|
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.Exactly. And as a paragon, you represent the ideal -- no neutral gods, no reationalizations and no equivocations.
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.
Excellent.
|
Some GMs do the 3 strikes your out thing.And some don't. Bring this thing to my table at Gen Con, please. >:)
I concur. Paladins are a powerful class. With great power comes great respon--aww, crap, I don't want to get another super hero tangent going. My point is that if you want to know if an act is going to cause your paladin to lose his status then buy a phylactery of faithfulness. Otherwise I don't feel obligated to have a discussion at the table about what constitutes an evil action. The '3 strikes' thing is a GM prerogative. As far as I am concerned the player can take it to the PFS coordinator and try to get his paladin status back. Keep in mind not many convention coordinators are going to overrule their GMs. I want my players to have fun, that's the whole point to the game. But, I have seen too many paladins-of-convenience in PFS and I think my tolerances are wearing thin. This is not directed at Dragnmoon in any way. This topic has been circulating around for a while and I am weighing in with my opinion.
|
Doug I am more leaning now in not making this character, but the thread did make me realize things, one what you mentioned, another the Double Standard it seems GMs treat Alignment in itself on how it effects any PC vs a Paladin, but that is not here and now and deserves it's own Thread which I will not make, and not in the PFS forums.
|
|
Doug I am more leaning now in not making this character, but the thread did make me realize things, one what you mentioned, another the Double Standard it seems GMs treat Alignment in itself on how it effects any PC vs a Paladin, but that is not here and now and deserves it's own Thread which I will not make, and not in the PFS forums.
I disagree that there is a double standard. For there to be a double standard, you are assuming that the repercussions of singular acts are the same. They are not.
I agree they are different standards. And they should be.
|
Ack, I started all this mahooley with the evil descriptor. I dug up some inforation regarding the issue.
Inquisitors and clerics both have this "cannot cast spell of opposite alignment" nonsense. Paladins don't. This might be an oversight, as a paladin is always Lawful Good and the spell list doesn't include any spell with the evil descriptor. To me this seems a bit unintentional.
Nowhere does it say casting a spell with an evil descriptor is an evil act, but then again Evil Act™ is something the GM must determine. To me it's not the spell that is evil, but the use of it determines this.
Regarding evil descriptors as a whole I've seen many spells where they shouldn't have been. In 3.5 Deathwatch spell had the evil descriptor, which was downright stupid. There was absolutely nothing 'evil' about it.
As a paladin/necromancer, I'd be careful when trying to animate dead. Of course you will avoid this problem if your progression will be even, thus your character would be a Paladin 6/Necromancer 6 at most, not reaching Animate Dead spell just.
Personally I think all this alignemnt/evil/paladin poopoo is just gross exaggeration of issues.
|
|
Kyle what is your Opinion on Evil Descriptor of Spells? Is casting one an Evil Act?
What do you think about this PC that would cause it to become an Ex-Paladin?
Edit: This thread is less becoming PFS related, would not be surprised if it is moved.
Talking straight opinion? If you are playing a good aligned player and you knowingly cast an [evil] spell, then you aren't good aligned. To me it doesn't get any more cut and dry as to what constitutes an evil act.
I don't necessarily agree with why some of the spells have [evil] descriptors and I don't even agree that animating a corpse is inherently evil, but I didn't write the book.
"Is killing this puppy evil?" to me is more "gray" than "Can I cast an [evil] spell?"
|
|
Granted I will give you guys that a Paladin working with undead is pushing it..
But I truly don't think that spells with the Evil Descriptor are meant to construe as an evil act I think it is only meant for the distinction for rules with Clerics and that is the only reason it is used for.
Edit: After further research I retract the above statement, oh well.
|
|
I think it's a stretch to say that a spell with the evil descriptor is evil only for the purposes of access, but not as an act. If not for the spell effect being evil in itself, why flag a spell with an evil descriptor?
Bob you missed my retraction of that...;)
And this is why I retracted it..
I really like James opinion here on Animate Dead and PFS...
Edit: By James opinion all spells with the Evil Descriptor should be banned from PFS play
|
|
This seems to have a great need for those in charge of PFS to jump in and clear this up. What about neutral Clerics that channel negative and control undead? Are they doing an evil act by channeling negative energy? If you go by the fact that good gods grant positive energy and evil gods grant negative energy, negative energy is most defiantly evil in nature. This creates issues with those from Cheliax( and possibly shadowlodge faction), where it wouldn't be uncommon to have those following evil gods but are neutral. Seeing this ruling done by a staff member not part of ruling PFS issues, and the fact that Evil descriptor spells are not banned, then we can assume that was not intended to be the case.
|
|
Edit: By James opinion all spells with the Evil Descriptor should be banned from PFS playThat'd be bullocks. An infiltrator (inquisitor archetype) distinctively has an ability that allows to cast spells disregarding the alignment descriptor.
I was not aware of that, Which once again brings into question if it is an Evil act, because just because he Can cast it does not mean it is not Evil to do so.
|
|
I was not aware of that, Which once again brings into question if it is an Evil act, because just because he Can cast it does not mean it is not Evil to do so.Edit: By James opinion all spells with the Evil Descriptor should be banned from PFS playThat'd be bullocks. An infiltrator (inquisitor archetype) distinctively has an ability that allows to cast spells disregarding the alignment descriptor.
To be exact, it's the infiltrator archetype's ability Forbidden Lore.
"An infiltrator can cast spells of an alignment opposed to her or her deity (ignoring the restriction in the Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells class ability)."
|
Contributor
|
You know, I read this thread title and became immediately inspired.
I'd go with split personality. One personality is good and one personality, not so good. The paladin personality knows he has a second persona and attempts to save it. Perhaps the split personality is even a the subconscious of a second entity trapped within in him, so he can save it from eternal damnation, though it occasionally takes over the paladin's body in times of weakness. Or something like that... The evil personality probably hidesthe fact that it has surfaced from the paladins companions, and therefore continues to act somewhat like a paladin, to keep a low profile.
You might need an extra mechanic (house rule) thrown in there so the GM can determine when the change in personalities takes place- particularly if its involuntary, however a good roleplayer could easily handle both parts.
Oh... I'm pretty sure the split personality concept wouldn't work for PFS, I'm just chiming in because I dug the idea.
|
|
You might need an extra mechanic (house rule) thrown in there so the GM can determine when the change in personalities takes place- particularly if its involuntary, however a good roleplayer could easily handle both parts.
Keywords would work. Black and white, for example. Whenever he/she hears those words personality changes.
Venture-Captain, Oregon—Portland
|
Just noticed a feat that might work for you from Ultimate Magic.
Skeleton SummonerThe walking dead respond to your call.
Prerequisites: Spell Focus (necromancy), ability to cast summon monster.
Benefit: Add "human skeleton" to the list of creatures you can summon with summon monster I and "human skeletal champion" to the list of creatures you can summon with summon monster III. Once per day, when you cast summon monster, you may summon a skeletal version of one of the creatures on that spell's summoning list (apply the skeleton template to that creature to create this monster).
This should allow you to summon undead without acting in an evil manner, as you can RP the summoning by having your character "summon" heroes of your goddess Shelyn to help fight for beauty.
I'll admit that I'm not sure if summoning an undead is different than creating undead, rulewise, but character-wise it should work for you.
Just noticed a feat that might work for you from Ultimate Magic.
Skeleton SummonerThe walking dead respond to your call.
Prerequisites: Spell Focus (necromancy), ability to cast summon monster.
Benefit: Add "human skeleton" to the list of creatures you can summon with summon monster I and "human skeletal champion" to the list of creatures you can summon with summon monster III.
That sounds like a win to me, Gornil. Though I believe the summon lists work off of alignment to some extent, what you can and cannot summon per the standard list as a good or evil character, neutral having full access to both sides. THIS feat however says absolutely nothing about alignment, it's just doing a simple replacement. What does the SKELETON TEMPLATE imply though, is there an alignment issue there?
A Paladin/Summoner, skeletal summoning and an eidolon to make look like whatever you want. It could always be explained as some sort of curse. I know it's not exactly what you(Dragnmoon) were going for, but I think you'll save yourself and various GMs a boat load of drama/debate/arguement doing it this way.
"Uh, you're a Paladin, riding a Nightmare?!" (quadraped eidolon)
"Your friend looks a bit under the weather." (biped eidolon)
EDIT: Sympathy Rant: I feel your pain on this concept, because I find it interesting and potentially fun in a warped sort of way. I've had similar issues with a Cavalier and their EXTREMELY limited Mount choices... A Halfling Cavalier CANNOT companion a Stegosuarus in PFS, but a Halfing Druid CAN... AND I was told, a Druid/Cavalier's levels don't stack for companion purposes, despite the RAW(under Druid) that says they do... it just kinda confuses me, but I don't write the rules. *shrug*
EDIT2: This thread has an interesting discussion related to alignment issues in PFS... How Tolerant Are Players Supposed To Be Of Each Others Characters
*ignore the necromancer(and his undead) in the party, but punish the paladin/necromancer for his evil spells* Things that make you go "Hmmm".
|
|
I think it's a stretch to say that a spell with the evil descriptor is evil only for the purposes of access, but not as an act. If not for the spell effect being evil in itself, why flag a spell with an evil descriptor?
I don't think it's a stretch at all. Spells with the evil descriptor is just the domain from which the spell comes from. This totally makes sense for good characters because the gods they worship don't typically (see Infiltrator Inquisitor for a counter) grant them access to that stuff.
It makes no sense why animating the dead would be any more evil than slay living. At the end of the day, both make a target unable to be raised with a raise dead. I'd say both are dishonorable acts, but I wouldn't say they are evil.
/I'd be pretty pissed as hell if my Undead Lord Cleric were ruled illegal. I've already got ~15 chronicles dedicated to him currently.
|
Have you considered Paladin/Juju Oracle?
Your nonintelligent undead would be Neutral, your intelligent undead would be LG. Your character could treat these undead as allied noble spirits/repentant restless spirits rather than slaves. Plenty of angles to play with there.
One could even play a riff on Ragman from DC Comics: Those enemies you inadvertently killed who weren't completely evil to the core get a second chance to lighten the burden of their sins through helping you, with your magic acting as a crucible.
Or maybe they're just guardian spirits that are watching out for you, either because of family ties or your affiliation with your paladin order.
|
Have you considered Paladin/Juju Oracle?
Your nonintelligent undead would be Neutral, your intelligent undead would be LG. Your character could treat these undead as allied noble spirits/repentant restless spirits rather than slaves. Plenty of angles to play with there.
One could even play a riff on Ragman from DC Comics: Those enemies you inadvertently killed who weren't completely evil to the core get a second chance to lighten the burden of their sins through helping you, with your magic acting as a crucible.
Or maybe they're just guardian spirits that are watching out for you, either because of family ties or your affiliation with your paladin order.
Except that Juju Oracles are not PFS legal. Which makes me sad as I really enjoy the flavor of them (tastes like marmelade!)
|
|
You know, I read this thread title and became immediately inspired.
I'd go with split personality. One personality is good and one personality, not so good. The paladin personality knows he has a second persona and attempts to save it. Perhaps the split personality is even a the subconscious of a second entity trapped within in him, so he can save it from eternal damnation, though it occasionally takes over the paladin's body in times of weakness. Or something like that... The evil personality probably hidesthe fact that it has surfaced from the paladins companions, and therefore continues to act somewhat like a paladin, to keep a low profile.
You might need an extra mechanic (house rule) thrown in there so the GM can determine when the change in personalities takes place- particularly if its involuntary, however a good roleplayer could easily handle both parts.
Oh... I'm pretty sure the split personality concept wouldn't work for PFS, I'm just chiming in because I dug the idea.
Dont get me wrong, this is a cool idea, but personally, homegame or PFS, I wouldnt allow it at my table. Its a blatent attempt at getting around the in-place-to-help-keep-the-uber-powerful-paladin-class-in-check alignment restriction of the class.
If it was for anything other than Paladin, then yea, id probably allow it. Paladin, though, is strong enough already, without having 'times of weakness' in which he/she can do whatever they feel like(like animate undead) cause its in their character background.
Also, if I did allow this, if the change back to paladin happened mid combat, the animated creatures would immediately become property of the GM and go straight for the paladin. After all, if the Pally is trying to save the Necro, the necro is likely trying to kill the pally.
|
|
You know, I read this thread title and became immediately inspired.
I'd go with split personality. One personality is good and one personality, not so good. The paladin personality knows he has a second persona and attempts to save it. Perhaps the split personality is even a the subconscious of a second entity trapped within in him, so he can save it from eternal damnation, though it occasionally takes over the paladin's body in times of weakness. Or something like that... The evil personality probably hidesthe fact that it has surfaced from the paladins companions, and therefore continues to act somewhat like a paladin, to keep a low profile.
You might need an extra mechanic (house rule) thrown in there so the GM can determine when the change in personalities takes place- particularly if its involuntary, however a good roleplayer could easily handle both parts.
Oh... I'm pretty sure the split personality concept wouldn't work for PFS, I'm just chiming in because I dug the idea.
Dont get me wrong, this is a cool idea, but personally, homegame or PFS, I wouldnt allow it at my table. Its a blatent attempt at getting around the in-place-to-help-keep-the-uber-powerful-paladin-class-in-check alignment restriction of the class.
If it was for anything other than Paladin, then yea, id probably allow it. Paladin, though, is strong enough already, without having 'times of weakness' in which he/she can do whatever they feel like(like animate undead) cause its in their character background.
Also, if I did allow this, if the change back to paladin happened mid combat, the animated creatures would immediately become property of the GM and go straight for the paladin. After all, if the Pally is trying to save the Necro, the necro is likely trying to kill the pally.
In PFS, this is probably not something I'd put up with.
In a home game, it would depend on the players capabilities.
|
|
For character background concept, think Terminator future, with tanks (constructs) rolling over mountains of skulls. You're kind yet desperate partisan, willing to sacrifice yourself to protect your friends. You haven't fallen, but you're walking dangerously close to the edge.
Your ideals, your desperate faith in better tomorrow for everyone shields you from making wrong choices.You would start as Necromancer, then switch to ideals of protection and dip into Paladin. Eventually switch to Eldritch Knight or Mystic Theurge.
Regards,
Ruemere
THATS an interesting concept.
So, one option for you concept wise, would be going a route similar to what i did in a home brew ravenloft game with an NPC. One of the NPC,s came from a line of "hunters" that every third generation the children would exhibit amazing control over undead. Their family has been befriended by the prevailing church in the area. Family members undergo a sacred oath to consent to their remains being raised in order to continue to battle evil in their gods name. As such, this female necromancer was LG, raised to fight for the church and use her "gifts" to call on previously deceased family members or allies to aid in her quests. For PFS this would most likely mean you would want start paladin and go bones oracle. The summoned skeleton/zombie would be a family member or other consenting ally (in the case of my game it was her father). Although this concept was not for a PFS game, i don't see why this would not work in PFS. Your family could be attached to, say, a hellknight order... As for the above arguments for spells with the "evil" descriptor, you may want to just play it safe and just pick different spells... Anyways, food for thought.
For character background concept, think Terminator future, with tanks (constructs) rolling over mountains of skulls. You're kind yet desperate partisan, willing to sacrifice yourself to protect your friends. You haven't fallen, but you're walking dangerously close to the edge.THATS an interesting concept.
I had a concept like that kicking around for my current Kingmaker campaign, but it involved being allowed to play Warforged (or Ironborn) and interpreting the Feat: Mithril Body(1st level only) as "Flesh" covered aka light weight and disguised. He was to be from the future with the sole motivation of preventing some tragic event, that was up to the GM or dare I say another sad excuse for an amnesia background, lol. Not knowing he was actually a 'robot' like in "Terminator: Salvation" had crossed my mind as well.
I kinda just let it fall to the wayside, a bit too extreme for a D&D 'fantasy-based' campaign, lol.