Is it an evil act to use an evil magical item (such as an unholy longsword)?
For instance, let's say a paladin is trapped in a room with an innocent and a monster. The monster will eat the innocent unless the paladin does something. Obviously* the paladin must do something; doing nothing would be an evil act. The paladin has two choices available - attack with his fists, which he knows will be ineffective and not* count as doing something for the innocent, or pick up an evil weapon (perhaps using UMD to emulate the proper alignment) and save the innocent with that. Assuming the paladin does use the weapon, will he need to atone afterwards?
*I'm aware that there are differing opinions on the subjective nature of evil. Assume for the moment that the above is true regardless; I'm only seeking an objective answer regarding the use of evil magical items.
If you seriously have to ask, then yes it is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin is allowed to align with an evil character in order to thwart a greater evil.
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.
I don't think its much of a stretch to extend that to sentient or non sentient weapons.
In the real world, I dont think an object can be evil - so the usual meanings of good/evil dont apply.
That said, I think it is an evil act within the meaning of evil in D&D - in the game evil is an objective, tangible "thing" (the exact qualities and boundaries of which are determined by the DM). It doesnt matter why you animate the dead - it's an evil act in D&D, irrespective of motive.
Sometimes the paladin has to choose between the lesser of two evils - use the evil weapon or allow the innocent to die. I think it's precisely the existence of these kinds of problems which would lead to the fall of paladins - if acts are excused due to the actor's motivation, it isnt very hard to keep one's paladinhood (and being difficult to follow the code seems, to me, to be one of the defining features of paladinhood).
If you seriously have to ask, then yes it is.
big help there.
Justifying the use of a tool that's 'aligned' against an act, even by inaction, that obviously registers in your mind as evil, is not that hard. You can atone for minor misdeeds. You can't live with yourself by allowing something that you could have stopped.
Is it an evil act to use an evil magical item (such as an unholy longsword)?
For instance, let's say a paladin is trapped in a room with an innocent and a monster. The monster will eat the innocent unless the paladin does something. Obviously* the paladin must do something; doing nothing would be an evil act. The paladin has two choices available - attack with his fists, which he knows will be ineffective and not* count as doing something for the innocent, or pick up an evil weapon (perhaps using UMD to emulate the proper alignment) and save the innocent with that. Assuming the paladin does use the weapon, will he need to atone afterwards?
*I'm aware that there are differing opinions on the subjective nature of evil. Assume for the moment that the above is true regardless; I'm only seeking an objective answer regarding the use of evil magical items.
I'm failing to see how smite-punching is a bad option.
Ultimately, this depends on how much of a ponce the DM is. I'd qualify using the weapon as part of the "defeat a greater evil" clause, potentially (but not definitely) requiring a cheap atonement. Part of that atonement would probably be submitting the Unholy weapon to the church for destruction.
I should note that this is merely a thought-experiment. No such situation is currently happening in any of my games, nor is one planned.
Personally, I agree with Serisan's view, since the unholy weapon quality doesn't specifically say that it is an evil act. But I could be wrong.
Re: Smite punching - assume for the situation that the paladin knows that a smite-evil infused unarmed strike will probably not do enough damage to defeat the monster, while using the unholy sword probably will.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What makes the sword evil? This could actually make a difference.
Is it possessed of an evil will? Does its use harm souls/powered by the suffering of innocents/etc no matter how or why it is used? Or is it cruelly designed to cause the most amount of pain possible to the victim? Does it get its weilder hopped up on bloodlust?
One thing that comes to mind is that some good artifacts can be destroyed by using them in an act of absolute evil anathema to its nature. Sometimes you see the opposite happening with evil artifacts, where their use in acts of pure, self-sacrificing good can destroy or even redeem them.
If Lord Doomface uses the Sword of Heaven to murder an angel, he's not committing a good act. This doesn't guarantee an exact opposite equality(see the question of "what is making the sword evil?"), but if a good character can use such a thing in a manner that avoids doing evil beyond simply "but it's an evil sword!", he's in the clear.
He probably wouldn't want to make a habit of it though, unless turning this sword around is one of his goals, if possible.
If the paladin is somehow in the unbelievably unlikely and almost certainly totally contrived situation that they HAVE to use an unholy weapon to stop a "greater evil" then, no, it's not an evil act.
In any other case, benefiting from the evil power of an evil weapon is clearly an evil act. And even if it weren't, it is nothing any self-respecting paladin would ever do.
Instead they would attempt to destroy the evil weapon.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Ask your DM.
This.
There is no objective answer to the question asked. There is a only arguments about what people think "evil" and "good" mean. That said, I'm sure somebody out there is hungering for the 832nd epic flamewar of the month on this topic. Good luck with that.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
An ancient story tells of how Shelyn stole the glaive Whisperer of Souls from her half-brother Zon-Kuthon in an attempt to redeem him. Obviously, this didn't work, but to the intelligent weapon's great frustration, neither do its continued attempts to corrupt or influence her.
If the goddess of beauty and love can wield an evil weapon, I see no reason a paladin cannot.
|
|
I dunno, but it sounds like a great idea for an encounter. Make the unholy item senitnet and telepathic, and have it tempt the paladin: "take me up, sir, and I will lend my power and help you save the innocent. Come on, it's only one fight. You can simply discard me afterward. No harm done...(evil chuckle optional).
A paladin has a full BAB though. Can't he try grappling it? Also, smiting evil works with fists...can't he try that. It seems like if there is an alternative, then perhaps...
but if the item ISN'T sentient, and it's your only viable option, then using it is no more of an evil action than using a normal sword. I mean, it's merely a tool. The "unholy" aspect of it will penalize you, of course, but if you must...
But yeah, ask your DM...ask the mighty man-puter, for he know what do...
An ancient story tells of how Shelyn stole the glaive Whisperer of Souls from her half-brother Zon-Kuthon in an attempt to redeem him. Obviously, this didn't work, but to the intelligent weapon's great frustration, neither do its continued attempts to corrupt or influence her.If the goddess of beauty and love can wield an evil weapon, I see no reason a paladin cannot.
Are you sure?
"What Gods can do" seems like a pretty high standard.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An ancient story tells of how Shelyn stole the glaive Whisperer of Souls from her half-brother Zon-Kuthon in an attempt to redeem him. Obviously, this didn't work, but to the intelligent weapon's great frustration, neither do its continued attempts to corrupt or influence her.If the goddess of beauty and love can wield an evil weapon, I see no reason a paladin cannot.Are you sure?
"What Gods can do" seems like a pretty high standard.
For shows of power and strength, yes. But a good god doing something like what Shelyn does is more of an example to inspire.
Besides, Generic Evil Blade is highly unlikely to be anything near the Whisperer of Souls.
A paladin looking at Shelyn probably shouldn't think "Well I should try to do the same thing with an evil god's weapon.", but rather "Perhaps I could accomplish something similar with this evil non-god-level weapon".
It's not what Shelyn can do that good characters should ask themselves.
It's WWSD?
Maybe.
I mean I agree in reality - anything analogous would be close to a no-brainer. I just think that, in a world of moral absolutes (and instantiated absolutes at that) one can no longer rely on motivation (which is obviously key to resolving real world moral questions).
If "As long as you're trying to do good things" is an allowable excuse for a paladin, why is serving the paladin code any kind of significant imposition? Providing you can plausibly defend your actions as in the interests of some 'greater good' it seems to me everything would be A-Ok.
Personally, I think alignment is silly as any kind of model of reality bit is nonetheless intended to be an unrealistic straightjacket for classes like paladins (or the other alignment restricted classes). Including alignment in D&D seems to me to be imposing a disneyfied morality on the game world where vile villains stand opposed by virtuous heroes. What's the point in using it if the concepts of good and evil are in fact intended to be analogs of the real world concepts? There's no real world mechanical effect of good/evil.
In any other case, benefiting from the evil power of an evil weapon is clearly an evil act. And even if it weren't, it is nothing any self-respecting paladin would ever do.
While true, I'd like to point out that the Unholy weapon enhancement in no way benefits the Paladin. He gains a negative level, and it only does an extra 2d6 damage if the target is good, which probably isn't the case.
As for my personal opinion, I would consider this not evil. Like someone has mentioned, it's merely a tool. Granted if you live through the fight, you probably should destroy it so it can't be used by the forces of evil, or alternatively, if possible, redeem the sword.
In other words, yes, your paladin committed an evil act when using an unholy longsword, and would suffer the consequences for doing so.
I would tend to agree with this assessment. It's an inadvertent, rock-and-a-hard-place evil, but because any weapon imbued with unholy power is automatically evil-aligned, using an unholy longsword should still be considered an evil act for a pally. I don't think you can interpret the rules any other way. (Unless, of course, the GM wants to make a house rule to the opposite effect -- that would be a pretty specific and technical house rule, though, and probably would smack of favoritism as far as other players are concerned.)
That said, I think the whole situation as outlined is going to cause the paladin to break his code. (I agree that a smite evil unarmed isn't going to do much damage here.) If he doesn't use the evil sword? Clearly that's a violation of the paladin's code, which requires him to aid those in need. Using the evil sword? Well, see the above.
To me, even if the GM is willing to allow the pally to wield an unholy weapon without it being considered an evil act (and breaking the paladin's code), for roleplaying purposes most players I've been around would want to have their character seek an atonement spell anyway, even if they don't technically need it. I mean, think about it: Saving an innocent or not, the pally still was forced to wield the same weapon that an evil creature once used as their own. Or, at the very least, an evil creature created it for some nefarious purpose. That association alone would repel paladins -- you know, the folks whose entire existences are dedicated to wiping out such influences.
So, basically, to me, the choices for the GM are: Allow the pally to wield the evil weapon without violating his code of conduct (and therefore not requiring an atonement spell), or go with the rules and wipe out the pally's spells and class features until he atones.
I think the latter option stays more true to the paladin's concept -- where every act is either right or wrong, and there's no gray area -- but, of course, ultimately it's up to the GM.
In other words, yes, your paladin committed an evil act when using an unholy longsword, and would suffer the consequences for doing so.I would tend to agree with this assessment. It's an inadvertent, rock-and-a-hard-place evil, but because any weapon imbued with unholy power is automatically evil-aligned, using an unholy longsword should still be considered an evil act for a pally. I don't think you can interpret the rules any other way. (Unless, of course, the GM wants to make a house rule to the opposite effect -- that would be a pretty specific and technical house rule, though, and probably would smack of favoritism as far as other players are concerned.)
Nope, the code says you can ally with evil to do good (using evil objects for good is allowed).
It says: Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil.
Nope, the code says you can ally with evil to do good (using evil objects for good is allowed).It says: Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil.
For what it's worth, the rules also say the paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such "an unusual alliance," meaning that either way, the paladin would need to atone at some point. It's just a question of whether the GM considers using an evil object for good the same as allying with an evil character for good.
Is it an evil act to use an evil magical item (such as an unholy longsword)?
For instance, let's say a paladin is trapped in a room with an innocent and a monster. The monster will eat the innocent unless the paladin does something. Obviously* the paladin must do something; doing nothing would be an evil act. The paladin has two choices available - attack with his fists, which he knows will be ineffective and not* count as doing something for the innocent, or pick up an evil weapon (perhaps using UMD to emulate the proper alignment) and save the innocent with that. Assuming the paladin does use the weapon, will he need to atone afterwards?
*I'm aware that there are differing opinions on the subjective nature of evil. Assume for the moment that the above is true regardless; I'm only seeking an objective answer regarding the use of evil magical items.
Aaaand this is why I love Cavaliers. An Order of the Cockatrice Cav would use that evil weapon all day and all night while bragging to the innocent victim he saved (or didn't, whatever) about how awesome he is:
"Did you see that?! I mean did you seeeee that?! I rocked the **** out of that monster. Never saw it coming. Oh yeah. OH YEAH!"
Aaaand this is why I love Cavaliers. An Order of the Cockatrice Cav would use that evil weapon all day and all night while bragging to the innocent victim he saved (or didn't, whatever) about how awesome he is:
"Did you see that?! I mean did you seeeee that?! I rocked the **** out of that monster. Never saw it coming. Oh yeah. OH YEAH!"
Heck, an Order of the Shield, Order of the Star or even Order of the Sword cavalier gets to slay the monster AND keep the weapon to do whatever with it later.
Hrm... Why are we still playing paladins? Cavaliers can easily fit the same concepts, the penalties for messing up are a lot less harsh and they are not as subject to being screwed by the GM.
|
|
She's definitely not someone who's bonding with the weapon in any particular way, so using her as a model is kind of a stretch.
If you're changing the appearance of the weapon, I'd say you're bonding with it.
If the character uses the evil weapon for a good purpose (as is assumed that a Paladin would, given his/her alignment), I'd say it's not evil. And even if it was evil, it'd still be less evil than the way Gorbacz thinks about certain things.
Aaaand this is why I love Cavaliers. An Order of the Cockatrice Cav would use that evil weapon all day and all night while bragging to the innocent victim he saved (or didn't, whatever) about how awesome he is:
"Did you see that?! I mean did you seeeee that?! I rocked the **** out of that monster. Never saw it coming. Oh yeah. OH YEAH!"Heck, an Order of the Shield, Order of the Star or even Order of the Sword cavalier gets to slay the monster AND keep the weapon to do whatever with it later.
Hrm... Why are we still playing paladins? Cavaliers can easily fit the same concepts, the penalties for messing up are a lot less harsh and they are not as subject to being screwed by the GM.
Yeah, Order of the Cockatrice the edicts say the Cav has to be a selfish bastard. If he violates those edicts he loses his challenge ability for 24 hours. So it would be more like:
"Did you see that?! I mean did you seeeee that?! I rocked the **** out of that monster. Never saw it coming. Oh yeah. OH YEAH! Also, I'm gonna have to charge you for that. This ain't free, you know."
Aaaand this is why I love Cavaliers. An Order of the Cockatrice Cav would use that evil weapon all day and all night while bragging to the innocent victim he saved (or didn't, whatever) about how awesome he is:
"Did you see that?! I mean did you seeeee that?! I rocked the **** out of that monster. Never saw it coming. Oh yeah. OH YEAH!"Heck, an Order of the Shield, Order of the Star or even Order of the Sword cavalier gets to slay the monster AND keep the weapon to do whatever with it later.
Hrm... Why are we still playing paladins? Cavaliers can easily fit the same concepts, the penalties for messing up are a lot less harsh and they are not as subject to being screwed by the GM.
Yeah, Order of the Cockatrice the edicts say the Cav has to be a selfish bastard. If he violates those edicts he loses his challenge ability for 24 hours. So it would be more like:
"Did you see that?! I mean did you seeeee that?! I rocked the **** out of that monster. Never saw it coming. Oh yeah. OH YEAH! Also, I'm gonna have to charge you for that. This ain't free, you know."
A day is certainly much less than "until a specific spell is cast on you, and possibly you have to perform some task before that happens" , especially as the cavalier still has powers remaining (Tactician, Banner, Mount...), while a Paladin loses everything. And you hae several options which code to follow (though you should avoid changing it later on).
Back to the original question, I think the Paladin should in any case use the sword. Even if it is an evil act (which I fail to see it as), he would fall for the "better" evil, instead of letting the innocent die and possibly die himself, so he still could get atonement more easily.
But if I was to decide, I would not consider this evil.
Also, if you want to play with the irradiation/taint idea of good and evil; I would consider the use of an unholy object to destroy a great evil as an act of redemption, or at least the beginning of a process to redeem the item.
It's quite similar to how my GM instinct would be to slightly 'taint' a Holy weapon that had been used to slaughter an innocent.
I'll need to keep this in mind.
|
|
She's definitely not someone who's bonding with the weapon in any particular way, so using her as a model is kind of a stretch.If you're changing the appearance of the weapon, I'd say you're bonding with it.Is this article still canon? It's reposted from something Mike McArtor posted here on the message boards in 2007, and I don't recall that bit about her glaive from the recent article about her in Pathfinder #50 (though I could have simply forgotten).
Also, as an aside, let's all try to use the Pathfinder wiki at Pathfinderwiki.com rather than the one at Wikia, considering the latter's shenanigans.
Here is the link to the Pathfinder wiki. I was searching on my phone, so of course I got the wikia link.
I haven't a clue about any redaction, since I don't buy the APs anymore.
|
|
She's definitely not someone who's bonding with the weapon in any particular way, so using her as a model is kind of a stretch.If you're changing the appearance of the weapon, I'd say you're bonding with it.Or you're just trying to find a way to stomach having to lug the dammmed (literally) thing around. She doesn't seem to be the type to go in for combat at all if she can avoid it. In fact even in combat, she's not likely to use the weapon at all for good reason.
Edit: read her wiki entry. It seems more likely the reason that the weapon's appearance is changing is that Shelyn is winning the battle to free the souls trapped within. When she first had it, it nearly had all of the 100 souls it needed to transform itself into a new god of destruction. Since then, she's freed almost all of them, by sponsoring adventures on great quests of good.
She's definitely NOT bonding with it.
I'd say the act of redeeming something requires a bond of some sort.
And Shelyn loves to bond and always gives it her best shot when reasonable.
Also, it's her favored weapon.
Shelyn is winning. That glaive is being changed for the better, even as it remains a long work in progress.
Just like her attempts to save her brother.
Good shouldn't be impotent at doing good. And Shelyn is damn good at good.
Also, Shelyn is a deity. Deities can get away with things that mere mortals cannot.
That doesn't mean 'mere mortals' cannot TRY. What's more interesting, a paladin wrestling with an evil weapon, struggling to turn it towards good while it struggles to turn him toward evil, or a paladin picking up an evil weapon and losing his powers?
The only problem we have here is that this:
("...a paladin wrestling with an evil weapon, struggling to turn it towards good while it struggles to turn him toward evil...")
is not what we had going into the discussion. All we had going into the discussion is:
("... a paladin picking up an evil weapon and losing his powers?")
I have no problem with the paladin (temporarily) gaining a negative level because he picked up and used an evil sword once. I have no proble with the paladin keeping the negative level while transporting the evil sword. But if he continues to use the sword (and hasn't taken any outside actions to cleanse the evil from the sword), then that becomes a problem for the paladin.
More on this later. At work and lunch ended. :D
No, I like the idea of a struggle between good and evil, especially since the paladin is already being punished in game (by the negative level). Still, an evil weapon by its very nature must be a moral threat to the paladin who is trying to wield it -- but I would leave the details to the wicked imagination of the DM.
No, I like the idea of a struggle between good and evil, especially since the paladin is already being punished in game (by the negative level). Still, an evil weapon by its very nature must be a moral threat to the paladin who is trying to wield it -- but I would leave the details to the wicked imagination of the DM.
I'd say that if the item isn't intelligent with a decent Ego score it isn't much of a moral threat to the paladin, but to further muddy the issue, is the OP asking about an unholy item, or an intelligent item with an evil alignment?