there are spells that steal life... some of them are gruesome and cruel, but not all... most are not more evil than killing your enemy with a fireball... lets consider this: place surrounded by fire, clothes burn... skin melts... tissue burn... agonizing horrible death... HOW IS THIS LESS EVIL?
Slay Living and Finger of Death aren't [Evil] spells. Animate Dead is.
|
|
Except that in practice, Ghosts are usually evil because they are the ones who refused to pass on.
Ghost for example were neutral, and most of the time retained their same alignments as being alive, justtrying to complete whatever they needed to pass on...
actually theones who refuses to pass on, are the ones with issues leftnot every ghost is trying to get after revenge, this is just generalization :P
They would be outsiders.there are myriads of cultures that invoque the spirits of the dead to ask for council or help, many tribes and cultures eblieve their ancient dead guard them from evil...
this would eb ghost or spirits... why should they be evil?
how is that they are outsiders? most are contacted throught necromancy... no conjuration
so the greatest paladin is made a vampire by force, and decides that he wants to cure himself and while he is at that hunts other undeads... so he is evil?While thirsting for the blood of innocents? The transformation into a vampire is like that into a werewolf: It will forcefully change your alignment, by making you view living beings as little more than food.
yes he can thirst for the blood of the innocent still he can try to resist and think the blood of the guilty (to much Vampire the Masquerade and other fictions to me... but even in Ravenloft not every vampire was unrepentant evil)... he would not ve much more evil that the next paladin killing orc at sight (many players play like this...not that i agree
basically Ross... anything related to necromancy is evil as you point it... which is not the case... yes there are spells that steal life... some of them are gruesome and cruel, but not all... most are not more evil than killing your enemy with a fireball... lets consider this: place surrounded by fire, clothes burn... skin melts... tissue burn... agonizing horrible death... HOW IS THIS LESS EVIL?Slay Living and Finger of Death aren't [Evil] spells. Animate Dead is.
Ross this is is taking us nowhere... why create a golemn is not evil if it is carrion or if you use it to kill? its not an evil act to createan automaton with express prupose to kill... but its Evil to create mindless servants... it was amistake that 3.5 forced alignment into undeads... including the CE thing about ALL vampires
still Ross this discusion would not go anywhere :P I just hope the people in Paizo correct things, I know for some people is ebtter and easier just to condemn some things as evil... but I like games more grey than just white/black.
What's the point of playing D&D if you can't debate Alignment on the Internet?