Hi everyone.
If a Neutral Wizard (or any arcane caster) cast a spell with the [Evil] or [Good] description, does his alignment change in that direction or, it affects only divine casters?
And if the same Neutral Wizard decide to cast an [Evil] spell, how does a Paladin React?
Thanks in advance.
R.
Only divine casters need to care if their spell is evil or good aligned. The actions you take are what matter. Its actually DM's discression wether it changes your alignment one way or another. Theres no magic number or way to keep track of how many you cast and what spell to turn you good or evil.
If a nuetral wizard cast an evil spell in front of a paladin? Well the paladin probably doesn't have spellcraft ranks to know it, and I would think it would depend on what spell. Infernal healing for instance isn't that bad, but it picks up on detect evil. Summoning an evil outsider to fight for you might be obvious though... Depends on the paladin. They don't have to hate you for it.
Ok, thanks!
Actually, Infernal Healing would be bad, considering it's an [Evil] spell just like summoning an evil outsider modifies Summon Monster to have the [Evil] descriptor. An adventuring paladin who recognizes the spell definitely shouldn't go smite-happy over it, but he should be like "Bro, not cool. There are better ways to go about it than that." However, continued use might be a problem.
Actually, Infernal Healing would be bad, considering it's an [Evil] spell just like summoning an evil outsider modifies Summon Monster to have the [Evil] descriptor. An adventuring paladin who recognizes the spell definitely shouldn't go smite-happy over it, but he should be like "Bro, not cool. There are better ways to go about it than that." However, continued use might be a problem.
Heres how I hear that. "How dare you heal the weak and sick! I mean, garunteeing their safety and life through a little wand that uses a bit of demon blood. You should feel ashamed!" the wizard then shrugs and continues to heal people...
Actually, Infernal Healing would be bad, considering it's an [Evil] spell just like summoning an evil outsider modifies Summon Monster to have the [Evil] descriptor. An adventuring paladin who recognizes the spell definitely shouldn't go smite-happy over it, but he should be like "Bro, not cool. There are better ways to go about it than that." However, continued use might be a problem.Heres how I hear that. "How dare you heal the weak and sick! I mean, garunteeing their safety and life through a little wand that uses a bit of demon blood. You should feel ashamed!" the wizard then shrugs and continues to heal people...
A responsible paladin should have offered to step up and heal them in the first place via Channel Energy or a CLW wand, rather than subject the people to a spell that while yes, heals damage, is still evil. You're using diabolical (It's devil blood, not demon :P) blood to heal people.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Actually, Infernal Healing would be bad, considering it's an [Evil] spell just like summoning an evil outsider modifies Summon Monster to have the [Evil] descriptor. An adventuring paladin who recognizes the spell definitely shouldn't go smite-happy over it, but he should be like "Bro, not cool. There are better ways to go about it than that." However, continued use might be a problem.Heres how I hear that. "How dare you heal the weak and sick! I mean, guaranteeing their safety and life through a little wand that uses a bit of demon blood. You should feel ashamed!" the wizard then shrugs and continues to heal people...
Replace heal with taint and guaranteeing with damning.
Also it's devil blood :P
OT: Casting an [Evil]/[Good] is considered an [Evil]/[Good] act no matter what your PC's subjective morals might be, as far as the alignment system is concerned.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
I know right! I mean, who knew healing the weak and sick using the blood of the demons you kill was a problem?
Kidding aside, ingame there really is no penalty for arcane casters using aligned spells. Chances are the spell itself is for evil intents(such as the diabolist ability to send people straight to hell...) but the spell itself won't inevitably magically turn you evil. Thats RAW, but some GMs might think differently.
I should note that like Ashram's examples, some more zealous players or gms will react negatively to your use of spells.
Example you don't have to read.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Replace heal with taint and guaranteeing with damning.
Also it's devil blood :P
OT: Casting an [Evil]/[Good] is considered an [Evil]/[Good] act no matter what your PC's subjective morals might be, as far as the alignment system is concerned.
Actually, there is no such rule. Just that clerics are restricted on what spells they can cast by alignment descriptors.
It's also a really stupid way to rule things, unless you think it's fine that an evil wizard could stand in the middle of a field summoning celestial badgers to save their immortal soul. xD
It's also a really stupid way to rule things, unless you think it's fine that an evil wizard could stand in the middle of a field summoning celestial badgers to save their immortal soul. xD
Does it balance out if the celestial badgers are being forced to fight the forces of good? How about fiendish ponies attacking devils?
If you're summoning them and commanding them to hurt, kill, or oppress other entities, probably. If you're not telling them to do anything it'd be a strictly "good" act by that interpretation.
But I prefer the actual rules, which don't say it's a good, evil, lawful, or chaotic act. :)
If you're summoning them and commanding them to hurt, kill, or oppress other entities, probably. If you're not telling them to do anything it'd be a strictly "good" act by that interpretation.
But I prefer the actual rules, which don't say it's a good, evil, lawful, or chaotic act. :)
Am making joke. I've stated the rules several times. I prefer those rules too, I'd have to have a DM try to keep track of my acts like its some sort of video game. Burning orphanages is worth how many points? I'd hate to become too good...
Replace heal with taint and guaranteeing with damning.
Also it's devil blood :P
OT: Casting an [Evil]/[Good] is considered an [Evil]/[Good] act no matter what your PC's subjective morals might be, as far as the alignment system is concerned.
Actually, there is no such rule. Just that clerics are restricted on what spells they can cast by alignment descriptors.
It's also a really stupid way to rule things, unless you think it's fine that an evil wizard could stand in the middle of a field summoning celestial badgers to save their immortal soul. xD
Huh... you're right. I've been going by 3.5 rules all this time.
I looked into my Book of Vile Darkness and it says this about [Evil] spells: "Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be."
It's just something that never translated into the PF rules.
As far as my group is concerned casting aligned spells will always be an alignment act even though the rules don't state it. Just like we assume an unconscious character falls prone even though the rules don't state it
Legacy is so much fun...
Edit: as for "spamming" an act to grind an alignment change. It's completely up to the GM how he would approach that... nothing stupid about that
If you're defining alignment based on intent, which would invalidate casting spells to change your alignment and therefore your fate after death, then casting aligned spells cannot be in and of itself an aligned act. For example, casting fireball is not an evil act. Casting fireball and directing it into a crowd of civilians is.
If you're defining alignment based on action or results then you need to choose whether aligned spells count as aligned actions and be consistent with it across the board for all uses of those spells, regardless of context. There's no arbiter in the sky determining that the use of an aligned spell is no longer a "good" action if you're intending to alter your eternal fate; "good" and "evil" are metaphysical forces of the universe, and there is no judge over them.
But there is an arbiter in the sky/divine plane.
He/she/it just doesn't give a Codloose winker's arse what your intent or actions might be.
When it comes to cosmological powers, your alignment scale stops being a personal thing
Please show me where in the alignment section you're finding text that shows there's an arbiter over alignment in every setting ever, despite what the world's designer may or may not want.
All I'm seeing is a set of rules that define alignment regardless of your setting's cosmology.
I'm just going to step out of this derail now. Especially since I didn't even talk about the arcane part the OP asked about
We are playing a game where Good and Evil, as well as Law and Chaos are actual forces of the cosmos, and not just a philosophical debate here on the message boards. Using aligned magic will have consequences on the person(s) involved. A diabolist using good magic will not make their devil masters happy, and they will not be 'rewarded' as finely in their after life.
I hear this a lot, and I don't know where they get it from, but it is not a mechanic. It is fluff. RAW you do not tally numbers to decide how good or evil you are. RAW arcane casters aren't limited to good or evil spells like a cleric. RAW casting infernal healing or summon monster VII doesn't change your alignment even if you do it 1000 times it wont' change your alignment. This is all at your DM's disgression. Golarion setting is not every setting, and even then its not stated to my knowledge anywhere that you magically turn evil after casting 666 infernal healings.
That said, most evil spells are going to be used for evil and most good for good. If your DM wants to decide that your being too good or too evil, thats something between them. RAW there is no magic number.
I've noticed that Evil characters often end up fighting other Evil creatures and might want to summon celestial monsters to smite them. I doubt that this would turn an Evil PC or NPC to Good. For some reason the idea of a Lawful Good PC summoning demons seems a little off though. This could come up soon in a campaign we're playing where the PCs have to pretend to be members of an evil race.
Folks I play with seem to have a tough time agreeing about this stuff just like folks here on the boards. I think Infernal Healing exacerbates such debates since it is a much more effective wand for healing between combats than Cure Light Wounds (almost twice as good)
|
In PF, overuse of Alignment spells (intentions are partially irrelevant) can change your characters alignment over time, as casting the spell itself, regardless of what you do with it, is concidered an alignment act. What is done with it is in addition to that act. It doesn't override it. It's really up to your DM, (or better you and your DM), but it's not suppossed to be an instant change, rather one that happens over time.
In PFS, it has been ruled that casting spells of any type or doing things for the Society will no change your alignment. Pretty cheesy, but that's the rule in PFS play.
It's also (partially) incorrect to say that it really only affects divine casters. Divine casters can not cast alignment spells that are oppossed to their alignment, but can still cast alignment spells that is not their actual alignment. A LE Cleric can not cast Chaotic or Good spells, but a NE Cleric can cast Lawful, Chaoritc, and Evil spells, although they are not Lawful or Chaotic themselves. Like with all the Domain spells that do not appear on thir actual Cleric Spell list, it is unclear if they can use scrolls and wands of those spells, by RAW, (without the normal UMD check). For Divine Casters, well, Cleric at least, the deity would send a lot of non-mechanical hints of their displeasure to the caster long before and alignment shift or fall happens, followed by mall mechanical affects, (suddeny not being able to cast 1 or more spells per day for no reason, for example), then finally an alignment shift or fall, meaning the player and the character would both be very aware of what is going on and choose to continue on that path.
|
|
I've noticed that Evil characters often end up fighting other Evil creatures and might want to summon celestial monsters to smite them. I doubt that this would turn an Evil PC or NPC to Good. For some reason the idea of a Lawful Good PC summoning demons seems a little off though. This could come up soon in a campaign we're playing where the PCs have to pretend to be members of an evil race.
Think about it like this. If the evil guy is choosing to summon heavenly allies to fight evil, then maybe they are not as attuned to evil as they think they are. They could have summoned something else, (evil summons tend to be more effective, even against evil a lot of the tims), or created undead, or even tried to master/steal control of the evil they are fighting (Magic circle vs Evil inward for example), which would lead to them having even more power, but instead decided to call on Good, both infusing that last ittle part of their soul with a cracker's wirth of food to keep it alive, while also bringing more goodness into the world, even if in a tiny, miniscule way. instead of fighting evil with evil, thus making evil even stronger, they are fighting evil with good, which weakens evil and strengthens good very slightly. Now their intentions (for example to enslave the good summoned creature and to just slaughter what happens to be evil) might completely outweigh the alignment portion of the spell itself, but it's still there and factored in.
Folks I play with seem to have a tough time agreeing about this stuff just like folks here on the boards. I think Infernal Healing exacerbates such debates since it is a much more effective wand for healing between combats than Cure Light Wounds (almost twice as good)
Infernal Healing grants you an Evil Aura, but doesn't make you actually evil in any way. It is a very unpleasant affect, RP-wise, and full of RP taint and corruption, but it doesn't actually affct your alignment at all. In addition, unless you are a Cleric or Paladin, or an Undead or Outsider, you need to be 6th level to even have others be able to detect it. They have changed the way that Detect Alignment spells work very slightly, but spells that affect specific alignments (Holy Smite for example) target your actual Aligment (or for Outsiders both your actual alignment and your alignment subtype), not your Aura. The material components for Infernal Healing are either Unholy Water or devil blood, both of which if sprinkle on you would detect as evil on their own, and be kind of gross and uncomfortable RP wise.
The game mechanic? It's up to the specific GM to whether the character alignment changes.
Exactly my point. Its not a mechanic, its fluff. If your DM rules that casting 666 infernal healings turns you evil, thats his choice. There is no strict or specific ruling about it however. DM of course over rules anything.
Its also more important than your afterlife. Afterlife is setting specific fluff. Some classes however are stricter about alignment, and the effects of being an alignment sometimes turns on you. I like keeping alignment in the players control unless they abuse it. Character sheets can be a very personal thing, so no reason to change it on a whim.
In PFS, it has been ruled that casting spells of any type or doing things for the Society will no change your alignment. Pretty cheesy, but that's the rule in PFS play.
Its not that cheesy I don't think. Its actually very hard to remain one alignment while doing work for the society. Some faction missions are assassinations or theft, even for some of the factions that appear to be good guys or neutral. Makes life less stressful I think, and also gives less table variance so you don't have to worry about one GM deciding your casting of an evil spell or two needs to be mark on your chronicle sheet.
It is a very unpleasant affect, RP-wise, and full of RP taint and corruption
I've always thought it would feel like a warm hug to be honest. Warm and fuzzy on the inside type thing. Evil should be tempting, and it is healing after all.
In PF, overuse of Alignment spells (intentions are partially irrelevant) can change your characters alignment over time, as casting the spell itself, regardless of what you do with it, is concidered an alignment act.
Can you find the reference in the rules ? Because I didn't find it.
In pathfinder (and 3.5 without Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds), casting a spell with an [alignment] isn't an aligned act. Even accounting for the 2 books, doing an aligned act doesn't shift your alignment that easy.
EDIT : However, a character who cause evil acts almost all the time is not Good, but Evil. But that's more a problem of not choosing the right alignment to begin with...
|
|
@ AVH - It's not in the rules as much as it has been answered multiple times on the boards by Paizo staff. Essentually they said that regardless of what the spell (or act or whatever) was meant to do, because it manifests a small portion of <ENTER ALIGNMENT> into the world, further strengthening that alignments foothold in the world. That alignment energy/essence has subconscious affects of people and the area, subtly influencing the nature of the material plane, infusing plants and wildlife, etc. . . Likewise, creating Undead also lets a bit of Negative Energy fromt he Negatie Energy Plane seep into the Material Plane, which taints life and causes minor imbalance. It also creates an embodiment(s) of Negative Energy in the world, which will further spread and taint, potntually, regardlss of how long it lasts, or what the casters intentions with it are, (including creating an undead to fight and then destroying it right afterwards). That's why it's an Evil spell just by itself. There is also the fact that the Alignment System is Objective, not Subjective. It doesn't matter (as a lot of people have implied) what your intentions or personal beliefs on a subject is. Creating Undead, Summoning Evil Outsiders, and calling on Evil powers are all evil acts, even if you happen to be from a country or follower of a religion that doesn not view those things as evil. It doesn't matter if you are doing it to defend helpless babies from being killed, or to prevent more people from dying, they are still 100% evil acts on their own accord. You are still "calling on the Dark Side" as it where. (Note, I'm not saying I agree with that, but that's how it works).
In PFS, it has been ruled that casting spells of any type or doing things for the Society will no change your alignment. Pretty cheesy, but that's the rule in PFS play.
Its not that cheesy I don't think. Its actually very hard to remain one alignment while doing work for the society. Some faction missions are assassinations or theft, even for some of the factions that appear to be good guys or neutral. Makes life less stressful I think, and also gives less table variance so you don't have to worry about one GM deciding your casting of an evil spell or two needs to be mark on your chronicle sheet.
It's cheesy (in my opinion) because it means a person (including a paladin or Good cleric of babies and community) can go slaughter an orphans (just an examle), but because the more-powerful-than-the-deities and forces of good/evil/law/chaos Pathfinder Society sent you, and you are just following orders, there is no moral affects on you whatso ever, and there is no RP accountability for you. It all goes on the society of the Faction Leader. If your a paladin or cleric, your faith's tabboos, the ones you are appointed to be a living example of to all others (by nature of the class), well that's okay, lets sweep it under the rug, because your a Pathfinder.
Everyone agrees, but everyone refuses to put it in any book. Sounds like a popular house rule.
I do not. Assumptions aren't good things.
The thing is its impossible to keep track of, and most of what Devils Advocate put up was mumbo jumbo to a specific setting. If I remember right several devs have weighed in on this, but I don't have links to their post. As far as whats written in the books is concerned it won't turn you evil however. Thats all that was asked. Well that and paladins, but I hate touching those with a 10 foot pole.
Mumbo jumbo to a specific setting?
My admittedly strange way of saying its fluff and silly religious stuffs. Probably should've used a better word. I find that its lengthy and vague, and between settings the way things work changes drastically. I've had DMs who are both for and against such those kinds of things, but I feel like enforcing it or statings things are a strict rule when they are purely fluff is a little meh, if you know what I mean.
The only RAW ways of changing your alignment in Pathfinder is either with an Helm of opposite alignment or with BOTH DM and player agreeing.
Alignment is a tool, a convenient shorthand you can use to summarize the general attitude of an NPC, region, religion, organization, monster, or even magic item.
Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner. If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character. In some cases, changing alignments can impact a character's abilities—see the class write-ups in Classes for details. An atonement spell may be necessary to repair damage done by alignment changes arising from involuntary sources or momentary lapses in personality.
Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic neutral characters.
As you can see, nothing about casting an [evil] spell is Evil. Only acts can define a possible change of alignments, and they are not defined by the rules.
So, I agree with you that a character that keeps casting only [evil] spells, and doing it in a Evil way must have an Evil alignment. But I disagree with the fact that, for a Good-aligned character, casting an [Evil] spell is Evil by itself (depending on the spell, it may be also an evil act). After all, only Paladins and clerics have such a code, not all good-aligned character. And that explains why they can't even cast them.As for the Paladin, he is also restricted in his acts by his Code, which he cannot violate without him losing his powers (and lose them permanently if he does so consciously).
Nothing in the RAW states that eating live babies is evil either. It's just assumed to be understood, just like it's assumed people understand that doing something tagged [evil] is, in fact evil.
If people want to go past the most base RAW RAWy-RAW and look at what the explicit intent was, this is what the creative director has to say on the subject:
Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil; that's why they have that descriptor. Same goes for Good or Lawful or Chaotic. That means that certain classes can't really cast them at all (divine classes of different alignments), but that other classes (arcane spellcasters, for the most part) can cast them as much as they like. But casting alignment spells a lot will and should turn the caster toward that alignment, unless the GM doesn't care about alignment and doesn't enforce such changes, in which case the GM should let EVERY player at the table know that alignment doesn't impact the game so that players who do play as if it does have a chance to adjust their play styles as appropriate. Removing the alignment types of certain spells has implications, though, and before you do so make sure that no one in your group is planning on building a character who uses the alignemnt descriptors in their character build!
|
Good, now add that to a book, any book. I'll settle for a FAQ or Errata. Until then, it's still just a very popular houserule. It may even be popular for a reason, but a houserule it remains, with equal weight to any other houserule, to be followed or discarded at the GMs will and without any weight of RAW.
If people want to go past the most base RAW RAWy-RAW and look at what the explicit intent was
RAI vs. RAW is a painful talk to get into. Removing alignment from spells doesn't actually have that big of an impact becuase chances are your using them for evil and thats what makes them evil. If people are eating live babies chances are the DM is going to make something of that and say its evil. Not many cultures I know are for that.
Good, now add that to a book, any book. I'll settle for a FAQ or Errata. Until then, it's still just a very popular houserule. It may even be popular for a reason, but a houserule it remains, with equal weight to any other houserule, to be followed or discarded at the GMs will and without any weight of RAW.
+1 to Nuku... I think thats how you say I agree in forumese anyway.
Actually Ilja, I'm pretty sure eating live babies would qualify as "Hurting, oppressing, or killing others", which is what defines evil. You are killing another creature, and therefore performing an act of evil.
I'm sorry if I seem a little hostile to people that think aligned spells are aligned actions, but the idea that using a tool can alter the course of your soul blows my mind. These must be incredibly silly game worlds where old, evil wizards spend the last of their days casting [Good] spells over and over so they can go to heaven.
|
|
Mumbo jumbo to a specific setting?My admittedly strange way of saying its fluff and silly religious stuffs. Probably should've used a better word. I find that its lengthy and vague, and between settings the way things work changes drastically. I've had DMs who are both for and against such those kinds of things, but I feel like enforcing it or statings things are a strict rule when they are purely fluff is a little meh, if you know what I mean.
While it is pretty RP, I should point out again, this isn't how I play, (and honestly I don't agree with it). It is how the Paizo staff have said (and actually WotC before that) how it is suppossed to work in the generic rules. It is not setting specific, even in Golarion, just the way that alignment is meant to work. It is more than just fluff, though. It does have mechanic effects, it's just not clear on where the line is drawn.
Good, now add that to a book, any book. I'll settle for a FAQ or Errata. Until then, it's still just a very popular houserule.
Just as claiming eating live babies is a popular houserule, or prohibiting people from acting while dead. You know there's nothing in the RAW prohibiting you from playing while dead? In fact, it could be quite useful as you're immune to all spells that can only target living creatures and you're still not vulnerable to those targeting the undead.
Playing the game the way it was explicitly intended to is a little more than just a houserule.
Actually Ilja, I'm pretty sure eating live babies would qualify as "Hurting, oppressing, or killing others", which is what defines evil. You are killing another creature, and therefore performing an act of evil.
Actually, it doesn't define it really. This is the whole sentence:
"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. "Note the "implies". There isn't an automatic "killing others is evil" rule, or all PC's would be evil in no time, and neither does it state in the rules what constitutes "others" and not. In the broadest interpretation, anyone who swats a fly or tramples grass is evil.
Just as claiming eating live babies is a popular houserule, or prohibiting people from acting while dead. You know there's nothing in the RAW prohibiting you from playing while dead?
I don't know anyone who claims to eat live babies, and yes you can play while dead. Very easy to roleplay, just take a still and quiet nap. Its not the most fun however.
Just as claiming eating live babies is a popular houserule, or prohibiting people from acting while dead. You know there's nothing in the RAW prohibiting you from playing while dead?I don't know anyone who claims to eat live babies, and yes you can play while dead. Very easy to roleplay, just take a still and quiet nap. Its not the most fun however.
No, I mean, someone casts Circle of Death and I fail the save. On the next round, I cast fireball on the killer, because there's no rule saying "you can't act while dead". It's a common houserule, but nowhere in the rules as written.
I mean, I get the RAW vs RAI discussions when the RAI is unknown. But when the RAI is crystal clear and the CREATIVE DIRECTOR has explained it? Then it's crystal clear.
And you know what? Nowhere in the RAW does it say RAW trumps RAI.
Erm... Actually that is a rule. If your below 0 your unconcoius and if your dead you can't be healed. Effects such as diehard end when you hit negative con.
Dead: The character's hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character's soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.
Unconscious: Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature's Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.
What he says isn't a rule. Its a good suggestion, don't get me wrong, but its not a rule. The rulebook is just guidelines. Someone asked what the rule was and that usually means RAW. You can't present RAI as RAW, you can suggest it however.
Erm... Actually that is a rule. If your below 0 your unconcoius and if your dead you can't be healed. Effects such as diehard end when you hit negative con.
There is not a rule about dead creatures getting negative HP. If you're killed by a longsword I agree, but Circle of Death causes no hit point damage, and neither does dying through constitution damage.
And actually, nowhere does it say Diehard stops working when you die.
So no, "no acting while dead" is not a rule.
And actually, it can be argued that when you die you stop being unconscious. This due to the line in the "unconscious" part of the Conditions section. "Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature's Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points."
But that's a gray area.
But there isn't a single word in the whole rulebook preventing you from taking actions when dead due to something like Circle of Death.
Moving past this... Yes, you can houserule what you want.
So, about acting while your dying. Your unconcious, for whatever reason and if your dead your soul left your body whatever that means. You can't be healed to become concious again. So it would be hard to act I guess while your unconcious, which I previously quoted denies you action.
When your character's current hit points drop to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score or lower, or if he succumbs to massive damage, he's dead. A character can also die from taking ability damage or suffering an ability drain that reduces his Constitution score to 0.
If your negative hit points are equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you immediately die.
Dying (Negative Hit Points)
If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you're dying.
A dying character immediately falls unconscious and can take no actions.
A dying character loses 1 hit point every round. This continues until the character dies or becomes stable.
Circle of death snuffs out the life force of living creatures, killing them instantly
@MrSin : +1.
Moreover, in some Universes, being dead means your soul is sent to one of the planes to become at best a servant of a God or plane, at worse pocket money for fiends...
To go further, you could eventually continue to play your character while she is dead, but you will play on different adventures than your fellow players, and so, it's better to roll a new one (to at least temporarily play someone the time to find a way to resurrect your character).
Moving past this... Yes, you can houserule what you want.
** spoiler omitted **
All I've seen so far is:
1. If you're reduced to negative HP, you become unconscious. In other words, hit point loss may cause death.
2. If you're reduced to -Con HP, you die. In other words, hit point loss may cause death.
3. If you fail save against CoD (or a plethora of other abilities), you die.
4. When unconscious you cannot act.
These are rules of the game.
Things not in the rules:
5. Death causes hit points loss.
6. Death causes unconsciousness.
@Avh:
That may be in some universes, but not in the RAW, which is what we are discussing.
Of course, I'm not saying that it's a good idea to allow people to get themselves killed by poison to become immune to a bunch of stuff but be otherwise just fine, I'm saying that going simply by the letter of the rules when the intent is explicitly counter to that is just stupid. Like arguing casting [evil] spells isn't evil just because there's no law that explitictly says [evil] is evil.
Ilja, its more than little derailing. Thats why I put it in a spoiler and said what I did, not interested in argueing.
Some people may disagree with evil spells turning you evil. Thats okay, they can choose not to use it. Some people may agree, they can choose to mechanically enforce it in some way. Thats also okay. Someone may disagree that eating orphan babies is evil, if they find like minded inviduals okay with that in the game thats fine too. Not sure when that will happen or if thats even a thing, but hey, its all up to them. Somethings just happen to be more subjective than others and morality is one of them.
^That I can fully agree with^
My original point was that some people put waaay too much into what can be wrangled from the rules (often as a means to get some benefit, such as freely casting evil spells without committing evil actions), and ignore what is the explicit intent of the rules - how the game is meant to be played - whether that is with [evil] being evil or with [i]dead[i] being unmoving and unconscious.