|
I am looking to gaping that divide in PFS we have seen recently that has started many arguments of Paladin Vs the Necromancer, to gap that divide I am going to make a Paladin/Necromancer.
What I need help with is a consistent and logical background/story on how a Paladin could be a Necromancer and still abide by his Vows and being LG.
I am waiting on getting the Faiths of Balance book for new Vows but want to start this discussion now to start working on it.
Here is a very brief outline at what I am looking at now. I can give more detail if requested.
* As something of Note I have not played a Paladin in about 30 years since my First PC which was a Paladin and I have not made one since, so I am not an expert on them.
Very Short Outline.
Right now I am looking at a Human from Geb that is a Paladin[Shelyn]/Necromancer who sees the Beauty in the Undead body and protects them as he would any being. Though he sees that undead are naturally evil he commits himself to try to change that in any that he brings forth or others he meets that he has no control over before destroying them, though he does it with sadness because he is destroying that beauty.
Any suggestions on this idea or new ideas are welcome.
|
|
A paladin of Abadar might view the use of undead criminals performing risky, but necessary work for a community as more humane than jeopardizing citizens or slaves.
Once they buy into this, it's a simple leap for them to take up the necromantic mantle. Because, who else can be trusted to work with such corrupting forces and not turn to evil?
Waiting for Faiths of Balance before I look at Abadar.
Short Story: During the creation of our most recent characters, our DM provided us with an old copy of a book called 'Central Casting', it's a random background generator using a bunch of tables.
My friend was decided on making a Human Paladin, however... he rolled up NECROPHILIA and UNREQUITED LOVE(and some other things). He asked the DM to get a re-roll on the necrophilia.
After a week or so, I had a thought, he could've used the unrequited love as part of his necrophilia. Now, I know the background bits are a bit skeevy(hand-wave those away, much like going to the bathroom in D&D), but how tragically awesome would a Paladin whose still in love with his dead wife/girlfriend be?! Someone whom he vowed to love
EDITED: Concepts/Thoughts: I was thinking Pharasma or Calistria, but being a Paladin of Calistria is a bit of a hard sell, though I believe it's legal. Maybe a Skoan-Quah (skull clan) Shoanti Paladin? Though they seem to dislike undead, despite their lives "revolving around death" (LINK)
|
|
Short Story: During the creation of our most recent characters, our DM provided us with an old copy of a book called 'Central Casting', it's a random background generator using a bunch of tables.
My friend was decided on making a Human Paladin, however... he rolled up NECROPHILIA and UNREQUITED LOVE(and some other things). He asked the DM to get a re-roll on the necrophilia.
After a week or so, I had a thought, he could've used the unrequited love as part of his necrophilia. Now, I know the background bits are a bit skeevy(hand-wave those away, much like going to the bathroom in D&D), but how tragically awesome would a Paladin whose still in love with his dead wife/girlfriend be?! Someone whom he vowed to love
I was thinking Pharasma or Calistria, but being a Paladin of Calistria is a bit of a hard sell, though I believe it's legal.
That works well with Shelyn also which is what i was looking at.
Part of his background was that he was a Servant of a beautiful Undead *Type still undecided* in Geb, that he fell in love with and this is what lead to his odd views of beauty and the Undead.
Venture-Captain, Oregon—Portland
|
Why start with Paladin first? Why not have a Necromancer that "sees the light" during the course of his adventures and becomes a Paladin, but uses the tools he knows to promote the "greater good"?
That would fit in well with being from Geb as well, just not sure about being a Pally of Shelyn. I don't know if Shelyn would agree with his views of beauty, and wouldn't that create a problem with your Pally gaining his/her powers from Shelyn?
|
|
That would fit in well with being from Geb as well, just not sure about being a Pally of Shelyn. I don't know if Shelyn would agree with his views of beauty, and wouldn't that create a problem with your Pally gaining his/her powers from Shelyn?
an Interesting point that people like reminding me about Paladins, they really don't get their powers from Gods.
Edit: And I could not find an edict of Shelyn against Undead, only those mostly out to destroy beauty and art. Unlike Pharasma.
|
|
going by the alignment restrictions of the deity paladin's can follow (LG, LN, NG), These would be the only major gods they could follow...
Abadar (LN)
Irori (LN)
Erastil (LG)
Iomedae (LG)
Sarenrae (NG)
Shelyn (NG)
Torag (LG)
Hard to say which would not have a problem with undead summoning or controlling. Looking at Abadar in Faiths of Balance, He seems to favor order in society above all else. Not sure how that sits with the undead thing, unless of course if you mix in Geb and have a city of sentient undead. This seems to be the best chance for that combo.
|
|
going by the alignment restrictions of the deity paladin's can follow (LG, LN, NG), These would be the only major gods they could follow...
Abadar (LN)
Irori (LN)
Erastil (LG)
Iomedae (LG)
Sarenrae (NG)
Shelyn (NG)
Torag (LG)Hard to say which would not have a problem with undead summoning or controlling. Looking at Abadar in Faiths of Balance, He seems to favor order in society above all else. Not sure how that sits with the undead thing, unless of course if you mix in Geb and have a city of sentient undead. This seems to be the best chance for that combo.
Are paladin's even required to be within one step of their deity? Under alignment restrictions for cleric it states "Alignment: A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of her deity’s, along either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis."
Under Paladin it states "Alignment: Lawful good."
Makes sense to me, why couldn't I worship a neutral god, yet be devoted to destroying evil? Likewise I would assume a neutral god could also have Anti-paladins.
|
|
going by the alignment restrictions of the deity paladin's can follow (LG, LN, NG), These would be the only major gods they could follow...
Abadar (LN)
Irori (LN)
Erastil (LG)
Iomedae (LG)
Sarenrae (NG)
Shelyn (NG)
Torag (LG)Hard to say which would not have a problem with undead summoning or controlling. Looking at Abadar in Faiths of Balance, He seems to favor order in society above all else. Not sure how that sits with the undead thing, unless of course if you mix in Geb and have a city of sentient undead. This seems to be the best chance for that combo.
I see a few other Gods you did not put above.
Alseta (LN)
Angrad (LG)
Apsu (LG)
Bolka (NG)
Chaldira Zuzaristan (NG)
Dranngvit (LN)
Folgrit (LG)
Grundinnar (LG)
Kols (LN)
Kurgess (NG)
Magrim (LN)
Trudd (NG)
Yuelral (NG)
That being said, I like your idea with Shelyn, and if it weren't a PFS situation and you were writing an NPC or Novel, I can see your character polishing the bones of a skeleton so they sheen with ivory beauty before animating them. Or making sure when you create a zombie, it is only from the most pure and beautiful bodies that are freshly dead and without a mar on them.
Profession Mortician would be interesting for this type of character.
You would be the one that creates the eulogies of loved ones. Think Orson Scott Card's "Speaker for the Dead".
|
|
That being said, I like your idea with Shelyn, and if it weren't a PFS situation and you were writing an NPC or Novel, I can see your character polishing the bones of a skeleton so they sheen with ivory beauty before animating them. Or making sure when you create a zombie, it is only from the most pure and beautiful bodies that are freshly dead and without a mar on them.
Profession Mortician would be interesting for this type of character.
You would be the one that creates the eulogies of loved ones. Think Orson Scott Card's "Speaker for the Dead".
The question is, will it work for PFS?
And your last part, hmmmm Paladin/Necromancer/Bard?
Nah... I hate multi-classing in general, don't think I could convince myself to have 3 classes!
Edit: I am worried it reads more like a Cleric/Necromancer then a Paladin/Necromancer.
|
|
Taking a closer look at Paladin, I am a little worried about this part;
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Espescially the last line...
|
After reading the thread title I immediately started to think about Geb. A natural choise, you picked it too.
While the necromancer fluff directly speaks of commanding and using undead for his/her own actions, the mechanics themselves don't force you to be that way. For example the necromancer's Power Over Undead allows you to turn undead as if it was 3.5 all over again. Thus it would be entirely possible for this rebellious Gebbite to forsake the teachings of necromancy, seek for holiness and redemption, and use his arcane skills to fend off undead creatures.
This said character could also understand that studying more necromancy heightens his/her knowledge over undead and gives more tools to defeat them. This might seem very awkward in the eyes of the other paladins though. Nevertheless it's a sound theory. And a new idea.
Regarding your original idea of a paladin who sees undead beautiful (there's something disturbingly wrong with this paladin!) I have little to offer. In Geb undead are a common sight and people will get accustomed to them. To this said paladin there would most likely be nothing wrong with undead, nothing exceptionally evil.
While this necromancer would be lawful good, it would automatically forbid him/her from casting certain spells, like Animate Dead due to its evil descriptor. I would imagine spells with the poison descriptor are also off the list.
I would imagine Paladin/Sorcerer (undead bloodline) to be a more compatible multiclass selection. Thematically it could still be the same.
|
|
Paladin/Oracle of Bones
Even though the player chooses the abilities of the character (ie, Armor of Bones, Raise the Dead ...) and when to use them, it does not mean that the character has to consciously choose to use them (as long as you respects all the mechanics and system rules of course). You might decide that your Paladin uses Raise the Dead (and a standard action) to summon a zombie, while your character actually does nothing of the sort and is highly distressed to see a zombie extract itself from a nearby shallow grave and start attacking his enemies.
The character likely views himself as cursed because of the great interest that the forces of Death and Undeath clearly take in his well-being. And that should strengthen his determination to fight evil and uphold his holy vows to make up for the horror he involuntarily unleashes upon the world and in the hope that maybe one day the gods will smile on him and free him of this awful curse.
|
What about a paladin who uses the bodies of sworn criminals after their deaths as a part of their penance? After defeating these vile murderers and thugs, he re-animates their corpses to serve as holy weapons of good. It would be like that prestige class in 3.5 that tricked evil outsiders into thinking he was the same alignment.
|
|
While this necromancer would be lawful good, it would automatically forbid him/her from casting certain spells, like Animate Dead due to its evil descriptor. I would imagine spells with the poison descriptor are also off the list.
This is another place I may have problems with GMs. Spells with the Evil descriptor are not Evil acts in themselves, if that was the case then taking the Necromancy School as a wizard would require you to be evil which it does not. Now Clerics that take the good Domain may be limited from casting these spells, but that is the only case I see where there is a limitation in casting them, which is not a problem with a Paladin.
|
Venture-Captain, Oregon—Portland
|
When would you be multiclassing in your career in PFS, and what class would you want to start as? I think starting as a necromancer would be easiest to do, and then becoming a paladin later on as you were able to afford the atonement spell as requested by GM's.
This would work as well with my earlier idea of being a necromancer of Geb who comes to see the "true" beauty in undead, becoming a worshiper of Shelyn in the process. Afterwards he would feel the call to go into the world and destroy those undead who are destroying beauty, while praising and protecting those undead who are creating beauty.
You could also have a paladin of Geb who sees no inherent evil in undead and falls in love with a vampire noblewoman of Geb, causing him to begin studying necromancy in order to preserve and protect the laws and "beauty" of Geb.
You could work around the "evilness" of animate dead and similar spells by having him raise the spirits of past heroes to animate your dead, and any trace of evil surrounding them is a holdover from the knowledge and spells gained in your quest to protect and preserve beauty. I would go with the idea that any evil isn't inherent in your created undead, but only caused by the spells necessary to create them. This working would depend on the GM, and as such I would have a back-up character handy if the GM doesn't go for it.
Taking a closer look at Paladin, I am a little worried about this part;
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Especially the last line...
Are animated undead viewed as henchmen, followers, or cohorts? In PFS I've always seen them more similar to summoned creatures, as they don't last between scenarios...
|
|
While this necromancer would be lawful good, it would automatically forbid him/her from casting certain spells, like Animate Dead due to its evil descriptor. I would imagine spells with the poison descriptor are also off the list.This is another place I may have problems with GMs. Spells with the Evil descriptor are not Evil acts in themselves, if that was the case then taking the Necromancy School as a wizard would require you to be evil which it does not. Now Clerics that take the good Domain may be limited from casting these spells, but that is the only case I see where there is a limitation in casting them, which is not a problem with a Paladin.
This is where I think we will have to disagree. I think it is way reading too much into things to interpret them the way you want them so that you can do what you want with your character.
Casting a spell is an action. Therefore it is an act. It is a conscious act of doing something.
Spells with an evil descriptor is casting an evil spell, therefore it is an evil action or an evil act.
Non-good deities may not have a problem with this, dependent on whether their write-up talks about hatred of undead or not.
Good deities I would feel would have a huge issue on this, and would pull their support of clerics, paladins, and any other divine casters that depend on their support if they were to cast an evil spell.
As such, paladins cannot cast spells with evil descriptors. It would go against being Good.
|
While this necromancer would be lawful good, it would automatically forbid him/her from casting certain spells, like Animate Dead due to its evil descriptor. I would imagine spells with the poison descriptor are also off the list.This is another place I may have problems with GMs. Spells with the Evil descriptor are not Evil acts in themselves, if that was the case then taking the Necromancy School as a wizard would require you to be evil which it does not. Now Clerics that take the good Domain may be limited from casting these spells, but that is the only case I see where there is a limitation in casting them, which is not a problem with a Paladin.This is where I think we will have to disagree. I think it is way reading too much into things to interpret them the way you want them so that you can do what you want with your character.
Casting a spell is an action. Therefore it is an act. It is a conscious act of doing something.
Spells with an evil descriptor is casting an evil spell, therefore it is an evil action or an evil act.
Non-good deities may not have a problem with this, dependent on whether their write-up talks about hatred of undead or not.
Good deities I would feel would have a huge issue on this, and would pull their support of clerics, paladins, and any other divine casters that depend on their support if they were to cast an evil spell.
As such, paladins cannot cast spells with evil descriptors. It would go against being Good.
So I looked up the definition of the evil descriptor in spells.
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.
While I can certainly see a spell with the evil descriptor being used 'for the greater good', I can certainly see a lot of GMs automatically counting them as evil acts. I would try to determine motivation of the character, meaning they would have to honestly believe that doing so would help the greater good and not just be of assistance in a battle.
I see the alignmnet tags as more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule, which is how I see pretty much anything when it comes to morality rules.
I think you CAN do this and I would love to have you at my table whether I was running or playing as the RP would be intense :) It does seem that taking the Necromancer who doesn't summon undead (a la the White Necromancers of Pharasma) would be the easier way to go, though I know it isn't what you are looking for.
I am looking to gaping that divide in PFS we have seen recently that has started many arguments of Paladin Vs the Necromancer, to gap that divide I am going to make a Paladin/Necromancer.
What I need help with is a consistent and logical background/story on how a Paladin could be a Necromancer and still abide by his Vows and being LG.
I am waiting on getting the Faiths of Balance book for new Vows but want to start this discussion now to start working on it.
Here is a very brief outline at what I am looking at now. I can give more detail if requested.
* As something of Note I have not played a Paladin in about 30 years since my First PC which was a Paladin and I have not made one since, so I am not an expert on them.
Very Short Outline.
Right now I am looking at a Human from Geb that is a Paladin[Shelyn]/Necromancer who sees the Beauty in the Undead body and protects them as he would any being. Though he sees that undead are naturally evil he commits himself to try to change that in any that he brings forth or others he meets that he has no control over before destroying them, though he does it with sadness because he is destroying that beauty.
Any suggestions on this idea or new ideas are welcome.
No where is it written in stone that all Necromancers are evil and control or make undead. A healer can be a Necro, a spiritualist could be a Necro as well. I would think what would fit in best with your idea would most likely be an Undead Hunter Necromancer. One who believes in life and death but abhors undeath and believes it should be destroyed at every turn and encounter. When you look at it that way i could see the Necromancer being either Clerical or Mage. Hope that helps you some.
|
|
Like I said, if that was the case, then Necromancer would be required to be Evil, which it is not, because then just being a Necromancer would be performing evil acts if casting an Evil spell and would then become Evil, which is also not the case.
The Evil Descriptor is just used as a label for those clerics that have the Good domain for spells they can't cast, and the same for the opposite, those with the Evil domain can't cast spell with the Good descriptor.
|
|
So I looked up the definition of the evil descriptor in spells.
While I can certainly see a spell with the evil descriptor being used 'for the greater good', I can certainly see a lot of GMs automatically counting them as evil acts. I would try to determine motivation of the...
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.
In a home game, I'd agree with you 100%. I'd have no problem working out something interesting with a player who wanted to do something like this.
In PFS, we need as many "across-the-board" rules as we can get. In this case, it isn't hard to come up with that without some form of interpretation. You don't have to interpret Evil as Evil.
That being said, you could still do this combination justice without having to actually cast animate dead or create undead.
Command undead is a neat spell that would allow you to take control of already existing undead. It does not have the evil descriptor. You could cast this on undead to use them towards the purposes of good and beauty, rather than what they probably were going to do on their own (or under an evil guy's command).
Additionally, you could know Animate Dead and Create Undead spells so that you could counter them should a bad guy cast them.
I don't see the need to actually create undead as necessary with your character's background.
|
|
Like I said, if that was the case, then Necromancer would be required to be Evil, which it is not, because then just being a Necromancer would be performing evil acts if casting an Evil spell and would then become Evil, which is also not the case.
The Evil Descriptor is just used as a label for those clerics that have the Good domain for spells they can't cast, and the same for the opposite, those with the Evil domain can't cast spell with the Good descriptor.
Performing evil acts will not automatically turn you into an evil person. The whole of your set of actions across every moment, encounter, and lifetime would determine whether you are evil or not. If you cast a preponderance of evil spells and back that up with a slew of other evil acts, than yeah, you'd turn into an evil person.
But a massive amount of evil acts is not necessary for a paladin to fall. One evil act is.
|
|
Performing evil acts will not automatically turn you into an evil person. The whole of your set of actions across every moment, encounter, and lifetime would determine whether you are evil or not. If you cast a preponderance of evil spells and back that up with a slew of other evil acts, than yeah, you'd turn into an evil person.
But a massive amount of evil acts is not necessary for a paladin to fall. One evil act is.
My point is, casting a spell with an Evil Discriptor is not an Evil Act.
It specfically stated such in 3.5, but that is left out of Pathfinder RPG.
|
|
The Evil Descriptor is just used as a label for those clerics that have the Good domain for spells they can't cast, and the same for the opposite, those with the Evil domain can't cast spell with the Good descriptor.
Actually, that's incorrect.
From the Core book, pg42
"Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can’t
cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her
deity’s (if she has one). Spells associated with particular
alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and
lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions."
Since Shelyn is NG, that would pretty much disallow a cleric from casting spells w/ the Evil descriptor. Ditto for a cleric with a good alignment
And while you can nitpick & say 'but a paladin isn't a cleric', let's face it - you're a holy warrior who's supposed to be a paragon of your deity - who happens to be a force of Good.
If I was trying to make this concept work, I'd opt for an Neutral deity & maybe shift focus to the Inquisitor. But I know that's getting away from your goal of making the paladin mesh with the necromancer. Good luck with that.
|
|
My point is, casting a spell with an Evil Discriptor is not an Evil Act.It specfically stated such in 3.5, but that is left out of Pathfinder RPG.
I wonder why?
I wouldn't base your interpretation of the rules on what was ruled in 3.5.
Digging through the PRD, I cannot find a definition for an 'Evil Act'. Which leaves this in the realm of the GM (except for a few things specifically pointed out in the Guide).
I don't think Dragnmoon is fooling himself by thinking that he's going to get consistant rulings from different GMs with this character.
I am looking to gaping that divide in PFS we have seen recently that has started many arguments of Paladin Vs the Necromancer, to gap that divide I am going to make a Paladin/Necromancer.
What I need help with is a consistent and logical background/story on how a Paladin could be a Necromancer and still abide by his Vows and being LG.
I am waiting on getting the Faiths of Balance book for new Vows but want to start this discussion now to start working on it.
Here is a very brief outline at what I am looking at now. I can give more detail if requested.
* As something of Note I have not played a Paladin in about 30 years since my First PC which was a Paladin and I have not made one since, so I am not an expert on them.
Very Short Outline.
Right now I am looking at a Human from Geb that is a Paladin[Shelyn]/Necromancer who sees the Beauty in the Undead body and protects them as he would any being. Though he sees that undead are naturally evil he commits himself to try to change that in any that he brings forth or others he meets that he has no control over before destroying them, though he does it with sadness because he is destroying that beauty.
Any suggestions on this idea or new ideas are welcome.
No where is it written in stone that all Necromancers are evil and control or make undead. A healer can be a Necro, a spiritualist could be a Necro as well. I would think what would fit in best with your idea would most likely be an Undead Hunter Necromancer. One who believes in life and death but abhors undeath and believes it should be destroyed at every turn and encounter. When you look at it that way i could see the Necromancer being either Clerical or Mage. Hope that helps you some.
|
|
Digging through the PRD, I cannot find a definition for an 'Evil Act'. Which leaves this in the realm of the GM (except for a few things specifically pointed out in the Guide).
I don't think Dragnmoon is fooling himself by thinking that he's going to get consistant rulings from different GMs with this character.
Oh I don't think that at all...I know I will not get consistent ruling on this, since it really is left up to the GM discretion, But I am going to say I am right..;)
Edit: But I do expect any DM that will call out a paladin for casting a spell with the Evil descriptor will do the same for a Necromancer animating undead.
Edit Edit: Or a call out a Chaotic person for casting a lawful spell and vice verse.
|
|
Actually, that's incorrect.
From the Core book, pg42
"Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can’t
cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her
deity’s (if she has one). Spells associated with particular
alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and
lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions."Since Shelyn is NG, that would pretty much disallow a cleric from casting spells w/ the Evil descriptor. Ditto for a cleric with a good alignment
And while you can nitpick & say 'but a paladin isn't a cleric', let's face it - you're a holy warrior who's supposed to be a paragon of your deity - who happens to be a force of Good.
If I was trying to make this concept work, I'd opt for an Neutral deity & maybe shift focus to the Inquisitor. But I know that's getting away from your goal of making the paladin mesh with the necromancer. Good luck with that.
What is incorrect? that is exactly what I said, but that is a Cleric Domain Rule, which paladins don't get so it is a non issue.
|
|
What is incorrect? that is exactly what I said, but that is a Cleric Domain Rule, which paladins don't get so it is a non issue.Actually, that's incorrect.
From the Core book, pg42
"Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can’t
cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her
deity’s (if she has one). Spells associated with particular
alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and
lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions."Since Shelyn is NG, that would pretty much disallow a cleric from casting spells w/ the Evil descriptor. Ditto for a cleric with a good alignment
And while you can nitpick & say 'but a paladin isn't a cleric', let's face it - you're a holy warrior who's supposed to be a paragon of your deity - who happens to be a force of Good.
If I was trying to make this concept work, I'd opt for an Neutral deity & maybe shift focus to the Inquisitor. But I know that's getting away from your goal of making the paladin mesh with the necromancer. Good luck with that.
What I was clarifying is that its not a Domain rule, its an alignment rule.
The rest you can take with a grain of salt.
|
|
What I was clarifying is that its not a Domain rule, its an alignment rule.
The rest you can take with a grain of salt.
Ahh I see, yes you are correct. Yes does not matter if the Good domain is chosen or not, you can't cast a spell opposed to your deity either way.
But I will not agree that Paladins have to follow that rule since it is a Cleric rule not a Paladin rule.
|
|
Edit: But I do expect any DM that will call out a paladin for casting a spell with the Evil descriptor will do the same for a Necromancer animating undead.
Edit Edit: Or a call out a Chaotic person for casting a lawful spell and vice verse.
Absolutely not. Not unless their particular deity or class (cleric or paladin) has some sort of stricture on them like the Paladin does. This isn’t strictly an alignment issue, but rather a function of the class and how it works with performing evil acts.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 4
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spells with the Evil descriptor are not Evil acts in themselves, if that was the case then taking the Necromancy School as a wizard would require you to be evil which it does not.
I assume your use of the word 'Necromancer' implies undead controller - not just any wizard specializing in the Necromancy School? Because there is nothing in the Necromancy wizard specialization section that refers to spells, let alone spells with the [Evil] descriptor.
Moreover, there are only 5 (Animate Dead, Contagion, Symbol of Pain, Create Undead, & Create Greater Undead) Sorcerer/Wizard necromancy spells in the Core Rulebook that have the [Evil] descriptor. A necromancy specialist wizard has plenty of necromancy spells to choose from which lack the [Evil] descriptor.
Of course, if you have to Animate Dead in order to be a necromancer then yes, you would have to be casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor. Good new is, you can't cast Animate Dead until Wizard 7. So you'll have plenty of time to play the character before a GM writes "Ex-Paladin" in your conditions gained section of the chronicle sheet.
|
|
What I was clarifying is that its not a Domain rule, its an alignment rule.
The rest you can take with a grain of salt.
Ahh I see, yes you are correct. Yes does not matter if the Good domain is chosen or not, you can't cast a spell opposed to your deity either way.
But I will not agree that Paladins have to follow that rule since it is a Cleric rule not a Paladin rule.
I would actually rule that the Paladin would be under more stringent strictures than the Cleric. Other GM’s may rule it differently, and that’s fine. But until I hear otherwise from the powers that be, this would be my ruling as a GM at my table for PFS. At a home game, I might work out something home brewed with my player in question.
|
|
Absolutely not. Not unless their particular deity or class (cleric or paladin) has some sort of stricture on them like the Paladin does. This isn’t strictly an alignment issue, but rather a function of the class and how it works with performing evil acts.
And there is going to be the problem right there with some GMs, they see spells with an Evil Descriptor as Evil acts if cast, while I see as only a distinction for clerics on what they can't or can cast based on their gods alignment.
And an Evil act is an Evil act no matter what class you are, granted a Paladin gets hit harder for performing one but a non paladin who consistently performs an Evil Act becomes evil, so a Necromancer or anyone else casting Animate Dead is performing an Evil Act to those who say it is an evil act, and if he does it many times his alignment shifts in that direction and he becomes unplayable in PFS. Same with any alignment spell if you are going to call it that way.
I will respect any GM who says it is an Evil Act and not play that PC, but I will not respect a GM who is not consistent on it. A GM needs to be consistent in his rules and an Evil act is an Evil act no matter what class you are, just the repercussion of performing that act may differ.
|
|
Absolutely not. Not unless their particular deity or class (cleric or paladin) has some sort of stricture on them like the Paladin does. This isn’t strictly an alignment issue, but rather a function of the class and how it works with performing evil acts.And there is going to be the problem right there with some GMs, they see spells with an Evil Descriptor as Evil acts if cast, while I see as only a distinction for clerics on what they can't or can cast based on their gods alignment.
And an Evil act is an Evil act no matter what class you are, granted a Paladin gets hit harder for performing one but a non paladin who consistently performs an Evil Act becomes evil, so a Necromancer or anyone else casting Animate Dead is performing an Evil Act to those who say it is an evil act, and if he does it many times his alignment shifts in that direction and he becomes unplayable in PFS. Same with any alignment spell if you are going to call it that way.
I will respect any GM who says it is an Evil Act and not play that PC, but I will not respect a GM who is not consistent on it. A GM needs to be consistent in his rules and an Evil act is an Evil act no matter what class you are, just the repercussion of performing that act may differ.
I explained myself above, as to why simply casting Animate dead several times would not constitute an alignment shift. Take my explanation for whatever its worth.
ANY character that consistently, over many different facets of action (not just casting one particular spell once or twice a day), does evil things, would certainly get called out by me.
But not for casting a spell once or twice a day.
For a Paladin, where performing one evil act can cause problems, it would be an issue.
If you don’t respect me as a GM because of how I choose to rule this type of situation that is certainly your prerogative. I don’t particularly care for situations in which players try to creatively interpret rules to get away with something. Or try to emotionally blackmail me on being too hard in a situation where it is not warranted.
|
|
I explained myself above, as to why simply casting Animate dead several times would not constitute an alignment shift. Take my explanation for whatever its worth.ANY character that consistently, over many different facets of action (not just casting one particular spell once or twice a day), does evil things, would certainly get called out by me.
But not for casting a spell once or twice a day.
For a Paladin, where performing one evil act can cause problems, it would be an issue.
If you don’t respect me as a GM because of how I choose to rule this type of situation that is certainly your prerogative. I don’t particularly care for situations in which players try to creatively interpret rules to get...
So wait, as long as it is the same evil act over and over again a PC that is not a Paladin is fine? How does that make sense? That is basically what you are saying.
Once again for any character performing an Evil Act would be a problem just the repercussions are different.
I understand that the repercussions of an Evil Act is different for a Paladin vs. another class, but the interpretation for an Evil Act is the same for everyone, nothing special about the Paladin changes the interpretation.
If you call a Spell with an Evil Descriptor an Evil act you need to warn the caster no matter the class he is performing an evil act in your interpretation and if he continues to cast that spell even after being warned you annotate it on the chronicle sheet, if he does it many times over his alignment shifts. If he games with you again and still does it then he gets the repercussions. Yes it is unlikely in one game for an alignment to shift, but my point is most likely he will be doing it in every game performing the same Evil Act so he needs to get the repercussions for performing evil acts over time.
It is unfair to be picky on when you will enforce a rule that is negative to a character, you need to enforce it consistently.
|
|
I explained myself above, as to why simply casting Animate dead several times would not constitute an alignment shift. Take my explanation for whatever its worth.ANY character that consistently, over many different facets of action (not just casting one particular spell once or twice a day), does evil things, would certainly get called out by me.
But not for casting a spell once or twice a day.
For a Paladin, where performing one evil act can cause problems, it would be an issue.
If you don’t respect me as a GM because of how I choose to rule this type of situation that is certainly your prerogative. I don’t particularly care for situations in which players try to creatively interpret rules to get...
So wait, as long as it is the same evil act over and over again a PC that is not a Paladin is fine? How does that make sense? That is basically what you are saying.
Once again for any character performing an Evil Act would be a problem just the repercussions are different.
I understand that the repercussions of an Evil Act is different for a Paladin vs. another class, but the interpretation for an Evil Act is the same for everyone, nothing special about the Paladin changes the interpretation.
If you call a Spell with an Evil Descriptor an Evil act you need to warn the caster no matter the class he is performing an evil act in your interpretation and if he continues to cast that spell even after being warned you annotate it on the chronicle sheet, if he does it many times over his alignment shifts. If he games with you again and still does it then he gets the repercussions. Yes it is unlikely in one game for an alignment to shift, but my point is most likely he will be doing it in every game performing the same Evil Act so he needs to get the repercussions for performing evil acts over time.
It is unfair to be picky on when you will enforce a rule that is negative to a character, you need to enforce it consistently.
But the accumulation of all actions being predominately good and/or neutral actions will mitigate the casting of an evil descriptor spell once or twice a day.
Otherwise, if I torture to death for information, everyone I don’t kill outright, then that should be noted on the chronicle as well?
I don’t think, anyone will argue that is an evil act, and one that a Paladin could fall from doing (or even allowing to happen for that matter).
But are you going to note that on every person’s chronicle sheet? The CN Rogue?
I assure you that most GM’s would not.
The only place moral police are necessary in PFS, is when you are discussing class specific moral strictures similar to a Paladin, some Clerics, Druids, maybe Inquisitor and Oracle and some Cavalier orders.
Otherwise, unless it is incredibly egregious I would ignore it.
|
|
Another point just in case it comes up in this thread, a Paladin can become an ex-Paladin for 3 reasons, and those reasons can be distinct things. They cannot perform Evil Acts, Be Dishonorable or break their oath. Breaking your oath or being Dishonorable does not necessarily mean you performed an Evil Act so they are not always on in the same thing.
As an Example Using Poison is not an Evil Act but it is a Dishonorable act which can cause a Paladin to become an Ex-Paladin, so GMs need to make sure they are separating those, and not confusing all acts that can cause a Paladin to become an Ex-Paladin to be an Evil Act.
|
|
Andrew if someone continually performed an Evil act during a Game, yes I would annotate it on the Chronicle sheet, if it was a Local player I would have more control over it, at conventions I don't so the annotation most likely would not mean anything, but I would annotate it none the less.
As an Example.
If I was at a table with this Paladin and a Caster that casts Animate Undead and that Caster cast Animate Undead and does not call him on it but later called my paladin for casting the same spell as an Evil Act I would call him on it and have this same talk we are having now.
Granted beforehand if I thought the GM interpreted it that way most likely I would not play the pally anyway so the example is only hypothetical anyway.
|
|
Another point just in case it comes up in this thread, a Paladin can become an ex-Paladin for 3 reasons, and those reasons can be distinct things. They cannot perform Evil Acts, Be Dishonorable or break their oath. Breaking your oath or being Dishonorable does not necessarily mean you performed an Evil Act so they are not always on in the same thing.
As an Example Using Poison is not an Evil Act but it is a Dishonorable act which can cause a Paladin to become an Ex-Paladin, so GMs need to make sure they are separating those, and not confusing all acts that can cause a Paladin to become an Ex-Paladin to be an Evil Act.
Agreed.
Keep in mind, if some might not agree with me and think that casting a spell with an evil descriptor is an evil act, those same might consider animating the corpse of someone a dishonorable act.
|
|
Agreed.
Keep in mind, if some might not agree with me and think that casting a spell with an evil descriptor is an evil act, those same might consider animating the corpse of someone a dishonorable act.
I grant you that.
Like I said I am making this character based on my interpretation of the rules, so I will only play him who agrees with that interpretation.
Unless of Course someone from Paizo posted somewhere that Evil Descriptor spell where evil acts then I would change my interpretation.
|
|
I can see both your points.
Evil Acts(tm) should have the same affect on all characters in general. However, the Paladin is the only class (I'm aware of) that specifically call it out at making them Ex-Paladins.
If you want to rules lawyer it:
who willfully commits an evil act
This indicates singular, AN Evil Act(tm). So I could see many a judge saying one single thing they consider an evil act dropping you.
I feel that is being a tad strict, but they wouldn't, technically, be in the wrong.
|
|
Another point just in case it comes up in this thread, a Paladin can become an ex-Paladin for 3 reasons, and those reasons can be distinct things. They cannot perform Evil Acts, Be Dishonorable or break their oath. Breaking your oath or being Dishonorable does not necessarily mean you performed an Evil Act so they are not always on in the same thing.
As an Example Using Poison is not an Evil Act but it is a Dishonorable act which can cause a Paladin to become an Ex-Paladin, so GMs need to make sure they are separating those, and not confusing all acts that can cause a Paladin to become an Ex-Paladin to be an Evil Act.
Then you are more stringent on that sort of thing than most I would imagine.
But I think I really did explain my position on this fairly well. I think we can agree to disagree here if we would like. But based on my interpretation and how I would handle it, I would not call out casters where it isn’t a specific part of their class, for casting a couple spells with an evil descriptor
|
|
I would not call out casters where it isn’t a specific part of their class, for casting a couple spells with an evil descriptor
What if they continually did it over the course of many games? Knowing that Being Evil is not allowed in PFS would you allow a PC that is not a Paladin continue to perform Evil Acts over many games without any repercussions?
|
|
This indicates singular, AN Evil Act(tm). So I could see many a judge saying one single thing they consider an evil act dropping you.I feel that is being a tad strict, but they wouldn't, technically, be in the wrong.
This is hypothetical, it has never happened.
For any Class I would give a warning after the first action I considered an Evil Act, for any class if they continued to perform evil acts during the course of the game I would annotate it on the Chronicle sheet, If they performed Evil acts over many Games I will have them Shift Alignment towards Evil, If they became Evil over a few games then the PC would need to Retire.
For a Paladin they would get one warning, second time I would they would need to get atonement and I would annotate it on the sheet.
Some GMs do the 3 strikes your out thing.