|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Infernal Healing.
Exactly. As I've said before elsewhere, the fact that that spell exists at all seems more than anything else like some stealth-heretic developer's attempt to make a mockery of the whole concept of "Evil spells" - especially since it's actually more useful to Good-aligned/Good-leaning parties, since they're much less likely to be assailed by the types of damage that the spell can't heal. Guess what else? The protection from Evil/Good/Chaos/Law spell has the alignment type opposite of the alignment it protects from. A Wizard of a certain alignment (Good, for example), can cast protection from Good (which has the [Evil] descriptor) on, say, the party fighter, and thereby raise the fighter's saving throws against that Wizard's area-of-effect spells (as well as those of any other Good-aligned creature) if they get caught in the area.
Keep in mind that this is one of the big differences between divine and arcane magicians: the former can wear armor, fight better, learn most of the spells on their class list automatically, and get all kinds of other nifty powers besides, but it's all because they're bought and paid for by a higher being, and if that being can take it all away any time they feel like it. The latter, on the other hand, has to work hard and sacrifice all kinds of things that would make most other characters shudder, but the reward is power that is THEIRS - settings like The Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance notwithstanding (and even there, it's almost never an issue), no one can take it away, and how they use it is their purview alone. It does not matter to an arcane magician what form their power takes, just what they use the power for. In fact, this would even apply to divine magicians, in theory - if they somehow could cast spells with alignment descriptors that opposed theirs or their deity's, they might get in trouble with their deity and find their powers at stake, but it shouldn't be considered grounds for an alignment shift (possible exception: you could argue a strongly Lawful divine magician who cast an opposed-alignment spell could get Chaos points, not because of the spell they cast, but for their disobedient behavior). Anyways, the point is that while many people may look at Clerics, then at Wizards, and ask, "Seriously?" they all too often forget one of the most profound advantages arcane magicians have over divine: Freedom of conscience.
Certainly in the case of animate dead, there's no real reason the spell should be innately "Evil" in any way. Keep in mind that the whole "undead are evil" thing comes from their roles as metaphors for real-world evils - in the real world, zombies represent people who have suffered a fate worse than death, yet continue to live (think of cult brainwashing, or read Emil Fackenheim and what he called Muselmänner), and vampires can represent rapists, plutocrats, and other varieties of parasitic/abusive behavior (Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible talks about how "Not All Vampires Suck Blood"). Because it takes metaphors and transforms them into literalisms, however, fantasy fiction, has a remarkable ability to completely change the meaning and implications of such things: Zombies can become the ultimate expression of "waste not, want not," and vampires can become nothing much worse than big, sentient mosquitoes.
Imagine a fantasy nation made benevolent, enlightened, happy, and free thanks to necromancy - any mind-killing and/or life-threatening grunt task that might need to be done is taken care of by mindless husks, so there's no need to reduce anyone to the status of slave, prole, or soldier. Other nations would envy them, of course - "why can't WE live like THEY do?" the downtrodden peasants and brainwashed conscripts of the Kingdom of Sunshine and Chivalry cry. The Paladins and Cavaliers who rule must think quickly, now: "BECAUSE," they tell the commoners, "because...they're EEEVIL! Look at how scary and ugly they are - oh yeah, and totally weird and weak, too! Look how they...DISHONOR the sacred dead! Their way of life is...unnatural, just like those poor, ignorant Druids who we conquered last year were too natural, until we generously taught them agriculture and monogamy, of course. Oh, and you don't want those zombies to replace you at the only thing you're good for, do you? They'll terk yer jerbs...."
It is snide and smug to try new things and challenge people to consider their ideas of good and evil? I guess you are not a fan of philosophers? Or morally gray situations.
It tends to come across as a little snide and smug.
Don't take that too hard, Michael Lehofer-Chavez 865. Based on the contexts in which I've heard it to date, I've been forced to conclude that "smug" is essentially the word used by people who really want to criticize someone, but can't find anything to actually criticize - meaning, in effect, that it's extremely high praise.
|
So most good aligned pathfinders refuse all connections to anything evil related?
Hell to the yes. (barring other pathfinders, and that mostly because of game reasons)
Most of my characters are good aligned and have always accepted infernal healing.
PFS lets you do that. I would not in a home game.
So I should have a sack that I throw bodies in? Paladins prefer bodies crammed in sacks/crates possibly against the spirit's wishes over a willing spirit walking back on its own?
Yes.
[Dr. Orpheus][/ Dr orpheus]
That IS what your character is making. No bones about it. Your character doesn't think what he's doing is evil. He's wrong. Its not entirely an unreasonable wrong, but he is very objectively wrong. That big [evil] in the animate dead description isn't there for show.
This is better than getting the bodies to walk back and say their final goodbyes to their family?
Unless you're in Geb grandma walking into the kitchen to hug little Jimmy goodbye is going to start a riot. Speak with dead where grandma can lie in state on the altar and tell Jimmy how proud she is that he's doing well in school is much better for this sort of thing than a shambling zombie that says "BRAAAAAAIINS" or a wight that tries to eat someone.
So I guess anything evil only begets evil?
Yes. Its the most common trope in fantasy.
So tieflings are all evil and shouldn't be trusted because even though they are good they are actually evil.
Chalk it up to the redeeming power of family, free will, and the human spirit.
It is snide and smug to try new things and challenge people to consider their ideas of good and evil?
It very well can be. In this case the problem is that you are more or less shielded from the consequences of your actions by the nature of the campaign. I'm sure you've noticed that most people pushing the envelope this hard in our world had their greatness recognized after they were executed.
I guess you are not a fan of philosophers?
Understatement of the year.
[ooc]Or morally gray situations.
Those I like.
|
It is snide and smug to try new things and challenge people to consider their ideas of good and evil? I guess you are not a fan of philosophers? Or morally gray situations.
I'm not BNW but I would like to point out that PFS is perhaps not the best venue for getting people to challenge their characters views of how Pathfinder defines good and evil, let alone how the player views it.
The bar AFTER the session seems like a much better place to me.
|
Venture-Captain, Alabama—Huntsville
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks I'm Hiding In Your Closet. My big worry though is that people are overlooking the consent part of the spell and most times the dead are forced into acting for others, but what if you have consent prior to casting the spell? And if I get consent of the dead and try to bring them peace is that worse than ignoring what they want and forcing my cultural dead ceremonies, be it burial, fire, or whatever? In the 13 years I've been playing D&D I've never seen a necromancer type character try to get the dead's approval before animating them. I want to say that if a person agrees to be raised and has an input on what their body does, varying based on what they want, and has an ultimate decision on what happens to them in the end then the dead are being given a gift and not being desecrated.
You've really written something to think about and honestly I would love to play an adventure where you pick between paladins and soldiers threatened by losing their jobs vs a necromancer/wizard trying to make a village's people's lives easier/better. I've always enjoyed stories that make you question what is right and what is wrong.
|
My first words when infernal healing was being cast on my character:
"What is my will save DC?"
Oddly enough, you could have had a guiarantee of it not being used on you with a simple phrase, "Could you please not do that?"
My PCs that use IH always get permission before using it on someone. If you dono't want it, I will happily not use it on you. I will, if the PC has it, attempt a UMD roll to activate your wand of CLW on you, if no one can just use it.
And, yes, I have wound up playing a game where my PC was the only one who could do any healing, and he only had a CLW wand that he had to use UMD on. If he had had an IH wand, he would have been a better healer. And no one else had anything past, maybe, a potion of CLW for healing. Definitely reduced the fun of that session for me.
|
|
My one concern about this is that you are creating unintelligent undead. They are not capable of remembering their former life, and you are causing damage to their soul (animated dead cannot be raised, they need a resurrection spell).
While I think you have a very interesting concept...I'm not sure it quite jibes with how the game lore works. In order for your actions to still count as "Good" in my book, you'd have to find a dead body whose soul is willing to be permanently warped and damaged in order to further a specific goal. You'll find very few of the departed willing to do so, and since all spells stop at the end of an adventure, you'd have to find such a person at least once an adventure.
I think this is a very thought provoking concept, but perhaps one best suited for a home game to actually work as intended.
|
Venture-Captain, Alabama—Huntsville
|
My one concern about this is that you are creating unintelligent undead. They are not capable of remembering their former life, and you are causing damage to their soul (animated dead cannot be raised, they need a resurrection spell).
Are they not capable of remembering their former lives? If I cast speak with dead on them are not able to communicate with me? Does the spell damage the soul in the process of animating the body? These are things I have not seen in RAW, only in speculation of people.
I've seen discussions concerning the idea of forcing the dead to work for you against their will is evil and I can agree with that, violating a sentient creature's free will is evil. But what if I cast speak with dead, tell them their situation and propose a deal with them? If they don't accept then I don't animate, if they do I animate them.
In one of the first steps adventures you are introduced to undead and that person still remembered her former life. There's even a great scenario You Only Die Twice that turns you into undead in an undead nation called Geb. And hauntings normally involve dead remembering at bare minimum moments before their death. And as you said resurrection will bring them back which also has a longer window to bring the person back, years for resurrection vs days with raise dead.
|
Venture-Captain, Alabama—Huntsville
|
It is snide and smug to try new things and challenge people to consider their ideas of good and evil? I guess you are not a fan of philosophers? Or morally gray situations.
I'm not BNW but I would like to point out that PFS is perhaps not the best venue for getting people to challenge their characters views of how Pathfinder defines good and evil, let alone how the player views it.
The bar AFTER the session seems like a much better place to me.
My only counter to that is the cheliax faction not being evil. If you can enslave people and not go evil how can you not question what is good and what is evil?
|
|
Well I plan on playing a neutral good necromancer that is all about enslaving the corpses of his fallen foes. How's that any different than druids using the ACs as meat shields? It's like a double punishment for the evil NPCs. At least that's now my necromancer will look at it. And more importantly, enslaving the undead in the scenario as well.
|
|
My only counter to that is the cheliax faction not being evil. If you can enslave people and not go evil how can you not question what is good and what is evil?
Because the faction represents the interest of cheliax in absolom/ golarion. Its far enough away (both physically and dogma wise) from the actual cheliax to be not quite as evil as the base camp.
|
Venture-Captain, Alabama—Huntsville
|
Because the faction represents the interest of cheliax in absolom/ golarion. Its far enough away (both physically and dogma wise) from the actual cheliax to be not quite as evil as the base camp.
My only counter to that is the cheliax faction not being evil. If you can enslave people and not go evil how can you not question what is good and what is evil?
I'm talking about what players do in the faction, not just dogma and physically. Though the physical distance from anything shouldn't be a factor in determining if something is evil. It's cool to set fire to the orphanage so long as you do it from orbit.
|
|
Most of my characters are good aligned and have always accepted infernal healing.PFS lets you do that. I would not in a home game.
Why not? As written, it's a healing spell, and there is literally nothing Evil about it. Yes, the material component is taken from an embodiment of Evil, but that's it; it's like saying the modern national highway system, the rocket technology that enabled space travel, and the research that proved tobacco is really bad for you, are all inherently Evil and will make people who make use of them Evil because they were all developed by the Third Reich.
So I should have a sack that I throw bodies in? Paladins prefer bodies crammed in sacks/crates possibly against the spirit's wishes over a willing spirit walking back on its own?Yes.
[Dr. Orpheus][/ Dr orpheus]
That IS what your character is making. No bones about it. Your character doesn't think what he's doing is evil. He's wrong. Its not entirely an unreasonable wrong, but he is very objectively wrong. That big [evil] in the animate dead description isn't there for show.
First of all, I explained why the [Evil] descriptor has been asked and answered. Otherwise: That's not true at all - particularly not the "objectively wrong" part. You can call something Evil, that doesn't mean it is. Morality doesn't work that way. The "Dr. Orpheus" thing is funny, but it's no good as an argument - "darkness incarnate" =/= Evil. In fact, that whole "darkness bad" thing is based on fear of the unknown, which one of the TRUE sources of Evil. I've wondered in the past how human history would have been different if the species had evolved to be the same in every way, save for being nocturnal - if nothing else, the concept of "darkness bad" wouldn't exist (compare that to the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Masks", wherein the sun goddess of an eldritch civilization is also the goddess of death, and if perhaps not "evil," still a raging b#*@! who can only be stopped by the moon god and, for good measure, the assistance of a snide, insubordinate, Loki/Hermes/Satan-esque trickster). Anyways, it depends on the mythos and exactly how the creation of undead supposedly works (as well as situational specifics) - the Pathfinder core rules are agnostic about this sort of thing, since even though it favors Golarion as their "default" setting, the assumption is that many games will take place in the unique campaign settings of individual DMs where they can elaborate on such things if they wish. As it stands, however, there's nothing in the basic rules to suggest that animating the dead entails anything immoral. If a fighter can dedicate his entire life to perfecting the craft of homicide and not have to worry about having his morals challenged because of that, why in the world would it be Evil for a necromancer to say "it's too late for John Doe here, but I might still be able to use him to save someone else's life" after the fact? It's not slavery if it's not sentient. Furthermore, go back a ways in your D&D history - I recommend 2nd Edition's Complete Book of Necromancers (in fact, I recommend most 2nd Edition books if you care to pick them up; they're seldom perfect as written, but the breadth of fearless creativity puts much of what's come since then to shame); in that book, necromancy is described as coming in three gradations: "white necromancy" (mainly the healing and augmentation spells), "black necromancy" (basically any spell whose verbal components might include the words "avada kedavra"), and "gray necromancy" (every other necromantic spell that doesn't come firmly down on a single side of the "life/death" dichotomy, including the reanimation of corpses) - so if you want to argue it's "objectively" evil based on an appeal to "Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time," so to speak, I'm afraid that's outweighed by "Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time" - heck, that book implies that even employing "black necromancy" doesn't have to be an evil act - it depends on what you're using it for.
This is better than getting the bodies to walk back and say their final goodbyes to their family?Unless you're in Geb grandma walking into the kitchen to hug little Jimmy goodbye is going to start a riot. Speak with dead where grandma can lie in state on the altar and tell Jimmy how proud she is that he's doing well in school is much better for this sort of thing than a shambling zombie that says "BRAAAAAAIINS" or a wight that tries to eat someone.
Two words: Tim Burton.
If the masses riot because they assume anything strange and different is bad, then they're the Evil ones, not Grandma or whatever Retro-Kevorkian brought her back.
Also: "BRAAAAAAIINS" is just Zombie for "aloha!"
|
|
Why not? As written, it's a healing spell, and there is literally nothing Evil about
This is beyond absurd.
School conjuration (healing) [evil]
1 drop of devil blood
This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor (when good things hurt you, you're probably doing something bad)
The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell
can sense the evil of the magic
The spell is literally dripping with evil. Evil is called out in the descriptor. You are using demon blood as a material component. Two thirds of the sentences describing the spell point out that it is evil.
I am literally too astonished at the bald faced epistemic nihilism of your assertions to head desk. My desk is trying to head desk.
First of all, I explained why the [Evil] descriptor has been asked and answered.
You are trying to put a utilitarian morality into a objective morality universe. It doesn't work.
If the masses riot because they assume anything strange and different is bad, then they're the Evil ones, not Grandma or whatever Retro-Kevorkian brought her back.
Considering the life experiences of your typical golarion peasant and the fact that EVERY single undead creature on the planet is evil the torch and pitchfork routine is less racism and more self preservation.
|
Venture-Captain, Alabama—Huntsville
|
Lets try to tone back how we would run home games since this isn't a home game area and home game rulings are irrelevant to this conversation. I can run a home game where good is evil and evil is good or even create a hard set alignment system which pathfinder lacks, and probably for a good reason.
I think I can see why BigNorseWolf is very evil is evil no other way. If you simply read it as is evil is evil and stop thinking about actual actions used. To me this is boring and dull to look at and makes my characters too one dimensional, good characters all act like paladins and evil characters all act like antagonists.
Good Versus EvilGood characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
This is out of the PRD on here describing the differences between good and evil and based on this I can see infernal healing being used to protect the innocent. If I am a wizard who has access to demon's blood and see someone innocent in need of healing I don't see how it is evil to use the tools I have on hand to save the innocent. Even if it is not the only means of healing someone, it does not seem to be "dripping" with evil only coming from an evil source. I would say the action itself has to be tested by the above rule, not simply stamp it as evil since there is evil written in the spell description. That is lazy GMing in my book.
Now if we want to consider the life experiences of your typical golarion peasant, you bette tell me which nation they are from. Osirions don't have a problem with undead.
Attuned to the Ancestors: You were raised to believe
that undead are nothing to fear—they are simply the
unliving remnants of your honored ancestors.
Directly from the PFS Player guide.
Andorans see the undead as slaves needing to be destroyed to be set free. Some have no issue with the undead and some do. And as you know there is an entire city of undead Geb where peasants don't run from the undead. PFS has created a very diverse world in which over generalizing gets you no where since it can go either way.|
|
I think I can see why BigNorseWolf is very evil is evil no other way. If you simply read it as is evil is evil and stop thinking about actual actions used. To me this is boring and dull to look at and makes my characters too one dimensional, good characters all act like paladins and evil characters all act like antagonists.
Lets look at the implications there. Because I don't agree with you
I've stopped thinking.
My characters are boring and dull, and one dimensional.
Are you starting to see why I said it tends to come accross as a little smug...
And as you know there is an entire city of undead Geb where peasants don't run from the undead. PFS has created a very diverse world in which over generalizing gets you no where since it can go either way.
People are raised to believe all sorts of things. In cheliax they are raised to believe that slavery is the slips proper place. In some parts of the mawangi expanse they are raised to believe that hard to pronounce beast gods are worthy of worship. People raised to believe something is NOT the same as "this is good".
|
Venture-Captain, Alabama—Huntsville
|
As I remember BigNorseWolf you called me smug before saying this flat view of morality was one dimensional. It was also, I assume, that you called me smug for wanting to inspire people to think on what is good and evil, weather or not you agree with me does not matter to me. It is if you are willing to spend the time and consider what is actually good or evil and not simply scan text for key words. I never said you stopped thinking, simply that when it comes to alignment you do not accept how the rules and players actions interact only how the descriptions say evil even though it does not match the pathfinder definition of evil.
I never said how people are raised makes good or evil. I even put the rules of what the game defines as good and evil. The point I made about people of Geb not being afraid of undead is simply that you over generalized the population and that there are a large number of people that do not have a problem with undead, nothing to do with good or evil.
|
|
As I remember BigNorseWolf you called me smug before saying this flat view of morality was one dimensional.
This isn't the first time I've seen this kind of character Idea put forth. Its not the first time I've seen it implemented. I was putting out a warning sign for "Caution, Pothole".
You crashed into the sign, slammed into the pothole, tore off the axel and are now angry about the sign.
I never said you stopped thinking.
You do so here
"It is if you are willing to spend the time and consider what is actually good or evil and not simply scan text for key words. "
and again you call my understanding of the rules superficial without anything to back it up
simply that when it comes to alignment you do not accept how the rules and players actions interact only how the descriptions say evil even though it does not match the pathfinder definition of evil.
[Evil] spells are evil. That IS part of the rules
And thats before you get into the public endangerment factor that you run into. If something happens to you you have
. The point I made about people of Geb not being afraid of undead is simply that you over generalized the population and that there are a large number of people that do not have a problem with undead, nothing to do with good or evil.
This is inane. I gave you the example of Geb but somehow I'm overgeneralizing about golarion because... Geb is an exception.
|
|
So I guess anything evil only begets evil?
Yes. Its the most common trope in fantasy.
Saying there's any such thing as "the most common trope in fantasy," let alone with that degree of unyielding certainty, is ridiculous.
Quote:
So tieflings are all evil and shouldn't be trusted because even though they are good they are actually evil.
Chalk it up to the redeeming power of family, free will, and the human spirit.
That's just being evasive.
Why not? As written, it's a healing spell, and there is literally nothing Evil aboutThis is beyond absurd.
School conjuration (healing) [evil]
1 drop of devil blood
This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor (when good things hurt you, you're probably doing something bad)
The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell
can sense the evil of the magicThe spell is literally dripping with evil. Evil is called out in the descriptor. You are using demon blood as a material component. Two thirds of the sentences describing the spell point out that it is evil.
Regarding "epistemic nihilism:" Apparently that means something along the lines of "Epistemic nihilism, as it is termed, is committed to the claim that there are no epistemic facts.". I'm. NOT. DOING. THAT. You insisted something specific was objectively true to the exclusion of anything else, and I said you were wrong and tried to explain why.
Otherwise: Does my previous real-world analogy of utilizing the fruits of an Evil culture for non-Evil ends - including ends that fly directly in the face of said Evil culture's agenda, such as using technology originally conceived of for war, conquest, and the sustained expansion of an evil established order, and turning it into the threshold for, suffice to say, Star Trek - mean nothing to you?
The blood is comes from an entity that is Evil incarnate, and the beneficiary's been anointed with it - of course magic that detects Evil is going to detect it, it doesn't mean either caster or recipient are Evil. It's a bit like how poppy-seed bagels can screw you over in a drug test.
Again, it does nothing but heal you - there is NOTHING Evil about it. That should be all I need to say. Yes, the word "Evil" shows up several times, but that means nothing - you're essentially worshiping a false idol, blinded to a concept because of a mere word, and you're overlooking the real reason "Evil" is brought up, which is made pretty clear by the text of the spell, and has everything to do with the source of the spell's power, NOT the effect of or motivation for your using it, which are the sort of things that would determine whether using the spell is an Evil act.
(when good things hurt you, you're probably doing something bad)
That self-banging desk of yours sounds neat - may I borrow it?
Healing, by definition, is something that's done AFTER you've been hurt - the issue is NOT that "good things are hurting you," but that "this spell gives you the regenerative powers of a devil, which means that if you happen to have been hurt by the things that a devil's regenerative powers cannot overcome, then this spell obviously can't fix them." If none of the damage you took came from the "problem" sources listed, then it works perfectly. This is why I said that non-Evil adventurers receive MORE benefit from the spell than Evil ones, since getting hurt by Good-aligned weapons/magic is highly unlikely to be an issue for them: If a character whose weapon is currently enjoying the benefits of bless weapon falls victim to some variety of mind-control spell and starts hacking at their companions with it, infernal healing will be unable to seal those wounds - but it should go without saying that that doesn't mean the victim did anything Evil. Otherwise, spells like holy smite, spear of purity, etc., already don't hurt Good creatures (and maybe not even Neutral ones), so they're in the clear. Then there's silver: Anyone might find themselves confronted with an enemy wielding a silver or mithril weapon from time to time. The caveats to what the spell can't heal are what really give away how the spell works and bury your argument. As I said before, fantasy fiction has the weird, remarkable, and somewhat double-edged ability to take things that make sense as metaphors and, by literalizing them, totally warp or even invert the original meaning (I keep being reminded of how certain world mythologies use the term "upside-down" as a general way to describe magic and the supernatural, or even portray the spirit world as literally being like the material, save upside-down - and think then of how our retinas turn everything we see upside-down before it gets turned back around once it reaches our brains). What you're seeing is a conflict between "devil as anthropomorphic metaphor for an intangible" and "devil as physical being with physiology and organs that can be utilized for their special properties, just like horseshoe crabs" - you have to fully recognize both realities at once and not at the expense of either.
Also, since I mentioned mind-control, why is animate dead Evil, but not dominate person? What about 3.5's programmed amnesia spell, which is like the mindrape spell from The Book of Vile Darkness, but worse in some ways? Of all these, animate dead is the only "victimless" spell - oh, and lest we forget: Harry Potter wound up using the near-direct equivalent of dominate person, which was considered an "Unforgivable Curse" in his mythos (i.e. if J. K. Rowling had told the saga in the form of a Pathfinder campaign, the spell would have had the [Evil] descriptor), but did it make him Evil? Nope.
First of all, I explained why the [Evil] descriptor has been asked and answered.You are trying to put a utilitarian morality into a objective morality universe. It doesn't work.
No I'm not - not in any way. I'm a very "objective morality" person, and what I said was based on that. If you read what I said, I'm not sure why you don't see that - my best guess is that you're adhering to falling into the "Law = Good" fallacy, which the D&D alignment system has thankfully liberated us all from. Morality is ineffable and unaccountable; nobody owns it, nobody invented it, and it rapidly shrivels up and dies when codified Hammurabi-style (one of many inconvenient truths we grapple with today) - that does NOT mean it's not objective ("Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God." - Albert Einstein).
If the masses riot because they assume anything strange and different is bad, then they're the Evil ones, not Grandma or whatever Retro-Kevorkian brought her back.Considering the life experiences of your typical golarion peasant and the fact that EVERY single undead creature on the planet is evil the torch and pitchfork routine is less racism and more self preservation.
I was speaking on a setting-agnostic level (just like the Core Rulebook in which the animate dead spell, the central topic of this whole thread, tries to be in spite of having some degree of bias toward Golarion that doesn't extend too far beyond a cursory introduction to that setting's pantheon and the Pathfinder Chronicler prestige class), not about Golarion specifically. Also:
- You're actually wrong about "EVERY single undead creature" on Golarion being Evil; not only will you find some Pathfinder Society adventures where you encounter non-Evil undead, but some undead creatures aren't necessarily Evil even by the "assumed/normal/default" alignment they're accorded in the rulebooks (this is at least true of ghosts) - and remember, though it may be easier or harder for some creatures than others, the core rules (which Golarion follows quite closely in all but a few cases) allow for any individual creature to potentially deviate however they may from what's typical.
- You brought up the situation I was responding to yourself, and in that situation, what I said is the case.
- Xenophobia is always about "self-preservation" or something similar in the minds of the mob. That's what most Evil really is ("The enemy is fear. We think it is hate, but it is fear." - Mahatma Gandhi). "I'ma jus' tryin to pr'tct muh family" is no excuse - prejudice and ethnocentrism, while there is some room for taffy-stretching, are ultimately one and the same.
|
|
*Checks to see if this is a PFS forum.*
Whew. Yes it is.
So, we are playing the organized play campaign set in Golarion, with its lore and definitions set already. There are scenarios in place that enhance that lore.
Scenario 2-25, You only die twice, goes to Geb, and... wow, you get an eyeful of how things work. Evil abounds. Evil, evil place. yep, there's evil. People that we met there are abjectly afraid of undead. Well, maybe that's an overstatement. They may just be cowed enough to have lost their fear. I haven't actually prepped the scenario, just discussed it. Evil, that's what I took away.
|
Venture-Captain, Alabama—Huntsville
|
I am sorry I never heard you tell me you have seen a necromancer that asks the dead before animating them, you simply told me that you've seen good necromancers. I've played D&D for 15 years and never once seen a necromancer ask the bodies he was going to animate if they would allow him to before doing so. I would love for you to introduce me to some of these players that player necromancers that ask before casting since they might help me with build tips. And your cautionary sign was evil spells are evil actions.
Most good characters are going to disown you. Non PCs are going to torch and pitchfork you in most areas. Raising the dead is evil. PFS rules mean you can keep your NG alignment, but not everyone is going to agree with you.
The only good bit of warning that I see in this is that not everyone will agree with me, to which I completely agree with you. But playing at several cons and with a bunch of good characters tells me that most good characters are not going to disown me and that NPCs are going to act based on situations, if I march an undead army into their village yes pitchforks will come out, if one undead is covered and not flaunted around town I doubt the temple will call the village to arms to destroy me for asking them to help the undead I have brought to them. As far as "Raising the dead is evil", that is the big sticking point here. The spell is evil in nature, but that does not tell me if the dead consent to being animated and are brought back to be put to rest their prefered method and allow their family, if they desire, to say goodbye via speak with dead not via groans is an evil action. And as for anger you are the only one that I've seen saying they are hitting their head against their desk. This conversation doesn't bother me one bit, it is what I expected from my character concept, that some would agree, some would disagree, and hopefully some will reconsider the relationship of what makes an evil action.
I think you misunderstood that, I did not mean to imply you are not thinking simply that you are passing by the alignment rules with a predisposition and not appreciating how vague the rules are. And you give the impression that you are scanning when you are merely highlighting the word evil in infernal healing rather than saying how the action of healing someone can be done in an evil way. As for backing it up, if my pasting in quotes from the rules don't count as backing up I can't back up anything against you. The one backing up reference you finally produced has nothing to do with my particular argument. I agree the spell is evil in nature, detects as evil, and good gods (especially since there are no good gods with domains of death) would 9 times out of 10 not allow animate dead. But then you get that random necromancer that isn't using the dead for evil acts, not forcing the dead to become undead and that is what we are trying to talking about here.
Never once have I said the spell was not evil, you seem to be mixing people up. I full admit the spell is evil, infused with evil energy. What I propose is that you can use evil spells for good actions.
As far as Geb being the exception you are just wrong. You did mention it and acted as though that is the only city that has that attitude towards the undead. If you reread my post you see I also mention that the Osirion nation has a different view of undead than what you are painting. Suddenly it is not just a random village but a nation that is recognized throughout Golarion. None the less without statistics this is a moot point, you can claim one way and I can claim the other with no actual facts to back it up.
|
Venture-Captain, Alabama—Huntsville
|
*Checks to see if this is a PFS forum.*
Whew. Yes it is.
So, we are playing the organized play campaign set in Golarion, with its lore and definitions set already. There are scenarios in place that enhance that lore.
Scenario 2-25, You only die twice, goes to Geb, and... wow, you get an eyeful of how things work. Evil abounds. Evil, evil place. yep, there's evil. People that we met there are abjectly afraid of undead. Well, maybe that's an overstatement. They may just be cowed enough to have lost their fear. I haven't actually prepped the scenario, just discussed it. Evil, that's what I took away.
You bring up a good point about Geb, it is an evil place. I've also never prepped it, but I've played the scenario (highly recommend it too). It might have been the way it was run for me, but I saw more of the fear coming from the fact that people were being enslaved by the undead. But I could very easily be wrong, this may inspire me to purchase the scenario and give it a good reading. Sometimes the scenarios give the GMs more story fluf than the players discover.
|
|
I never said you stopped thinking.You do so here
"It is if you are willing to spend the time and consider what is actually good or evil and not simply scan text for key words. "
and again you call my understanding of the rules superficial without anything to back it up
I find your excess of faith disturbing...How much "back up" do you need to be satisfied? It seems to me he's providing exactly that in what you quote here; the fact that you happily admitted to disliking "philosophers" earlier adds weight to the case - to be fair, it depends on what you mean by that. I'd say I'm not big on "philosophers" myself but that's because not only have I always done it on my own, I've gone so far out that I'm sick and tired of the same pointless non-questions, cults, and feuds between fallacious dichotomies that most other people seem to still be masturbating over, and while I could write at least one philosophy book of my own, I've yet to do so since, among many other reasons, the idea of writing a book I wouldn't be interested in reading if someone else wrote it is not exactly compelling. Still, if you're not philosophically-inclined, you're in a poor position to be dogmatic.
simply that when it comes to alignment you do not accept how the rules and players actions interact only how the descriptions say evil even though it does not match the pathfinder definition of evil.
A) Even if a spell does have an alignment, that doesn't strictly mean it has to be a reflection on the caster's alignment; think of intelligent magic items (particularly the batch from Magical Marketplace that says the shopkeeper who specializes in them especially likes to pair intelligent items with wielders whose alignments conflict) - and spells don't have Ego scores.
B) This contradicts what David Bowles mentioned above.
C) The thread you're linking to is specifically about Clerics - I've already spoken at length about the different privileges and handicaps of divine and arcane magicians.
D) With all due respect to Sean Reynolds, his argument (assuming he's really making the same one you are) is poor; he's making too big a leap - the way his argument is constructed, it sounds like casting acid arrow too many times will lower your pH until you start taking progressive Constitution damage or something from acidemia - or maybe if you cast enough [mind-affecting] spells, you'll get to make a 1st-Edition psionic powers roll.
. The point I made about people of Geb not being afraid of undead is simply that you over generalized the population and that there are a large number of people that do not have a problem with undead, nothing to do with good or evil.This is inane. I gave you the example of Geb but somehow I'm overgeneralizing about golarion because... Geb is an exception.
You're missing the point - some attitudes dominate in some regions of Golarion, others in others. That by itself proves nothing any which way. Neither do numbers of countries/individuals in a given "camp." Furthermore, something might not exist at all in a setting, but that doesn't prove it's impossible.
Finally: Hollowfaust. It's not Pathfinder, it's not Golarion, but it's otherwise the same rules system - reanimating the dead can be your full-time profession, and it won't make you Evil.
|
|
I am sorry I never heard you tell me you have seen a necromancer that asks the dead before animating them
You want it to be mind blowing.
That is a very, very high bar to set for any character. I think thats a good thing. Its not half orc wut smash stuff number 645, but...
the way you're going about it is you are trying to tell the rules of the game that they are wrong. You are trying to put a person centric, subjective, existentialist,free will based morality into a universe that has an objective morality to it. You, the player, are then insisting that that is right and are holding up as evidence the fact that you, the player, have put NG on your character sheet. This doesn't take any deep reasoning, special insight, or amazing discernment. You just do it.
I have seen good necromancers. I have seen people try to do this I am telling you I have to look out for
-This can easily come across as pretentious to other players. 'Am i blowing your mind.. you must never have heard these concepts before, ahah! i've given you something you've never thought of before to think about!.
-It is entirely possible, and even LIKELY, that people have heard your arguments before, do not find their minds blown, and have heard "But i was doing it for a good cause!" out of the lips of half the villains they've sent to the nine hells via the murderhobo express.
you simply told me that you've seen good necromancers. I've played D&D for 15 years and never once seen a necromancer ask the bodies he was going to animate if they would allow him to before doing so. I would love for you to introduce me to some of these players that player necromancers that ask before casting since they might help me with build tips. And your cautionary sign was evil spells are evil actions.
Quote:
if one undead is covered and not flaunted around town I doubt the temple will call the village to arms to destroy me for asking them to help the undead I have brought to them.
I've given a lot of tips to necromancers on how to avoid the torch and pitch fork. Hats of disguise, and if all else fails get a cart or wagon and stack the zombies in there like a clown car.
If you bring undead into a temple of any good god and say "I need help with these undead I found" the priest is going to say "Ahh of course my child..." and make the with the positive channeling nova. Because thats how you help undead- by putting them back in the ground where they belong.
As far as "Raising the dead is evil", that is the big sticking point here.
Its not. You are
1) Drawing on the very stuff of evil itself to power your abominations
2) risking the lives of everyone around you. if something happens to you, the undead go onto autopilot. What has every single zombie, skeleton, wight, and ghoul you've ever walked into on a dungeon tried to do? Eat your soft tender flesh.
The spell is evil in nature, but that does not tell me if
It does. In the universe of the game they are the same thing.
I think you misunderstood that, I did not mean to imply you are not thinking simply that you are passing by the alignment rules with a predisposition and not appreciating how vague the rules are.
While there is a lot of legitimate gray area of the rules, especially around morality and ethics, this is not one of them. There is a big whopping [evil] in the spell description.
And you give the impression that you are scanning when you are merely highlighting the word evil in infernal healing rather than saying how the action of healing someone can be done in an evil way.
You are tapping into forces that are the very stuff of evil to do it. Its kind of like evil radiation exposure. For PFS, because we really don't feel like keeping track of how many kilonazis worth of minor infractions you've done, it doesn't get tracked.
As for backing it up, if my pasting in quotes from the rules don't count as backing up I can't back up anything against you.
The rules don't show your point, at all.
[uote] I agree the spell is evil in nature, detects as evil, and good gods (especially since there are no good gods with domains of death) would 9 times out of 10 not allow animate dead.
try 10 out of 10.
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.
there might be some exception to that somewhere but i haven't seen it. If EVERY good god is unified in telling you "Oh hell to the no!" that takes some major bearings to say "ALL OF THE GODS ARE WRONG AND I AM RIGHT!"
Never once have I said the spell was not evil, you seem to be mixing people up. I full admit the spell is evil, infused with evil energy. What I propose is that you can use evil spells for good actions.
Doing evil things for good usually gets you evil. In a campaign where that sort of thing could be tracked better, you start would detecting as evil. You would be smitable by paladins. You could even lose your character- tampering with dark forces usually has an effect on your behavior.
In PFS you get a pass on that.
As far as Geb being the exception you are just wrong. You did mention it and acted as though that is the only city that has that attitude towards the undead. If you reread my post you see I also mention that the Osirion nation has a different view of undead than what you are painting.
To my understanding, Osirion doesn't mind the undead sitting in state in a pyramid or mausoleum where the living can go to them for advice and wisdom, but they're not generally moving around the town. It might be more "loose rotwiler! call the dog catcher" where a necromancer comes along and tries to cajole the undead back to their proper place
In one adventure there's an undead that the party has pretty good evidence is up to something shady. My lawful Good osirion Lorewarden and the lawful good silver crusader differed on how to deal with her- The Osirion wanted her preserved for her knowledge and figured as long as she was locked away in a proper masoleum things would be fine. The silver crusader had the more usual "DIE ABOMOINATION!" approach.(we solved it with the osirion running away from her at top speed with the undead in his tail with the cleric running after channeling. Cue the benny hill music)
Suddenly it is not just a random village
Geb is a rather sizable nation, not a po dunk city I think that confusion caused you to think i was making a point that i wasn't making.
|
|
another thing to think about is ideas of redemption. There is a mindset that says that using an "evil" thing (whether that be spell, item, or person) to do "good": especially greater "good" than doing the "evil" thing entails, has the power to redeem the "evil" thing (I've put good and evil in quotes, because ultimately we're dealing with two separate things: G vs. E as a morality (which is always subjective, regardless of what anyone is trying to sell you) and G vs. E as a codified set of laws, such as exist in the alignment system of pathfinder).
If as a neutral aligned cleric I use lesser infernal healing to heal those who would die without it, have I committed an evil act? some would say that I have committed an "evil" one, because I cast a spell with the evil descriptor, regardless of situation. I would argue that such a spell has (at least temporarily) been redeemed, even though it comes from evil. I'm not saying that it is always redeemed for all time, but it is redeemed for right now.
|
|
Maybe some people have a different vision than I do, but I see animated dead purely as fire and forget weapons. If I am in a dungeon or wilderness setting and we kill a good candidate, I would animate them for meat shield duty and then get rid of it once the task was complete, or we had to move onto a city.
I'm not dragging these things through populated areas. At best, I'll bury them and come get them later.
Also, I don't see any reason to ask the spirit of a guy we just murdered if he cares what we do with the corpse. Not that the corpse of most races are useful for animate dead anyway. I'm looking for large beasts and stuff like that.
|
|
the way you're going about it is you are trying to tell the rules of the game that they are wrong. You are trying to put a person centric, subjective, existentialist,free will based morality into a universe that has an objective morality to it.
No. I am saying that YOUR interpretation of the rules are wrong - there is nothing "objective" about your stance. You just keep harping on the fact that the spell has the [Evil] descriptor and insist that that proves that casting the spell makes you Evil. People have been continually piling on the evidence to the contrary, and your responses have been both selective and repetitive.
Quote:
As far as "Raising the dead is evil", that is the big sticking point here.
Its not. You are1) Drawing on the very stuff of evil itself to power your abominations
2) risking the lives of everyone around you. if something happens to you, the undead go onto autopilot. What has every single zombie, skeleton, wight, and ghoul you've ever walked into on a dungeon tried to do? Eat your soft tender flesh.
Quote:
The spell is evil in nature, but that does not tell me if
It does. In the universe of the game they are the same thing.
WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS? See my above statement.
Doing evil things for good usually gets you evil.
I reiterate: If a fighter can dedicate his entire life to perfecting the craft of homicide and not have to worry about having his morals challenged because of that, why in the world would it be Evil for a necromancer to say "it's too late for John Doe here, but I might still be able to use him to save someone else's life" after the fact?
Seriously, in a game where multiple homicide and grand larceny are expected almost every time you play, why is "disrespecting the dead" or some such arbitrary nonsense, which is mere cultural superstition and has NOTHING to do with objective morality, the thing that gets people shouting, "EEEEEEVIIIIILLL!!!"
|
Venture-Captain, Alabama—Huntsville
|
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Again I feel the need to reiterate the rule I am looking at and basing my thinking off of. Please show me another rule that may change my mind, but right now seeing this rule I can't see how animate dead is an evil action. I admit it is an evil spell based on the evil descriptor, but I don't see how it is an evil action. This, of coarse, is me making a difference between spells and actions. Spells being the magic you are casting and an action being targetting the spell at something with a desired effect.
|
I'm looking at the long term viability of a character of mine in PFS who is a Heretic Cleric of Charon and just recently picked up Animate Dead. I find myself holding back because I don't want to cause party conflict with the character, and came to the boards to dig around and see what other people think. After reading a few threads, I think I'm convinced that Paladins should be a banned class. They are no more or less disruptive thematically and in interpersonal relations at the table than characters who use Animate Dead. But because their character is Lawful Good, then that somehow transfers to the player.
If, by definition, overtly evil characters and mechanical effects are frowned upon, and/or prohibited in Society play, then overtly good characters, their mechanical effects, and the self-righteous play style that accompanies them shouldn't be allowed either. Just because you're "good" doesn't mean you're not a disruptive jerk nor that you have some kind of special status that affords you superiority over another player and their character.
It's my observation that there is a mindset among players who play Paladins that their character concept and class trumps all others; it's a direct manifestation of class attitude in player attitude. That kind of extreme end of the spectrum is no more fun for everyone than some backstabbing CE Fighter setting up a TPK and ruining everyone's day.
So, yeah, if we're talking about being fair, about accommodating play styles so everyone can have fun together, then Paladins need to go.
|
|
I'm going to have to back BNW here. Alignment is not subjective in Golarion. The rules are there. Evil spells are evil; that has been reiterated by development staff. Other acts are also quite evil. It doesn't redeem the evil in the spells. Animating the dead is evil. There are a few, select, story-driven undead beings that might not be evil, but in general, and in the vast majority, they are.
I'm looking at the long term viability of a character of mine in PFS who is a Heretic Cleric of Charon and just recently picked up Animate Dead. I find myself holding back because I don't want to cause party conflict with the character, and came to the boards to dig around and see what other people think. After reading a few threads, I think I'm convinced that Paladins should be a banned class. They are no more or less disruptive thematically and in interpersonal relations at the table than characters who use Animate Dead. But because their character is Lawful Good, then that somehow transfers to the player.
If, by definition, overtly evil characters and mechanical effects are frowned upon, and/or prohibited in Society play, then overtly good characters, their mechanical effects, and the self-righteous play style that accompanies them shouldn't be allowed either. Just because you're "good" doesn't mean you're not a disruptive jerk nor that you have some kind of special status that affords you superiority over another player and their character.
Playing an evil character is not allowed in PFS. If you somehow become evil alignment, the character is marked 'dead' and no longer allowed for play.
Paladins are not evil; they are allowed for play. The rules that cover the situations are different: Don't be a jerk, Explore, Report, Cooperate, and no-PVP. If you are experiencing those things, please bring it up to the event organizers or venture officers.
I haven't run into those myself. I play paladins, and each time I have had a necromancer in my party, we have worked out how to cooperate and deal with the situation. I may have just been lucky, but I think that keeping in mind that people need to work together may have been a big part of the solution.
|
|
I'm looking at the long term viability of a character of mine in PFS who is a Heretic Cleric of Charon and just recently picked up Animate Dead. I find myself holding back because I don't want to cause party conflict with the character, and came to the boards to dig around and see what other people think.
Its normally pretty good but may vary by area. Just have a backup plan.
The biggest problem with the undead animator is the cost. PFS animated undead explode at the end of the scenario so you'll have to restart them every time you use it.(blood money and false focus help) That might be a good time to look around at the party and evaluate whether you want to break out the onyx eyesockets or not.
|
|
I would expect that if you're looking to play a character that summons/creates undead, be prepared for some table static, or that you won't be able to fully use your build at all times.
I would also expect that paladins that belong to the PS would be willing to look at the greater good that is served by letting things that should bother them slide to a certain extent. They swore an oath to cooperate with each other, and if it's one thing that paladins know about, it's oaths.
As long as people are willing to work with each other, there's no reason why you can't have a paladin riding a giant animated T-Rex skeleton. Which is awesome.
Susie is quite the gal.
|
|
I'm looking at the long term viability of a character of mine in PFS who is a Heretic Cleric of Charon and just recently picked up Animate Dead. I find myself holding back because I don't want to cause party conflict with the character, and came to the boards to dig around and see what other people think.Its normally pretty good but may vary by area. Just have a backup plan.
The biggest problem with the undead animator is the cost. PFS animated undead explode at the end of the scenario so you'll have to restart them every time you use it.(blood money and false focus help) That might be a good time to look around at the party and evaluate whether you want to break out the onyx eyesockets or not.
It's so much more efficient to take control of the ones that show up in the scenarios. That's why my build has more feats to enchance that than actually make my own undead.
|
Venture-Captain, Alabama—Huntsville
|
The way I see spells and actions as different is that fireball is neither a good or evil spell, aim that at a child and it is an evil act.
I keep hearing that alignment rules in pathfinder are simple, but I have yet to see rules pasted in clearing this up for me. I don't mean to be a dick but we are on the internet and if you say something I want to see you are right, not simply accept your word without a reference to rules. If you tell me someone from paizo has said it works a certain way then I want to know who at paizo, because until then I'll wait till Dragoncon and hope to see John Compton again and see what he thinks. By RAW I can't find a single rule that says a spell's type will change your alignment, not saying it doesn't exist I just can't find it.
I don't think the problem with paladins is anything to do with rules, it is mainly the general stigma that they need a stick up their butt. I prefer to play my paladins like Sturm from Dragonlance. Paladins can be fun so long as they don't go overboard, but that danger can be there with any class.
|
I was actually thinking about a necromancer wizard for aprils meet up. However, with all of this trouble, I think I won't bother. I was just going to have at maximum four undead, not thirty,not a hundred,just four. But after reading this thread, I will just skip that idea. I like the idea of a necromancer, being dead is boring,why the hell would you want to sit in a box untill you decompose? I would rather be a zombie and killing people! Then I am not taking up ground that could be used for farming or housing. Ehh, some things will never happen. Shame,being a necromancer sounds fun.
|
|
That is why my paladin is Oath of Vengeance. "Never let lesser eveils (sic) distract you from your pursuit of just vengeance."
No problem with undead as long as they are fighting on my side. I suppose an argument can be made that undead are not a "lesser evil" but hey, I sleep soundly at night. Your mileage may vary.
The Society comprises thousands of adventures coming from all walks of life, and it places no moral obligations upon its members. Each member of a Pathfinder Society adventuring party is expected to forgo all personal and theological differences and work together to achieve the Society’s goals.
|
|
I already am planning two new ones. A CG halfling fighter and a NG half elf sorceress. That way Grol isn't my only one, he can be a bit disruptive.
Im thinking an elven wizard. He doesn't want to rule the world or mass murder people, just wants to commune with the dead. He sees nothing wrong with using the corpses of his foes as weapons,so long as they attacked him or his friends first. Seriously,not all necromancers are evil.
|
|
So what happens to those paladins from the Silver Crusade or Andoran that go to places where slavery is allowed or are paired up with players whose faction condoles slavery in their country? What about paladins from a country whose law allows slavery traveling with paladins whose country doesn't? (Will there be a paladin rumble?) So many possible scenarios we can think of that would put a paladin disliking or hating other players in the group. What about those rogues working in a group with a paladin? (Bet he has to watch what he does in that paladin's sight.)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is getting to be a long thread, but there's an attitude whose merit I want to underscore:
Let's say you like the iconic monk's back-story and you decide to build a character who's always looking for a lost relative. That's the big deal for your PC. Or let's say you build a character and give him the backstory that he's a "lost prince" of Brevoy, exiled for his own safety by ruthless relatives and now the rightful heir to the vacant throne.
Those are great character hooks, and if this were a home campaign, the GM could run with those and help your PC fulfill that quest. But it doesn't really work in Pathfinder Society. This is a campaign with a different backstory.
Likewise, a character built for a nautical campaign, or built to navigate the labyrinthine politics of Egorian, is playing in the wrong storyline. There might be the one ship-board adventure here and there, and there might be the odd covert political mission, but they'll be few and far between. Better to play "Skull and Shackles", or "Council of Thieves."
Likewise, you can build a crusading paladin, or cleric of Pharasma, who seeks to destroy all undead, and is a zealot and unwilling to compromise. That's a great character hook, and if this were a home campaign, the GM could work with that, and maybe run something like "Carrion Crown". But that character concept doesn't really work in PFS, because the campaign sets you up as an agent of a multi-national, multi-ethos organization. One day, you'll get assigned a team-mate who runs a slavery business on the side The next, a couple of Zon-Kuthon worshippers. And they're expected to cooperate with you, and vice versa.
So, be a paladin. Be righteous. But if you want to play in an on-going campaign, it's your job as a player to build a character who conforms to the campaign.
|
|
After reading through this thread I've come to a couple of conclusions.
I find it interesting that PFS prohibits evil alignments, but allows players to play evil characters.
As it states in the Core Rulebook casting a spell with an evil descriptor is an evil act, but the FaQ allows players to commit these evil acts without penalty. In my home game if you only summoned fiendish creatures, cast animate dead, infernal healing, or blood transcription eventually your character would become a NPC.
People who play heroic (i.e. not evil) characters are getting slammed because of taking a stance and saying "this is evil" (which according to the rulebook it is)
When it comes to PFS I will RaFaQ and if they cast evil spells, nothing happens. If you tie someone up and then drown them that is a different story (this has come up in a game I ran).
My brother and I have a couple of RP characters pointing out the absurdity of the evil casting. I have a chelaxian thassilonion conjurer (yes I have the certs for it) who summons fiendish creatures (and eventually devils) and my brother plays a paladin with an oath against fiends. During combat nothing happens, after combat he (in character) yells at me and dispatches my creature (if it is still up). I allow this as a player, but in character I'm raising a stink. This is not PvP because I allow it.
Personally every time someone casts Infernal Healing on one of my (non-evil) characters (I have 2 Lawful Neutral leaning to evil characters) I roll to save, because my heroic characters do not want to be tainted with evil.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
As it states in the Core Rulebook casting a spell with an evil descriptor is an evil act, ...
A number of people have suggested this, but I've never been able to find that rule. It's a restriction that Good-aligned clerics can't cast the spell, but nothing about it being an evil act.
Now, I'm not very good at searching the rulebook. Tamec, could you help me out here?