|
One thing that I have noticed is a great deal of rebuking clerics in Pathfinder (more than I am used to)
(I have also seen a LN Cleric of Asmodeus, don't get me wrong, I know the rules allow it, but if you receive divine power from that guy your PC would have to be evil, just by endorsing his worship...)
Anyways, I digress.
Step 6: Alignment
No evil-aligned PCs are allowed in Pathfinder Society
Organized Play. You may select any of the good or neutral
alignments
Seems straightforward enough.
Even if a Cleric is neutral, Channelling Negative Energy (Rebuking Undead) is evil.
Now I have a player who regularly rebukes undead in Pathfinder Society. IN LG this would have been deemed evil, the controlling of Undead, and seeking to permanently have them not being frowned upon lightly in most places.
This is of course not LG.
Any ideas on the Pathfinder Society policy on this?
|
|
Until there's an official policy on how to act accordingly, I'd say the policy varies depending on DM and/or region.
That is sort of what I assumed. I have currently informed the player to be careful with their undead.
In my opinion as a DM, rebuking undead and then marching them through Absalom as minions is GOING to get you in trouble :)
- After all Undead rebuked are permanently under the control of the Cleric in question, which brings up other issues. In LG it didn't matter as such effects never carried on from module to module.
I'm more bringing it to the attention of the Admins so that they can look into it as a potential issue.
I am also confused with the statements that Pharasma is 'anti undead' in the Osirion companion, combined with the Death domain powers of the Beta and the rebuking clerics of Pharasma I have witnessed who seem to be PRO undead :)
At present I will inform the PC that it is evil and such acts will be viewed as such, contextually sensitive to where he is. I don't expect abuse of evil acts from the player though.
Evil acts, in excessive quantity or severity turns your alignment evil. Let the player know if they get rebuke happy then they will become evil and unplayable.
No.
This is as wrong as saying that good acts in excessive quantity or severity turn your alignment to good. Doesn't happen. Not in PFS. Find me a rule that says that it does.
Making up rules to suit your particular view of how things should be does nobobdy any good.
Until there's an official policy on how to act accordingly, I'd say the policy varies depending on DM and/or region.That is sort of what I assumed. I have currently informed the player to be careful with their undead.
In my opinion as a DM, rebuking undead and then marching them through Absalom as minions is GOING to get you in trouble :)
- After all Undead rebuked are permanently under the control of the Cleric in question, which brings up other issues. In LG it didn't matter as such effects never carried on from module to module.
I'm more bringing it to the attention of the Admins so that they can look into it as a potential issue.
I am also confused with the statements that Pharasma is 'anti undead' in the Osirion companion, combined with the Death domain powers of the Beta and the rebuking clerics of Pharasma I have witnessed who seem to be PRO undead :)
At present I will inform the PC that it is evil and such acts will be viewed as such, contextually sensitive to where he is. I don't expect abuse of evil acts from the player though.
The word from J.Frost is that undead under your control disappear at the end of the module and do not carry over to the next module.
There is nothing in PFS rules that precludes rebuking, or even animating dead. Neutral characters are free to do so. Yes, it may cause real roleplaying difficulties if the character marches undead through Absalom, but it may cause no problems at all in Cheliax. Different cultures will look upon these things differently.
It may be that the players that you have seen playing rebuking clerics of Pharasma haven't paid much attention to the campaign guide. But this becomes less of a rules issue, and more of a player education issue. It's possible that if you pointed out to him that Pharasma is "anti-undead" he might reform his character. It's possible that he won't, in which case other Pharasmans (NPC's or PC's) would view him as being weird.
Asmodeus is LE. That means his clerics can be LE or they can be LN or NE. Lawful Neutral clerics are a perfectly legal choice in PFS. (Interestingly enough, the sample character given in the Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play is Lawful Neutral) It is also perfectly legal to worship Asmodeus in PFS (for any character, not just clerics). Given that he is the patron deity of the entire nation of Cheliax, you will probably run into a lot of Chelaxians who worship him.
|
Here's my 2 cents:
There's no such thing as an evil act in Pathfinder Society. There is such a thing as interpersonal conflict caused by people who can't relax and play nice. If everyone at the table is mature and knows how to play like grown-ups, let the fun begin. Evil acts, schmevil acts.
As long as people are enjoying themselves and no single player is monopolizing the game with over-the-top acts of murder & mayhem then what's the point of dragging out the poor, dessicated dead horse that is "The Evil Act Debate"?
If you have a table of players who are set in their ways or gain their satisfaction from ruining the the game for other players, then you need to put your foot down and tell the player they can't do whatever it is that will cause contraversy. If that decision upsets that single player but allows the rest of the participants to better enjoy themselves then you've done the right thing. If you are running a PFS Scenario and your players are spending more time arguing about the rules than playing the game, you are doing something wrong as the GM. This game is about having fun, not winning arguments.
|
|
Evil acts, in excessive quantity or severity turns your alignment evil. Let the player know if they get rebuke happy then they will become evil and unplayable.
Once again you are dead wrong on in this case undead wrong
NotMousse you have been corrected on this in other threads
Please stop trying to preach your version of the rules
Thanks
|
This is as wrong as saying that good acts in excessive quantity or severity turn your alignment to good. Doesn't happen. Not in PFS. Find me a rule that says that it does.
Quoth the PHB: Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character in a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions.
Are you going to tell me that this only applies to male PCs now?
This is as wrong as saying that good acts in excessive quantity or severity turn your alignment to good. Doesn't happen. Not in PFS. Find me a rule that says that it does.Quoth the PHB: Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character in a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions.
Are you going to tell me that this only applies to male PCs now?
And you define NEUTRAL as only doing GOOD things??? Neutral is the balance between good and evil. If a player can only perform Good acts, and can never perform Evil acts, then every character - by your very quote - will have his alignment shifted to good, whether or not he wishes it to be.
By what mechanic are you going to enforce an alignment change against a player in a PFS adventure? Again, does PFS even have a method of removing a player that the DM has decided is evil from the game? And again, how do you know that that same character wasn't working for good in previous adventures and that on balance, this character does a lot of good and only some evil?
You have changed your argument several times now.
1) First you said that Animate Dead was not allowed because it was item creation. And it was pointed out that it is not.
2) Then you said that Animate Dead was not allowed because it was an evil act. And it was pointed out that evil acts are not against the rules.
3) Then you said that Animate Dead was an alignment changing evil act. And it was pointed out that nothing in the rules even classifies it as an evil act, other than having the [Evil] descriptor, and the only rule that even mentions alignment descriptors says that while good characters cannot cast such spells, neutral and evil characters can.
4) And then you said that material components for Animate Dead were not available. And J. Frost answered that material components can be bought in any reasonably sized town.
5) And now you are saying that rebuking undead will allow a DM to decide that a players alignment has changed. Even though neutral clerics are specifically allowed to do such.
I know you have a bug up your *ss about players playing options that you don't approve of, but let a player play his character how he wants. If he breaks the LAW and gets caught, then let the town guard deal with him. If he acts overly evil and the party doesn't like it, let the party deal with him.
No, I don't play a rebuking cleric, or even a cleric who casts animate dead. In fact, the most recent cleric I played (until the party was TPK'd last night) was exceedingly on the side of good. I think the concept of a LN rebuking cleric is an interesting concept, and is definitely allowed by the rules of PFS (as J. Frost has affirmed).
You have stated that you don't care what the rules are, you would not allow such at any table you run. That's a disappointing choice that you make, but nobody is going to force you to play by the rules. You can tear up players sheets, or make any arbitrary house rules you want in PFS games. Nobody will come and stop you. If your players like it, they'll come back. If they don't, they won't.
But don't complain when I or others point out to you that what you state as being the rules is in fact your own opinion, unsupported by the rules.
Thurgon is the name of a cleric I have played for more then two decades now. His GM through most of this has held that gods grant you spells and powers, that sometimes are things you are rarely ever suppose to use.
Speak with dead was one such spell. Thurgon being LG these days did find a situation once to use it, he needed a starting point to investigate a murder. So after having tried a number of ways to find a clue he finally used the spell to speak with the victem. He recieved the clue needed, solved the crime and asked for forgiveness.
A LN would not be so inclined I would think. He might use the spell (assuming no law was being broken) and never give it a second thought.
It was one evil act, not a pattern of them.
It would work the same with rebuking undead for a LN Cleric. Using it to control undead once or even infreqently is ok. To go out of your way with regularity to do so, that is when you risk your alignment. Or using a group of undead to make more, or to attack innocients that is pushing it pretty far. Also note that not all undead are evil, zombies and skeletons are not, certainly using it to control them is then not an evil act, well not from the veiw point of an LN. In my friends world one city (ruled by an LN) uses zombies in their workforce and army.
Thurgon is the name of a cleric I have played for more then two decades now. His GM through most of this has held that gods grant you spells and powers, that sometimes are things you are rarely ever suppose to use.
Speak with dead was one such spell. Thurgon being LG these days did find a situation once to use it, he needed a starting point to investigate a murder. So after having tried a number of ways to find a clue he finally used the spell to speak with the victem. He recieved the clue needed, solved the crime and asked for forgiveness.
A LN would not be so inclined I would think. He might use the spell (assuming no law was being broken) and never give it a second thought.
It was one evil act, not a pattern of them.
It would work the same with rebuking undead for a LN Cleric. Using it to control undead once or even infreqently is ok. To go out of your way with regularity to do so, that is when you risk your alignment. Or using a group of undead to make more, or to attack innocients that is pushing it pretty far. Also note that not all undead are evil, zombies and skeletons are not, certainly using it to control them is then not an evil act, well not from the veiw point of an LN. In my friends world one city (ruled by an LN) uses zombies in their workforce and army.
I think there is a big difference between what happens in a home campaign, and what happens in a shared campaign like Pathfinder Society. In a home campaign, your DM can rule that the gods want such and such from you, and you can get a clear direction what is acceptable to use and not to use from that same DM.
In a shared campaign, the idea is that your character is portable. It can be taken to Gencon, or Paizocon, or Winterwar, or your local gamestore PFS night. Every single module that character sees might be with a different DM. This creates the need for a uniform set of rules - the Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play so that a player can create a character and play it with an expectation that that character will be usable at each venue. If the player does his part and follows the rules, then he should have the expectation that the DM will do likewise.
I guess the analogy would be that if you built a Rogue and showed up with it at a convention and the DM told you that he regarded Sneak Attack as an evil, despicable act, and to use it would mean that you would forfeit your character. "I mean, come on. What's more cowardly or vile than stabbing your opponent in the back. (Paladin nods head in agreement)." Certainly this type of ruling would be acceptable in a home game where all of the players could create characters knowing the DM's opinion and future ruling, but in a shared game, no such fore-knowledge is possible.
Thus, the PSGOP defines what is acceptable for a character and what is not. Under the PSGOP, rebuking clerics who animate the dead are allowed.
Thus, the PSGOP defines what is acceptable for a character and what is not. Under the PSGOP, rebuking clerics who animate the dead are allowed.
Then the PSGOP isn't using the rules in the PHB? How does that function for a portable game?
Either way though it has nothing to do with home game verse portable one, repeated evil acts will eventually change your alignment, doesn't matter what that act is.
Honestly though I am shocked that a group meant to set down rules for a portable character does so without reguard to the core rule books. Oh well, guess it's portable just not to a game run by the core rules.
Thus, the PSGOP defines what is acceptable for a character and what is not. Under the PSGOP, rebuking clerics who animate the dead are allowed.
Then the PSGOP isn't using the rules in the PHB? How does that function for a portable game?
Either way though it has nothing to do with home game verse portable one, repeated evil acts will eventually change your alignment, doesn't matter what that act is.
Honestly though I am shocked that a group meant to set down rules for a portable character does so without reguard to the core rule books. Oh well, guess it's portable just not to a game run by the core rules.
Maybe we are talking about different things.
The core rules allow for LN clerics to rebuke undead. The core rules allow for LN clerics to Animate Dead.
Unless you are going to rule that a single evil act causes an immediate alignment shift (or a single good act causes a similar alignment shift) then you are left with judging how a particular character acts over the course of his career as an adventurer. In a shared game, this can be a very difficult thing to do.
Did your one "Speak with Dead" shift your alignment? No, because on balance, you had a good character. And in a home game, the DM could apply balance to see that. How would a convention DM apply similar balance? Or would he be entirely correct in forcing your character out of the game at that point in time?
|
|
This is as wrong as saying that good acts in excessive quantity or severity turn your alignment to good. Doesn't happen. Not in PFS. Find me a rule that says that it does.Quoth the PHB: Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character in a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions.And you define NEUTRAL as only doing GOOD things??? Neutral is the balance between good and evil. If a player can only perform Good acts, and can never perform Evil acts, then every character - by your very quote - will have his alignment shifted to good, whether or not he wishes it to be.
By what mechanic are you going to enforce an alignment change against a player in a PFS adventure?
I believe the mechanic is "the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions."
Obviously a LN cleric may rebuke undead, or animate dead, without an immediate alignment shift, if ever. Unless there are evil acts "excessive" of good, or even neutral, acts. Should a neutral cleric rampantly animate and rebuke, without *any* balancing actions, I'd find an alignment shift quite reasonable.
It's DM discretion, as always.
Maybe we are talking about different things.
The core rules allow for LN clerics to rebuke undead. The core rules allow for LN clerics to Animate Dead.
Unless you are going to rule that a single evil act causes an immediate alignment shift (or a single good act causes a similar alignment shift) then you are left with judging how a particular character acts over the course of his career as an adventurer. In a shared game, this can be a very difficult thing to do.
Did your one "Speak with Dead" shift your alignment? No, because on balance, you had a good character. And in a home game, the DM could apply balance to see that. How would a convention DM apply similar balance? Or would he be entirely correct in forcing your character out of the game at that point in time?
((My one speak with dead got me a .25 added to my rating, 1st ed you got ratings back then for how well you played your character with focus on staying in your alignment. .25 aint a big deal on a 1-4 scale.))
It would be taken as an evil act by the LN cleric, and noted. If he ends the game session with way too many evil acts, yes an alignment change is in order.
Doing it once, fine, even twice or three times if the situation calls for it. Doing it when you have to go out of your way to, that risks an alignment issue right away, maybe not a change but the DM will need to give it some serious though. It would be like killing a prisoner out of hand or killing an innocient farmer for no cause once. The first action the DM has to think seriously about, the second one he simply changes the alignment right then and there.
In general because they are portable games and you may never see the player again rule in their favor were possible. But you must maintain the rules as best you can, when the cleric rebukes undead and sets them loose on the farmers you came to rescue well you have to do your duty as the GM.
Maybe we are talking about different things.
The core rules allow for LN clerics to rebuke undead. The core rules allow for LN clerics to Animate Dead.
Unless you are going to rule that a single evil act causes an immediate alignment shift (or a single good act causes a similar alignment shift) then you are left with judging how a particular character acts over the course of his career as an adventurer. In a shared game, this can be a very difficult thing to do.
Did your one "Speak with Dead" shift your alignment? No, because on balance, you had a good character. And in a home game, the DM could apply balance to see that. How would a convention DM apply similar balance? Or would he be entirely correct in forcing your character out of the game at that point in time?
((My one speak with dead got me a .25 added to my rating, 1st ed you got ratings back then for how well you played your character with focus on staying in your alignment. .25 aint a big deal on a 1-4 scale.))
It would be taken as an evil act by the LN cleric, and noted. If he ends the game session with way too many evil acts, yes an alignment change is in order.
Doing it once, fine, even twice or three times if the situation calls for it. Doing it when you have to go out of your way to, that risks an alignment issue right away, maybe not a change but the DM will need to give it some serious though. It would be like killing a prisoner out of hand or killing an innocient farmer for no cause once. The first action the DM has to think seriously about, the second one he simply changes the alignment right then and there.
In general because they are portable games and you may never see the player again rule in their favor were possible. But you must maintain the rules as best you can, when the cleric rebukes undead and sets them loose on the farmers you came to rescue well you have to do your duty as the GM.
Somewhat tangential, but I've lately had moral issues with the concept in 4th edition with subduing rather than killing foes. (It applies to PS or 3.5 as well).
What do you do out in the wild with a captured kobold or goblin or even highwayman? You interrogate. They either talk or they don't. What do you do next? Our paladin has no qualms with killing goblins that were taken prisoner. I do. As I see it, when you are fighting, killing your foe is fine. He's fighting to the death, and so are you. But if he surrenders, then he becomes a moral obligation.
So, if you have no way to keep or transport prisoners, do you simply realize this and not take prisoners? Do you allow him to run away to warn his companions and try to kill you tomorrow? Do you slit his throat? I've played neutral characters who have argued for taking his thumbs. He's still alive. He can still pick crops, or scavenge for food, but he will never raise a sword against you again. And the paladin looks at me like I'm crazy, and figures we should just kill the creature and be done with it.
Ah. Moral relativism.
It would be nice if PSOGC version 1.2 answers some of the mechanics of how to deal with excessive evil, or alignment shifting or what is and is not allowed within the PFS organized play system.
Personally, my LG Cleric, fights to the death with any foe he meets. If the foe surrenders, he now has to decide to either accept the surrender or continue the fight. Once he accepts it though and takes him prisoner he has to treat him as a prisoner entiled to legal protection as it were.
For a time my guy was a Bishop in a theocracy, made taking prisoners less an issue, he was the law. He could dispense judgements. Morally it was ok from my PoV, in the end it was his job to make those calls. He never abused it, only once killing a prisoner, who he caught in the act of murder. The punishment for such a crime, was death, Thurgon was the lawful judge of the area, and he dispensed his judgement. Every other time I turned them over to the local jail.
|
|
It would be nice if PSOGC version 1.2 answers some of the mechanics of how to deal with excessive evil, or alignment shifting or what is and is not allowed within the PFS organized play system.
Don't hold your breath :)
But if I was Joshua Frost, this is what I would write in response to this suggestion:
Share everything.
Play fair.
Don't hit people.
Put things back where you found them.
Clean up your own mess.
Don't take things that aren't yours.
Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
Wash your hands before you eat.
Flush.
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
Take a nap every afternoon.
When you go out in the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick together.
|
Slightly off-topic, but a cleric spell by the name of Deathwatch is labeled as an evil spell. Once you look at the spell description, you can come up with tons of positive, *GOOD* uses for it. It's practically the best spell a cleric can have when trying to find survivors after a large battle.
So my verdict is that the [evil] descriptor is completely moot. Disregard it, and instead use common sense. If a character raises his enemies as undead to fight more enemies, it's not too evil in my scope. Raising your own friends as undead ... that's a bit too far, to tell the truth. Disturbing your comrades' rest.. yeah. Also walking into a city with some summoned undead is probably the stupidest thing you could ever do. A DM like me would easily just set up an insta-kill to the character in question (really, failing at logic that bad shall not go unpunished, regardless of how epic the character is in mechanical terms).
|
|
I have a character named Shaden and he is a LN Cleric who worships Asmodeus. I have made him so that he can rebuke and command undead. I have read every post and must say i am dissappointed that no one has yet to ask the important question. WHAT TWO REALMS DOES THE LN CLERIC USE. Now Shaden uses the realms Fire and Trickery. He doesn't even touch the Evil realm. He has chosen these realms based on his past. If anyone wants to know his past email: brianturner9@hotmail.com. I warn you though its lengthy. Now when Shaden commands undead he uses them to complete the mission and to aid his comrades. I can't tell you the times his commanded undead has saved the party. And almost everytime the party has killed the undead after the fight that they helped with. Is the party grateful? Probably. But there characters hated undead and decided to destroy them. Was my character mad? Not really he figures there is more undead in the world to control. Every action he takes is not evil and has not used the undead to hurt anyone. He uses them as a fighter would use a sword or an archer a bow. Now yes you can kill an innocent with a sword or accidently kill a child with a misplaced shot from a bow. But still its the act that was evil not the weapon. Undead are nothing more than walking weapons that do as you tell them to do. They are only evil if you use them for evil actions. So dont judge a charcter by the choice of his weapons but by the actions he takes. Is a cleric evil if he commands his undead to destroy a farm? YES! Is a cleric evil if he commands his undead to attack goblins and save a city? NO! IT IS OUR ACTIONS THAT DEFINE US, NOT THE WEAPONS IN WHICH WE USE.
Now go with Asmodeus but be warned for soon the Chelaxian Empire will rise.
|
Undead are nothing more than walking weapons that do as you tell them to do. They are only evil if you use them for evil actions. So dont judge a charcter by the choice of his weapons but by the actions he takes ... IT IS OUR ACTIONS THAT DEFINE US, NOT THE WEAPONS IN WHICH WE USE.
Except that you're controlling the bodies (perhaps what remains of their minds and/or souls?) of persons/beings who have little or no ability to resist, perhaps even preventing their soul from moving on to the afterlife, particularly the recently slain. If these were living beings, this act would be described as slavery or abuse. Does the fact that they have passed beyond the living, or that they may have been your former enemies, morally change this? Think international conventions for handling prisoners of war, Abu Ghabi etc.
I'm not really arguing for or against the rules for Rebuking (I'll do that in my next post), just adding some thoughts to the debate. Just pointing out that re-animating the dead has further moral consequences (for good or evil) than simply using objects as weapons.
If a character raises his enemies as undead to fight more enemies, it's not too evil in my scope.
Couple issues I see. First if you do it all the time, you will loose you alginment over time, not likely in a system like this because your DM changes nearly every game but certainly in a home game. Second it also depends what type of undead, zombies and the like (mindless) is one thing, wraiths (intelligent undead) is a complete other thing. Raise wraiths just a few times and you wont be LN for long.
Undead are nothing more than walking weapons that do as you tell them to do. They are only evil if you use them for evil actions. So dont judge a charcter by the choice of his weapons but by the actions he takes ... IT IS OUR ACTIONS THAT DEFINE US, NOT THE WEAPONS IN WHICH WE USE.Except that you're controlling the bodies (perhaps what remains of their minds and/or souls?) of persons/beings who have little or no ability to resist, perhaps even preventing their soul from moving on to the afterlife. If these were living beings, this act would be described as slavery or abuse. Does the fact that they have passed beyond the living, or that they may have been your former enemies, morally change this? Think international conventions for handling prisoners of war, Abu Ghabi etc.
I'm not really arguing for or against the rules for Rebuking, just adding some thoughts to the debate. Just pointing out that re-animating the dead has further moral consequences (for good or evil) than simply using objects as weapons.
However no where in the rules or fluff does it stat that any of those things happen when you animate a corpse, and the corpse isn't alive... it's an object empty and devoid of a soul (which moves on immediately since you need a raise dead *minimum* to bring them ) this is notable because you can refuse a raise dead spell until then your soul is on the outer planes.
Just to point out the flaws.
I have a character named Shaden and he is a LN Cleric who worships Asmodeus. I have made him so that he can rebuke and command undead. I have read every post and must say i am dissappointed that no one has yet to ask the important question. WHAT TWO REALMS DOES THE LN CLERIC USE. Now Shaden uses the realms Fire and Trickery. He doesn't even touch the Evil realm. He has chosen these realms based on his past. If anyone wants to know his past email: brianturner9@hotmail.com. I warn you though its lengthy. Now when Shaden commands undead he uses them to complete the mission and to aid his comrades. I can't tell you the times his commanded undead has saved the party. And almost everytime the party has killed the undead after the fight that they helped with. Is the party grateful? Probably. But there characters hated undead and decided to destroy them. Was my character mad? Not really he figures there is more undead in the world to control. Every action he takes is not evil and has not used the undead to hurt anyone. He uses them as a fighter would use a sword or an archer a bow. Now yes you can kill an innocent with a sword or accidently kill a child with a misplaced shot from a bow. But still its the act that was evil not the weapon. Undead are nothing more than walking weapons that do as you tell them to do. They are only evil if you use them for evil actions. So dont judge a charcter by the choice of his weapons but by the actions he takes. Is a cleric evil if he commands his undead to destroy a farm? YES! Is a cleric evil if he commands his undead to attack goblins and save a city? NO! IT IS OUR ACTIONS THAT DEFINE US, NOT THE WEAPONS IN WHICH WE USE.
Now go with Asmodeus but be warned for soon the Chelaxian Empire will rise.
That way leads to the dark side. It isn't just actions but means that matter too. Killing 100 babies to prevent an evil priest from using one of them to raise a demon lord is still getting your alignment slammed to evil so hard and fast your head will spin.
Not pointing any fingers but one reason to be leary around any player with a neutral character that tends to do "evil" is many players use neutral as a way to play evil. Since under the rules they can't actually play an evil character in the setting in question. If they could I think you would see less himhawing about the definition of evil and neutral.
I can't even count the number of CN who were not CN but really either gready or CE but they knew there was a paladin in the group. They chose CN so they could do whatever they wanted, which always ended up to be the same thing, evil, stealing from party members, or what have you. They weren't chaotic at all, you could without fail predict what they would do, and they weren't neutral they simply wanted a safe alignment so they wouldn't get caught and if they did they could use it as an excuse.
|
|
I do agree that killing 100 babies to stop an evil priest is evil. But still that is an action that defines a character. If you ever come across an LN Cleric wanting to kill innocents to achieve a goal then yes he is evil and should be destroyed. but a more clever LN Cleric would find a way around the babies. Perhaps destroy the talisman he needs or desecrate the unholy site. and then you kill him with undead. Still the undead are nothing more than a weapon. Now also about returning the undead to life. Even as a LN Cleric of Asmodeus just the notion of bringing a ghoul back to life makes my skin crawl. The book says "Ghouls are created upon the death of a living man or woman who savored the taste of the flesh of people.Some believe that anyone of exceptional debauchery and wickedness runs the risk of becoming a ghoul." Now if there is any cleric out there who wants to bring a person like that back to life would need to seriously consider there alignment if they have a good or lawfull descriptor. Now how about Zombies. they are created through dark and sinister magic. From what i see there souls have departed and there empty husks are left behind. And its the magic that makes them walk not there souls or minds. I would personally like to take control of them and have them fight each other and not my fellow pathfinders. Wraiths i dont know about you but they can be very annoying but if commanded can be very helpfull. And since they are born of evil and darkness i dont know anyone that would even attempt to bring them back to life. And last but not least Skeletons. They are just reanimated bones. They are reanimated by magic not there souls or minds. These are the only undead Shaden has come up against so he sees no problem using them to help the cause of the group and his nation. Now like i said before but with a slight variation: IT IS OUR ACTIONS AND OUR MEANS THAT DEFINE US. NOT THE WEAPONS WE USE!
Now go with Asmodeus but be warned for soon the Chelaxian Empire will rise.
However no where in the rules or fluff does it stat that any of those things happen when you animate a corpse, and the corpse isn't alive...Actually by raising undead you make it near impossible for the creature to return to life.
But not impossible -- you could animate the corpse then true resurrection the person for example, and if before you animate the corpse you cut off his finger (that was part of him when he died) you could animate the corpse then reincarnate the finger. Tons of other options still exist, including dispelling the magic animating the body and still using the body (if kept in good condition).
And raising the dead back to life isn't a good act either. Bringing back a blackguard so he can have his revenge and reward you for your efforts would definitely be evil, while turning his corpse into a skeleton to prevent him from being brought back could be construed as a good act.
Please note that healing isn't necessarily good either for the same reasons raising the dead isn't.
Also lets think about this a minute -- The dead, if a good person has gone to his final reward in a good outer plane. Probably very happy there -- why would he want to come back to a world full of pain, suffering, and possibly permanent consequences to his soul (magic jar, becoming intelligent undead, soul stealing/eating, alignment change)?
As pointed out in numerous sources it's generally better to just stay dead.
Finally there is the possibility that the cleric didn't raise the undead -- if he is attacked by a necromancer's undead minions he may simply rebuke them and send them back at the necromancer before laying them to rest.
In the cases of mindless undead they don't even have the evil descriptor added to their byline -- they simply don't have anything to do other than following commands, making them little better than unseen servants in effect.
|
|
However no where in the rules or fluff does it stat that any of those things happen when you animate a corpse, and the corpse isn't alive...Actually by raising undead you make it near impossible for the creature to return to life.
Anyway, I wasn't really referring to the rules per se, there are many ways to play the game, and some enjoy role-playing these moral issues, while others enjoy the game without them. I'm actually cool with either style, and four-hour scenarios where you're playing with different players and GMs each session might favour the more straight-forward approach.
However, looking at the Turning/Destroying vs Rebuking/Commanding rules for a moment, do players choose Rebuking because they want to play the morally ambiguous character? they want to play the dark guy walking through the woods with an undead minion instead of an animal companion? Or is it because it gives him an in-game advantage?
A Turning/Rebuking cleric gets to neutralise/remove a threat, whereas a Rebuking/Commanding cleric gets to neutralise a threat or use it to do his bidding during the current encounter and perhaps longer.
I'm fine with some options being "better" choices than others, if characters choose them or not based on in-character, background, flavour, roleplaying reasons. I'm not fine when an option becomes a "must have" choice based on in-game benefit alone. I'm not sure whether Rebuking falls into this category or not?
When Rebuking is kept in check by being classified as an Evil act, this provides some counter-balance against abuse, and players of Turning clerics won't feel like poor cousins compared to Rebukers.
|
|
But not impossible...
Most of your examples don't work. Raise Dead and Reincarnate don't work on those turned undead. Resurrection and True Resurrection only work if the undead have been destroyed. So the simplest way to keep someone from coming back is to simply cast Animate Dead, and keep the skeletons in a closet. And you can't dispel Animate Dead.
And raising the dead back to life isn't a good act either.
You're right, it's not an evil act either, unlike casting Animate Dead.
Also lets think about this a minute...
If someone doesn't want to come back they don't.
Finally there is the possibility that the cleric didn't raise the undead...
You're bringing to bear your mastery of negative energy to control unliving beings of evil. Not exactly good.
In the cases of mindless undead they don't even have the evil descriptor...
Check their entries in the MM, skeletons and zombies are Always NE.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
NotMousse,
With respect, I think that Reincarnate would indeed bring back someone if you have a bit of their dead body, regardless of whether or not the rest of their corpse is turned to ash, buried in the sea, or shambling around as a zombie. Read the first two paragraphs of the spell.
Now, you'd be quick to point out that the spell description also reads: "A creature that has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be returned to life by this spell." I think that's a vaguely-worded text. Given the previous descriptions, I would understand this to mean "A creature that has been killed by level-draining and been turned into an undead..." rather than "A creature whose remains have been animated... ."
All this is moot, however. Josh has allowed that if your alignment and deity are all right with you rebuking or animating corpses, the organized play campaign supports it.
In the cases of mindless undead they don't even have the evil descriptor...
Check their entries in the MM, skeletons and zombies are Always NE.
Correct. That's one of the changes from 3.0 to 3.5. (Who knows what they'll be in Pathfinder?)
|
|
Bottom Line:
1. Evil characters are not legal in PFS.
2. There is no persistent way of tracking alignment "drift" in 3.5 or in the PFS rules.
3. If a player does do something that, by default, makes them unable to be in the PFS (commits a major crime that can be traced to them, or, in this case, because evil), that character is retired as if killed.
Taking all three of the above into account, the only way that a character should be turned to evil and then kicked out of PFS is if the character does something so amazingly evil as to immediately shift their alignment on the spot.
Animated the dead or controlling undead aren't so evil as to immediately shift a character's alignment to evil. If they did, the spell or ability would say "as soon as you do this, you become evil." They are just described as evil acts.
As others have clarified above, the main thing this means mechanically is that a good divine caster can't do them. Any other consequences are (as I feel they should be) more or less houserules for a given campaign. I had rules for this (using the tracking system in Green Ronin's Player's Manual and the taint rules in Heroes of Horror), but others may not, or they may have other house rules.
If you start ruling that every time a neutral character does an evil act that they become evil, I'd have to say you are going to have a lot of unhappy players. Its explicitly stated that the time between sessions isn't quantified. That neutral character could be the most kindly person on Golarion between missions, but will do anything they can to complete a mission, even "crossing the line." That is perfectly valid.
On the other hand, someone that goes into a orphanage and slaughters the lot of them to animate as back up cannon fodder for the upcoming fight probably should become evil, but not for just animating the corpses.
I really get the feeling that the root cause of this recurring argument isn't evil acts or neutral characters, its that some people may be really misunderstanding the PFS or uncomfortable running non-heroic campaigns.
PFS is about people that adventure to adventure, gather knowledge and lost treasure, and might save the world or part of it because its either in their best interest, or because doing so helps them get a lost bit of lore or an ancient relic they were looking for. They aren't the Harpers or the Jedi Knights. The analogy that Josh has used before about Indiana Jones and Beloq is probably a good one to keep in mind.
In the end, if you aren't comfortable with characters that might not be heroes, that might be out for their own skin first and foremost, and that might like to dabble with evil, without reveling in it, and you don't want to be faced with the idea that everyone that shows up at the table might have one of these characters show up, you may not want to be running PFS events.
|
Animated the dead or controlling undead aren't so evil as to immediately shift a character's alignment to evil. If they did, the spell or ability would say "as soon as you do this, you become evil." They are just described as evil acts.
Just a 2 cp hint for GMing with these "undead lovers" clerics: they cannot spontaneously cast healing spells (must be good clerics or neutral clerics worshipping a good diety).
So a quick look at their memorized spells at the beginning of a game may bring some fun: they must memorise healing spells or cannot heal at all (unless using consumables).
Just a 2 cp hint for GMing with these "undead lovers" clerics: they cannot spontaneously cast healing spells (must be good clerics or neutral clerics worshipping a good diety).So a quick look at their memorized spells at the beginning of a game may bring some fun: they must memorise healing spells or cannot heal at all (unless using consumables).
Yes. That is the trade-off. If you want to play a cleric who can control undead, you must dedicate spell slots for healing. (Not memorize - clerics simply pray for their spells, wizards memorize). Or simply carry a boatload of scrolls and potions of Cure Light Wounds.
This was good to point out, but I don't think that it was disputed.
Of course, those same clerics can spontaneously "heal" undead with "cause light wounds".
One use of Animate Dead that people haven't been considering is animating the bones/bodies of non-sapient creatures. This would at least avoid the "cannot be raised/resurrected/reincarnated" moral question (unless, or course you subscribe to the "all dogs go to heaven" philosophy). If you are attacked by a pack of hyenas, once they are dead, they could be turned into zombie or skeleton hyenas who would obey your commands.
|
|
One use of Animate Dead that people haven't been considering is animating the bones/bodies of non-sapient creatures. This would at least avoid the "cannot be raised/resurrected/reincarnated" moral question (unless, or course you subscribe to the "all dogs go to heaven" philosophy). If you are attacked by a pack of hyenas, once they are dead, they could be turned into zombie or skeleton hyenas who would obey your commands.
Which only pisses off the druids, and who worries about those tree huggers . . . ;)
Finally there is the possibility that the cleric didn't raise the undead...You're bringing to bear your mastery of negative energy to control unliving beings of evil. Not exactly good.
We aren't talking about what is good here, doesn't matter, we are talking about what isn't evil -- as long as it isn't evil it's open for use. Heck even if it is evil it is still possible to use it with great care.
Negative energy doesn't have an alignment discriptor attached to it so it's not evil. Since it's not evil using it isn't an evil act in and of itself.
However you are right on zombies and skeletons they are always neutral evil... which is funny, as constructs which have essentially the exact same stats aren't.
The rub of it is they can do it, and for a DM to arbitrarily decide such an act is evil, when it is allowed officially would be wrong and deserves to be told such.
In a homebrew campaign it would be one thing, in a live campaign where it is already allowed is something else entirely.
|
|
The rub of it is they can do it, and for a DM to arbitrarily decide such an act is evil, when it is allowed officially would be wrong and deserves to be told such.
The problem is the decision is not arbitrary. You maintain that it is but by RAW Rebuking Undead is an evil act.
The qualification of 'how' evil is the problem.
That it is considered - under core 3.5 rules - WHICH are what we use as an evil act is explicit, and arguing any other way is wrong. (read page 160 of the PHB)
I don't think that one rebuke undead attempt is evil, or using it to cower and turn undead on their former masters and THEN destroying them is evil.
But actively trying to recruit undead minions, intelligent or otherwise, and use them for your own purposes as a rebuking player is a way of circumventing the normal rules that the creation and utilisation of Undead is evil. (And it most certainly is, I am not arguing whether it is from a philosophical viewpoint, but it is from a RULES viewpoint).
The problem is further exacerbated by the confusion over the Death domain (available to Pharasma, which incidentally, is supposed to be anti-undead)
All I am saying is that some ruling needs to be considered, particularly with the retaining of said undead. (I know Josh posted something to that effect, but it needs to be in the Guide).
Evil characters aren't allowed, but I have seen a few PCs who are using the fact that they can rebuke undead as a way 'around' not being allowed to be an evil PC< which goes against the spirit of the rules in my opinion. Do not forget WHY evil PCs are not allowed, this game is played by kids and supervised by many regulatory bodies. Remember that.
Finally on the LN Asmodeus Cleric issue, I have major verisimilitude issues with it. I am aware it is full legal, but to receive divine power form a deity and to actively promote their religion implies an inherent condoling of said deity's practices. Asmodeus is the very embodiment of evil, and I maintain that there should be an exception that Clerics cannot be LN worshippers of him. (Other PCs maybe, as they 'respect' his stance on law, but being a cleric means a trained priest of that god).
It is interesting to note that LE is often misunderstood, it is in fact far MORE evil than the other two in many respects, CE stems from random doing what you want and wanton destruction, NE stems from selfishness and doing what you want at the expense of others, LE is a cold calculated justification of your acts within a set of parameters, usually well thought out and with ill intent.
But that is a bit off topic.
Whatever is eventually ruled, I just want to see a ruling.
Not to mention the potential legal issues of permitting PCs to be clerics of an extended 'satan' metaphor. I hope to see the issue of LN clerics of Asmodeus and 'evil acts' addressed in the Season 1 guide.
This was LG's stance on the matter (honed after years of campaign play and political/religious issues)
Evil alignments are forbidden in LG. Evil acts are not forbidden; however, by committing evil acts your PC risks becoming evil. If your PC ever becomes evil, your PC immediately becomes an NPC and can never again be played as a PC.If you voluntarily attack another PC with the intent to do serious or permanent harm, without the other player’s permission, your PC’s alignment is automatically shifted to evil. You are allowed to defend yourself if necessary, such as if another PC is dominated, but you may not use lethal force unless unavoidable, at the GM’s discretion. This is a severe penalty and should be used with caution.
As a GM, if you deem that a PC is about to commit an evil act, warn them as such. If you feel their actions are significantly evil, either due to severity or quantity, note the actions on the PC’s AR, along with any surrounding or extenuating circumstances. Contact your local Triad and inform them of the event(s); for areas without a region, contact the Circle. For out of region players, contact both Triads. The Triad(s) will review the situation and determine if the actions warrant shifting the PC’s alignment to evil. If they feel that such a shift is warranted, they will consult their Circle member(s) for confirmation of the decision. If the Circle member(s) agrees with the decision, the PC’s
alignment is shifted to evil, it becomes an NPC, and can never again be played as a PC.
This is a convoluted reporting system, but it at least ensures DMs don't ban PCs arbitrarily, and moreover, there is a clear cut prevention method from stopping these 'Neutral PCs who want to play evil'
In my experience Evil PCs just don't work in a Living campaign. If folk want to discuss that, then please do so in another thread.
|
|
Do not forget WHY evil PCs are not allowed, this game is played by kids ...
I happen to think the disruption to "enjoying the game" that playing Evil characters would have on those not playing Evil characters is more likely the reason, but that children also play the game is a good point.
Asmodeus is the very embodiment of evil, and I maintain that there should be an exception that Clerics cannot be LN worshippers of him. (Other PCs maybe, as they 'respect' his stance on law, but being a cleric means a trained priest of that god).
Have a read of Roots & Beginnings: Book of the Damned (Part 2) interview with Wes in the Paizo Blog. I think this was a particularly good discussion of how veneration of Demons/Devils may occur in otherwise Good societies:
Moloch: if people sacrifice to him, he fixes their problems. Should one burn offerings to Moloch to stop a flood and save their village, he's probably more likely to step in and stop the flood than most deities. The caveat, of course, is that Moloch is an archdevil and whether one worships him as part of a militaristic cult, as part of the traditions of one's people, or just because his standing offer of aid is tempting, serving him damns a soul to his fortress realm in Malbolgia after death. But when faced with dying at the hands of a foe, infernal intervention for either benevolent or selfish reason might be worth the price of later damnation. There's a lot of this throughout the book, evil disguised as goodness or at least the right—or easy—choice for the moment. Sure, Asmodeus, the archdevils, and the armies of Hell could easily murderer mortals and claim their souls, but why when, with the proper nudging, most mortals will damn themselves.
Cast in this light, I don't think it at all improper for Neutral Clerics to worship Evil deities within Pathfinder Society guidelines.
|
|
The caveat, of course, is that Moloch is an archdevil and whether one worships him as part of a militaristic cult, as part of the traditions of one's people, or just because his standing offer of aid is tempting, serving him damns a soul to his fortress realm in Malbolgia after death.
Serving a devil/demon as a priest and offering him a once off sacrifice against a flood are two entirely different things.
But that is my opinion, I have too many friends that are clerics in REAL life, (and of several religions too I might add) and the difference in the level of commitment is staggering between the guy who calls out god's name when faced with a robber with a gun, and the guy who worships him all the time, promoting their religion and being educated in the holy texts, confident in their faith and secure in the knowledge of their place in the world/afterlife.
And before anyone states that reality/fantasy are separate, remember that this game is FOUNDED on Gygaxian naturalism. It is a REALISED fantasy world.
The fact that divine power is tangible makes the use of it and the furthering of an Evil god's plans all the more REAL in terms of alignment. You aren't just endorsing the actions of the church, but an actual aligned entity.
In LG (3.5) AND in LFR (4e) Clerics/other divine classes just couldn't worship an Evil God. I personally think that is a wiser choice. Not only solves the problems, but it is in line with the 'no evil PCs' policy's intent, both for legal, political, AND PvP based issues.
|
|
No offense, but I think you are getting too hung up on the way LG used to do things. And, while I know you don't want to discuss this in this thread (although I think its cogent to the discussion), PFS isn't a heroic campaign, its just a non-evil one.
I really don't think that we need any ranking system of "how evil" someone is. Once you start adding in "points" for evil, you have to figure out how someone removes those "points." Do they have to use atonement only for this?
Its already been more or less detailed that PFS members aren't suppose to directly screw over one another, or cause one another to come to harm, or harm them directly. Further, committing a serious crime that is likely to carry long term imprisonment or death as a sentence is also verboten according to Josh. Most things that would make you evil in one session's time are already not an option.
Neutral characters can do evil acts without being evil. And for the record, I don't understand why you have such a hang up on Asmodeus being worshiped either. I don't mean to be dismissive, but perhaps it comes from years of DMing FR where it wasn't that strange to have neutral worshipers of Malar or Mask running around.
Edit: Having just reread Asmodeus' entry in Gods and Magic, I'm not seeing a problem with LN priests. If you take the whole dogma presented, a LN character is going to be able to follow 90% or so of what is presented without a problem.
Asmodeus was a key factor in restraining Rovagug at the beginning of time, and more recently, Cheliax sees him as again being a stabilizing force in the face of the chaos left over after Aroden's death.
Asmodeus himself is very, very evil, but there is plenty of room in his dogma to allow for neutral priest. In fact, it makes perfect sense that he would have them as, over their careers, he slowly tweaks them to be more and more cruel.
Yet another Edit: Also, the "non-evil PCs" isn't just for the sake of the potential children playing, its also so that people that come to the table and decide to push their boundaries are pushing against neutral, if that makes any sense.
Yes, they may be trying to play evil, but they are pushing a neutral alignment to play evil. If you flat out let them play, say a NE character, but tell them they can't kidnap the merchant's daughter to ransom her, they'll complain that they are allowed to be NE but not allowed to play NE.
|
|
No offense, but I think you are getting too hung up on the way LG used to do things.
Non Taken, it's a known fault of mine, when I see something that 'worked' then I try to replicate it other things I deem similar.
I guess I just have a differing issue on what it takes to be a cleric than most. As already stated this comes from knowing too many people studying to become Priests, Imams, Granthis, etc. They don't just agree with SOME of the faith...
As you said, one can follow 90% of what Asmodeus says. However the 10% other is critical, and involves damnation and evil of the utmost nature. TO me it is impossible to separate the areas.
In any case I basically told the player that he needed to watch himself when in any city/area where undead where not encouraged. (Which is most places, even Celiax, as he is NOT state approved...)
I am not suggesting a 'points' system for evil, just if you are keeping evil alignment descriptor effects whilst simultaneously barring evil PCs then you need SOME sort of qualification on how that works.
|
|
In LG (3.5) AND in LFR (4e) Clerics/other divine classes just couldn't worship an Evil God. I personally think that is a wiser choice. Not only solves the problems, but it is in line with the 'no evil PCs' policy's intent, both for legal, political, AND PvP based issues.
Y'know, up till people here started spouting 'but wielding negative energy isn't bad if I'm doing it to doggies instead of people!' I would've said gamers should be trusted to walk the fairly wide path between neutral and evil presented to NE clerics of Him.
|
|
"Merciful Shelyn, would you look at those black hearted bastards animating those dead wolves they just killed. We could never trust them to aid us."
"I agree."
"What are you going to do about that rampaging orc that got around the undead wolves?"
"I'm going to set him on fire, then use a spell that slowly corrodes his flesh off of his bones with acid."
"Thank goodness you aren't using any evil spells."
|
|
"Merciful Shelyn, would you look at those black hearted bastards animating those dead wolves they just killed. We could never trust them to aid us."
"I agree."
"What are you going to do about that rampaging orc that got around the undead wolves?"
"I'm going to set him on fire, then use a spell that slowly corrodes his flesh off of his bones with acid."
"Thank goodness you aren't using any evil spells."
Best post of the thread so far.