|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the quote again:
It is a necromancy spell, personally I don't allow good alignment necromancers either, and use of necromancy spells over a long time, indiscriminately, will shift alignment at my table.
He's stating his personal opinion about necromancy, and he acknowledges RAW does not state that necromancy is evil:
As Per RAW [evervation is] not listed with an evil descriptor, because of the above mentioned reasons as to why it's different. No permanent level possibility, it just suppresses life force... so it IS different from what a vampire does.
So I don't see what the problem with Pendagast's post is. And Orthos, I've shared a party with a LN necromancer who was very similar to yours (he was a mortician and mostly spoke with spirits and destroyed evil undead, and was painfully aware of the common prejudices and abuses surrounding his discipline).
I should be clear, up to this point, he's been a damn good DM.
The current scenario is just problematic.
Then you can probably trust him, but still try talking to him a bit about your concerns. Thank him for the upgrade to giant (since it sounds like you asked for that one) but let him know that you're worried that the further upgrade is coming at the expense of the group. Let him know what you're concerned that this compulsion thing will take away your control over your character.
And speaking of the compulsion, if you're feeling drawn towards a vampire who you're on speaking terms with, it might not be a bad thing to seek him out voluntarily. He might know something about what's going on. I'd try some sort of divination first to be sure.
I really wish cure spells and the like had remained necromancy spells. Healing being a subschool of conjuration never made any sense to begin with. Then nobody would think twice about LG necromancers.
I liked when spells were reversible on the fly, certain casters could use heal or harm for example...
In Diablo 2 the Necromancer was the Good Guy . . .
No one said you cant have an evil hero....
There was also the assassin....
In Diablo 2 the Necromancer was the Good Guy . . .
Compared to what the Diablo 2 necromancer had to fight against yes he was certainly a good guy. That doesn't really apply in Pathfinder though. Still I remember fights in Diablo 2 where a Paladin and Necromancer could team up to create an army of unstoppable undead protected by holy auras. But then alignment isn't used in Diablo.
In Diablo 2 the Necromancer was the Good Guy . . .Compared to what the Diablo 2 necromancer had to fight against yes he was certainly a good guy. That doesn't really apply in Pathfinder though. Still I remember fights in Diablo 2 where a Paladin and Necromancer could team up to create an army of unstoppable undead protected by holy auras. But then alignment isn't used in Diablo.
yes particularly awesome.....
I loved my necromancer level 94... was amusing
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
because good clerics can make zombies and channel negative energy, right?It is a necromancy spell, personally I don't allow good alignment necromancers either, and use of necromancy spells over a long time, indiscriminately, will shift alignment at my table.
Please someone else explain to this guy why Necromancy and Negative Energy are not intrinsically evil, because I'm going to blow a gasket if I try.
I look at it as a school of magic what you do after you use the spell is what merits good or evil.
killing someone who has no interest in fighting you is evil yes? Killing someone who has no interest in fighting you but if you dont will go on to kill thousands and you know this. good or evil? thats debateabul.
the necro that laughs ans enjoys his "beautiful" creations is probibly evil tho....
also a cleric or druid may look at arcane magic as unclean or wrong and i used the qualifier may...{likes his mystic theurge #1 tool box!}
and some wizards may see devine magic as something they just cant explane..... yet... especialy if you wanted to play a grumpy old wizard that dosent believe in the gods. dam kids and your prayers... and temples... and tree hugging mushroom eating druids... in my day we had to carry our sacks of bat shit,special rocks, feathers, and anything else we might need. if we needed to cast a fireball you dam well better believe we built it ourselves!.... *mumbeling* kids theese days with there mp3 staffs downloading fireballs from god.... they dont know how good they have it you ask me.... and what the hell is rap music?
Ranger: is this normal for the old man?
Bard: happens about once or twice a day.
Fighter: err... why bearded man talking self?
Cleric: i think he accedently turned his wife into a cat a long time ago terribly sad story poor guy ill prey for him.
Wizard: *off in distance* the hell you will-You be quiet woman! *familiar hisses*!
Fighter: err... gorp think pretty man talk funny.
Cleric: im a cleric of... ohhh never mind...
im pretty sure their is a feat that lets a cleric channel positive or negative.
Wouldn't a chaotic good character be willing to do uncouth methods, such as reanimating the corpses of a bandit raid on a town to re-enforce the guard to protect against the next wave?
That sounds like a good act and a good application of necromancy to me. while yes the UNDEAD ARE EVIL, their creator has them under control (Presumably) and therefore nullifies the danger, thus making the act pretty neutral until he actually makes them do his bidding, and what his bidding is is what determines his alignment when combined with his motivation and goals.
Still, the problem comes from the fact that it is a slippery slope. Today it is your enemies' fallen, tomorrow it is your own fallen. Finally, you might stop needing it to be an emergency to commit this act. While there is the desecration of a corpse aspect, raising dead is most closely associated in my mind with slavery. While arguments can be made against this impression... I just feel uncomfortable with them. You are forcing a person, even if it is just their body, to act against their will to do your bidding for as long as you want, without any promise of rest of repose. You are even suggesting that enemies should be forced to act against their former allies. Heck, this entire thread was born because the OP felt they were facing the same situation with their GM.
Raising animals and other non-intelligent creatures is a-ok. Well, as much as having rotting roadkill rambling around can be at least.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the whole "Drinking Blood is evil" thing is ridiculous; I mean come on, for Vampires it's their only means to stay alive. They otherwise starve; it's like saying a human being eating food is evil.
I guess when Paizo decides to make a Giant Mosquito monster, they might as well label it Neutral Evil, and then people are going to raise 50 million questions about the question of why a Paladin's Smite Evil or Cleric's Protection from Evil works against a Mosquito (which should hardly be considered Evil to begin with).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
im pretty sure their is a feat that lets a cleric channel positive or negative.
Versatile Channeller, and it only works for neutral clerics of a neutral deity, or necromancers.
well the stirge is that mosquito and it's neutral, because it's an animal, like a tiger.
Tigers can eat people without being evil too.
IT is RAW and in print, Drinking blood of sentient creatures is evil. I didn't print it. Paizo did.
you can house rule whatever you want. there is lots of RAW I don't agree with. And plenty I think is interpreted RAW.
However, THIS isn't questionable.... feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act. Page 100 ARG.
I don't even agree with it (in a limited sense). but it is what it is.
Evil Life Oracles can channel positive energy, and unlike a Cleric, an Oracle's decision whether to get Cure or Inflict spells spontaneously automatically is not tied to alignment. (Inflict spells are Necromancy and explicitly state that "you channel negative energy".)
I think the whole "Drinking Blood is evil" thing is ridiculous; I mean come on, for Vampires it's their only means to stay alive. They otherwise starve; it's like saying a human being eating food is evil.
I guess when Paizo decides to make a Giant Mosquito monster, they might as well label it Neutral Evil, and then people are going to raise 50 million questions about the question of why a Paladin's Smite Evil or Cleric's Protection from Evil works against a Mosquito (which should hardly be considered Evil to begin with).
But Finnish Mosquitos ARE Evil!!
|
In regards to the original problem, I encourage you to solve the dilemma Joseph Gordon-Levitt style by...
If the GM makes a fuss, just tell him you're stopping the Rainmaker.
@ Pendagast: Yet the OP stated he drinks the blood off the corpses of what they kill.
RAW only covers drinking intelligent creatures; not corpses. If drinking the blood of a corpse to sustain life is also evil, then it's ridiculous, RAW included.
Off-topic, I think the mosquito thing still hits the nail on the head. I mean, if the mosquito is the insect version of a Vampire, then why is it not Evil if drinking blood is an Evil act?
Outside that, there are multiple other creatures that drink the blood of other animals (as well as humans in rare cases); leeches, bats, the list goes on. Would those be Evil alignment as well?
Well, in the same line a tiger could eat all the children in the school for one legged deaf orphans and never see and alignment change. Maybe a change in blood pressure due to the salt in all those delicious, delicious tears, but nothing in alignment. I think the operative problem here remains sentience. The ability to recognize the gravity of one's actions as well as the actions done to it. I do agree though: killing someone for blood is evil; not drinking the blood of someone that tried to kill you is wasting food. My momma taught me that is true evil. There are children in Ustalav that would love to have that blood. They are also vampires...and all over 35, but still...
Also, radiostorm: the OP wishes they could grow up to be Bruce Willis. That was the only thing breaking the suspension of disbelief for me in Looper. Good character arch though.
well no, willing i suppose is fine.
In the thread talking about this concerning dhampirs, and the blood drinker feat, I would argue that say a ranger dhampir for example with the favored enemy of goblins, should be able to drink the blood of the goblins, heck he tries to go about exterminating them already, but when he drinks their blood to heal... he's evil....
But, if it's EVIL for Dhampirs by RAW you can't argue FULL Vampires have a way around it.
I am also going to guess the intent behind blood drinking being evil is that they assumed the target was unwilling. I could be wrong but I can hardly see donated blood as evil... I mean what would that make the Red Cross?
My character became a giant a few sessions ago, now out of the blue he's turned her into a vampire.
(...)
I am just guessing but your GM might try to show you how nice it can be to play a normal PC, not a monster.
Perhaps I'm wrong but some things you said hint at the possibility that you'd like to play a monster if you knew it would be without any strings attached.Now the GM lets you play a monster but more so that you wished for. And if he's not yet finished perhaps much more than you want to play. The goal might be to make you wish you could go back to playing a normal pc.
If I'm wrong, please don't be angry. I did not want to offend you in any way. And as I don't know you or your gm I might very well be wrong.
What would I do in this kind of situation? I guess I would tell the gm what worries my. If he still doesn't tell me what he's up to or changes anything I would just chose to fail my next will save and look what happens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This coming from a guy who thought (and still thinks?) that Dhampir are kill-on-sight.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
because good clerics can make zombies and channel negative energy, right?It is a necromancy spell, personally I don't allow good alignment necromancers either, and use of necromancy spells over a long time, indiscriminately, will shift alignment at my table.
Please someone else explain to this guy why Necromancy and Negative Energy are not intrinsically evil, because I'm going to blow a gasket if I try.
So when Aaragorn sent an army of undead at his enemies in "Return of the King" his alignment automatically shifted to evil? K.
I think the whole "Drinking Blood is evil" thing is ridiculous; I mean come on, for Vampires it's their only means to stay alive. They otherwise starve; it's like saying a human being eating food is evil.
I guess when Paizo decides to make a Giant Mosquito monster, they might as well label it Neutral Evil, and then people are going to raise 50 million questions about the question of why a Paladin's Smite Evil or Cleric's Protection from Evil works against a Mosquito (which should hardly be considered Evil to begin with).
Done. And yes their default alignment appears to be NE. Bluh.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My character became a giant a few sessions ago, now out of the blue he's turned her into a vampire.
(...)I am just guessing but your GM might try to show you how nice it can be to play a normal PC, not a monster.
Perhaps I'm wrong but some things you said hint at the possibility that you'd like to play a monster if you knew it would be without any strings attached.
Now the GM lets you play a monster but more so that you wished for. And if he's not yet finished perhaps much more than you want to play. The goal might be to make you wish you could go back to playing a normal pc.
If I'm wrong, please don't be angry. I did not want to offend you in any way. And as I don't know you or your gm I might very well be wrong.What would I do in this kind of situation? I guess I would tell the gm what worries my. If he still doesn't tell me what he's up to or changes anything I would just chose to fail my next will save and look what happens.
Oh lovely, another GM who thinks it's their job to "teach the players a lesson". Just what the world needs.
How does that follow Haskul?!
Aragorn didn't create any undead. He allowed them to redeem their evil deeds by rescuing his city. Are you trying to say negotiations with undead are evil to the point of immediate alignment change?! Because if you are you are then you are way past what anyone on this thread has suggested.
How does that follow Haskul?!
Aragorn didn't create any undead. He allowed them to redeem their evil deeds by rescuing his city. Are you trying to say negotiations with undead are evil to the point of immediate alignment change?! Because if you are you are then you are way past what anyone on this thread has suggested.
He's saying that's what Pend's saying.
This coming from a guy who thought (and still thinks?) that Dhampir are kill-on-sight.
Neither do I think that nor did I. But I don't want to derail the thread by explaning the difference of what I said about dhampirs and your summary.
And besides: A gm wanting to show a player how nice it can be to not play a monster fits very well with me not liking people to play monsters (which dhampirs are imho). So no contradiction at all.
EDIT: If you are refering to willingly failing the save part: I'd do that to effectively kill the char to be done with it. As to if failing the save turny me into an evil killer I do it now and build a new char. If it does something else at least then I know what it does and can act acordingly instead of just fearing what might happen all the time.
How old are the people in this group, OP?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And besides: A gm wanting to show a player how nice it can be to not play a monster fits very well with me not liking people to play monsters (which dhampirs are imho). So no contradiction at all.
This kind of passive-aggressive nonsense pisses me off.
If you don't want anyone playing a certain kind of creature, tell them so up front. Just flat-out ban it and don't make exceptions. DO NOT do this BS of "Sure, you can play that" while silently adding "And I'm going to make the entire time miserable so you learn to never do that again in MY game."
Nothing ticks me off faster than a GM pulling these kinds of punches, tricking players into getting to do what they want then punishing them for it with the mindset of "Now see how horrible that was? Never do something I don't like in my games again and I won't be forced to punish you." If you want to restrict stuff, just plain restrict it, and tell me at the beginning of the damn game. That way I know what to avoid from the get-go, or know to bid you good luck and farewell and go looking for a group that fits my style better.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And nothing ticks the rest of us off more than a player who wants to do something outside the setting but not deal with the consequences of it.
If you play a creature that will be unwelcome in some places, guess what happens in some places?
I'm not sure how "you tick me off" is justification for being a passive-aggressive jerk, but then again, I'm not sure exactly what whatever you're trying to say here has to do with this thread at all.
And nothing ticks the rest of us off more than a player who wants to do something outside the setting but not deal with the consequences of it.
If you play a creature that will be unwelcome in some places, guess what happens in some places?
I agree. I once told a party I was DMing that there would be no evil characters. A guy didnt like that so he made a N character of the god of murder. First encounter they came upon a murdered body and the guard was killed. I think it was the 1st module in the Eberron Campaign Setting. There was a consequence to pay like having to go to prison and be questioned.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
on the matter of blood drinking i think i'll toss my two copper and begone from this place:
blood drinker feat specifically notes "Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act.", so feeding at all isn't an evil act so long as the feedee is willing.
though, i'm not sure how feeding on an opponent during battle is any more evil than just running them through with a pointy object (y'know, murdering an intelligent being) or tearing their throat out with a bite attack (lots of natural attack builds use them). whether they die from bleeding out on your sword or bleeding out into your mouth (and all over the front of you, because drinking blood is messy business) makes little difference.
.
while we're at it, my opinions on necromancy in general:
positive and negative energy are just that: energy. neither is intrinsically good or evil (both of their home planes will kill you horribly for just being there too long without proper protection), it's a matter of how/why you're using it that defines it. I also find it rather odd that summoning and controlling the innards/bones of something is somehow more evil than summoning and controlling the whole body of something.
ripping out someone's soul for later bartering with devils/demons? totes evil.
ripping out someones soul to protect them from effects (hello soul jar)? not evil.
snuffing out someones life force (level drain and such)? evil.
protecting someone from the above (death ward)? not evil.
healing someone so they can be tortured longer? totally evil, and that's not even necromancy!
conjuring and animating a bunch of rocks into a humanoid shape isn't any more evil than conjuring and animating a bunch of bones into a humanoid shape. one simply contains more calcium.
there's also the whole "go forth my undead servants! save that burning orphanage!" thing as well as the roleplay of the characters involved can also lessen or remove the whole problem, such as only using conjured skeletons or pre-crafted ones in extradimensional storage (bog of holding or the like--they don't need to breathe, sleep, or eat) instead of raising dead in the area, making your dead bury themselves after their work is done, giving the dead you use proper last rites, contacting the soul of the body you're animating to ask permission (hey old pete, would you mind if i used your skeleton to save your family from this flaming tiger?), using them to improve the quality of life in the area (tilling fields, simple construction work without need to worry about them tiring out, etc.) and so on.
My character became a giant a few sessions ago, now out of the blue he's turned her into a vampire.
(...)I am just guessing but your GM might try to show you how nice it can be to play a normal PC, not a monster.
Perhaps I'm wrong but some things you said hint at the possibility that you'd like to play a monster if you knew it would be without any strings attached.
Now the GM lets you play a monster but more so that you wished for. And if he's not yet finished perhaps much more than you want to play. The goal might be to make you wish you could go back to playing a normal pc.
If I'm wrong, please don't be angry. I did not want to offend you in any way. And as I don't know you or your gm I might very well be wrong.What would I do in this kind of situation? I guess I would tell the gm what worries my. If he still doesn't tell me what he's up to or changes anything I would just chose to fail my next will save and look what happens.
Well, I had no intention of being a monster, being giant was something I was prepared for eventually, as the character's backstory involved a recurring dream where she was a giant and queen of the elves.
And I was fully aware of the difficulties inherent in being one, and was intrigued with having to deal with them.
As for our ages, we're all late 20's, early 30's.
And besides: A gm wanting to show a player how nice it can be to not play a monster fits very well with me not liking people to play monsters (which dhampirs are imho). So no contradiction at all.This kind of passive-aggressive nonsense pisses me off.
If you don't want anyone playing a certain kind of creature, tell them so up front. Just flat-out ban it and don't make exceptions. DO NOT do this BS of "Sure, you can play that" while silently adding "And I'm going to make the entire time miserable so you learn to never do that again in MY game."
What exactly makes you think that I am doing anything of what you accuse me of? In this thread I neither said I do things like that nor did I propose it*. In my games I forbid what I don't like. One of those things is playing a dhampir. And because I forbid dhampirs in my homegame some guys here on the forums think it's ok to attack me.
*For me the OP came across as someone who likes to play special snowflakes and I know GMs who could try to turn an PC into a very special snowflake to show the player how nice it is to be normal. I never said I would do that or that I think this is a good idea. It was just a guess as to what the GMs reason might be.
Perhaps I should make a disclaimer which I add to every one of my posts about how what I write is subjective and about how sorry I am that, being no native speaker, I sometimes seem to lack the perfect wording.
Well, in the same line a tiger could eat all the children in the school for one legged deaf orphans and never see and alignment change. Maybe a change in blood pressure due to the salt in all those delicious, delicious tears, but nothing in alignment. I think the operative problem here remains sentience. The ability to recognize the gravity of one's actions as well as the actions done to it. I do agree though: killing someone for blood is evil; not drinking the blood of someone that tried to kill you is wasting food. My momma taught me that is true evil. There are children in Ustalav that would love to have that blood. They are also vampires...and all over 35, but still...
Also, radiostorm: the OP wishes they could grow up to be Bruce Willis. That was the only thing breaking the suspension of disbelief for me in Looper. Good character arch though.
"Listen like i told your Captain, That Orphanage attacked me. It was Self-Defense." -Richard LFG
He's saying that's what Pend's saying.How does that follow Haskul?!
Aragorn didn't create any undead. He allowed them to redeem their evil deeds by rescuing his city. Are you trying to say negotiations with undead are evil to the point of immediate alignment change?! Because if you are you are then you are way past what anyone on this thread has suggested.
No thats not what Im saying.
1) ME is a different realm, there issn't a stigma of all undead are evil there. So the rules 'might apply' different. (although it did appear these guys were evil)
2) Aragorn using the undead army was technically an act of redemption foretold in the prophecy if the return of the kind of Gondor. so you are trying to take a scene out of context without any of the supporting story around it.
3) Aragorn didn't make a habit out of using undead
4) the end justifies the means.
Ive already stated a few situations where a few skeletons/zombies might be gotten away with.
The rules also already state feeding on Unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act.
So, theoretically, you could pay for some blood?
maybe you worship the vampire wizard as a minor deity? and allow him to feed?
Im still not seeing this as a Lawful Good operation tho.
Suffice it to say, vampires are evil, you can't get away with being one for long without becoming evil.
Technically, there are no non evil dead in pathfinder. So I could see a DM ruling the character automatically shifts to evil by becoming a vampire (as NPCs do)
however there is story element. And the Dm can make a ruling (like this will save thing) to play out the resist of the change.
All I asked was if the character had become evil or was it already evil.
There is tons of evidence in writing, in pathfinder, for "undead are evil" and "making/controlling undead is an evil act" as well as "drinking blood of unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act"
Now, can a DM change that due to story elements? Yes. That's the EXCEPTION not the rule.
But ill say this, if a character is making will saves to avoid becoming 'lost to vampirism' then using powers like draining blood and con and negative energy slams should be avoided, because the character is trying to resist, not "Whooo hoooo i get to use my vamp powers as long I make my saves AND be a goodie good!"
Uh no.
And nothing ticks the rest of us off more than a player who wants to do something outside the setting but not deal with the consequences of it.
If you play a creature that will be unwelcome in some places, guess what happens in some places?
I'm pretty sure that Jonathan Michaels only wanted to be a giant. And from the story, he dealed with the fact that it happened a bit sooner than he was comfortable with. The switch of bloodline was a bit weird, but fit in with the story. The problem was involuntarily turning into a vampire.
So the consequences of wanting to be a giant is to turn into a vampire? I mean, sure, larger creature = more blood, but not that much direct correlation. "You stole a car so we tattooed a large bananna onto your face." Even if you are being passive aggressive, you need enough clues to give people a hint.
My character became a giant a few sessions ago, now out of the blue he's turned her into a vampire.
(...)........
Well, I had no intention of being a monster, being giant was something I was prepared for eventually, as the character's backstory involved a recurring dream where she was a giant and queen of the elves.
And I was fully aware of the difficulties inherent in being one, and was intrigued with having to deal with them.
Giant in the backstory. whats the character race? Your an elf?
Were the dreams something of your creation? Or did the DM say "you are having these dreams" after the game started?
Giant queen of the elves.... Maybe you misinterpreted the dream? Giant queen of the vampires!
And nothing ticks the rest of us off more than a player who wants to do something outside the setting but not deal with the consequences of it.
If you play a creature that will be unwelcome in some places, guess what happens in some places?
I'm pretty sure that Jonathan Michaels only wanted to be a giant. And from the story, he dealed with the fact that it happened a bit sooner than he was comfortable with. The switch of bloodline was a bit weird, but fit in with the story. The problem was involuntarily turning into a vampire.
So the consequences of wanting to be a giant is to turn into a vampire? I mean, sure, larger creature = more blood, but not that much direct correlation. "You stole a car so we tattooed a large bananna onto your face." Even if you are being passive aggressive, you need enough clues to give people a hint.
Still dont get the giant backstory.
Not sure I get the vampire thing, was the character killed and spawned, or is this some kind of artifact related curse.
IT sounded like there was a 'book' that could be destroyed.
IF it's an artifact related curse, it could be temporary story engine thing, and have no connection the the giant thing whatsoever, and just so happens it happened to the same character.
EDIT: Also sounds like the Giant part is something the player wanted to happen. So got it. Vampire again isn't necessarily related. So I'm at a loss to see why the player would think the DM is plotting to turn the character against the party?
Is it "Im punishing you for wanting to be a giant"? I somehow doubt that.
The campaign sounds a little monty haul.
Maybe he picked you because he knew you were alright with being turned into a giant, so vampire might not bug you much.... possibly one of the other players would be really upset by it?
Is anyone else in the group given these special dreams or does the campaign revolve around you?
Is anyone else in the group given these special dreams or does the campaign revolve around you?
The dreams were my own idea.
Just part of the backstory, other players have creative backstories as well.
The giant thing, basically, the idea is she uses her magic, her looks and her charisma to gather a following.
She despises how the elves treat the halfbreeds and wants to become their queen and prove half elves are their equals, leading them into an Age of Enlightenment.
Obviously none of this happens until after the campaign ends, if ever.
Just flavor.
And it's not like being a giant benefits my character greatly, being a sorcerer, the loss of Dex hurts, but it's fun to RP.
And no, the campaign is in no way SUPPOSED to center around me.
It just feels like it sometimes, and it shouldn't
How is using magic/looks/charisma = giant.... I'm lost. Was this supposed to be a metaphorical dream as in "giant among men" and the "Giant" got turned into a literal transformation?
Well, actually, I get it to an extent. The use of Greek mythology through Zeus is actually a nice flair. In Greek mythology, and other mythologies I suppose, the idea is that in the age of Great Heroes, men were more mythic in nature, reflected in their superior stature.
This applies in practice in several ways. Some claim that George Washington's main qualification as a commander was his height, rather than actual expertise. The fact of the matter remains that superior size often demands respect. This also translates into better IQ due to confidence resulting from this respect. Jonathan's character in particular wants size since elves are typically marked with slightly greater height than humans and half-elves, allowing them to literally look down on others. So becoming a giant would allow this character to tower over its peers, gaining a sense of majesty and power.
The blue skin and vampirism are a bit much though.
Ya, the more I read about this campaign the more I am glad that my GM does not have this style and that I am not a part of this game.
Honestly....ask your GM if he plans to take control of your character at some point. If he says no then I say Roll With It! Enjoy the new RP and how it changes your character.
Part1 (yes this is long but might help the OP see that good things can come from bad circumstances)
So for 3.5 I join an already ongoing game with a monk with 15ft long noddly arms (was allowed to use the aberrant blood feat twice for extra reach). 2 Sessions in we end up in a massive batle. GM looks at us and says we can either escort the civilians away and no harm no foul. Or we can participate in the battle and he would roll on a chart he had made to see what happened to us. A few stay (including me) a few leave. My arm gets cut off. After the session we talked and he said I had three options at no charge: 1: magic it back. 2. power fist on chain style arm. 3. Mystery box. I choose 3. My arm gets replaced by this weird dude (a LOT later figured it was Glittergold) with these three adamantine bands with positive energy keeping it altogether. I could retract the whole thing into this massive adamantinne plate I now had over my shoulder, side and chest. It was cool although now I could only extend it to 10ft (making the bands stretch out) or standard 5ft.
Part 2 6 months go by (real and in game)
So thru a magical box I got from a gnome that turned things you put into it into random other things (it was supposed to keep food fresh) I now have this weird stone and a black potion. I randomly show stone to big powerfull magical blacksmith dude. He looks at it and me and says it fits in my arm. I insert it, experience but loads of pain (make fort save). Arm now becomes solid and I can shoot positive a ray of positive energy out of it equal to my my unarmed attack damage. Other stuff too.
We kill the necromancer leading his army and the story arc ends. Out of game we have a couple years go by and my GM talks to me about what I do. I figure out that the arm does more stuff...It actually can be a death cannon that shoots a beam of energy (still no idea on the range) and destroys everything in a 1/2 mile radius except me. I figured this out in a city, kill everyone, and hit the moon. Game starts up again, I am hiding what I did, and the story goes that evil dragon dieties were locked behind the moon and I moved enough for them to start escaping....all though we did not figure that out till almost the end.
Part3
We seal and lock away evil dieties! YEAH! Except all noble LG fighter sold his soul to asmodeous to get enough power to do so. So I drink that black potion that I had been keeping in order to fight Asmodeous (we are lvl 19 he is CR 32?) and again...massive pain (fort save) and now my arm is making me have all the elemental and positive/negative energy templates...so now I have to be careful and stay away form my allies while int he positive or they explode from my aura. Then we went to space....We never did save our fighter from Asmodeious and that DM promises to make a short epic campaign one day (4-6 session) to go free him.
In conclusion (if you read all that) my character was able to experience a lot of interesting character growth and as nerve recked as I was I enjoyed the experience as a whole. So if is not making you the BBEG, and he is a good DM, roll with it and enjoy the character growth. We can not always choose our path in life, sometimes you just have to walk the road in front of you.