|
Can anyone help? I have a player who wants to play a ranger with a warg compaion. Is there anyway according to the rules to do this? My understanding is there is no way to do this? His alternate idea is a mage specializing in necromncy. We are about to play the newest adventure path with a LG paladin and cleric is there anyway to put him in the group without everyone killing each other. The player thinks that he is not evil, but I need to knw is he?
About his Ranger...I think there is a way it would require you to regress the base worg and to advance it as the ranger gains level.
As for the necromance...it is possible to be a non evil one...I would need more infomation on what he is thinking though.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monster Cohorts
The Leadership feat allows a character to gain a loyal cohort. With the GM's approval, this cohort can be a similarly aligned monster rather than a humanoid with the appropriate number of class levels. Monsters on the following list all work well as cohorts (be they bodyguards, mounts, assassins, etc.)—their effective cohort “level” corresponds to the level available to the PC as afforded by his Leadership score.
A monster cohort gains experience points as if it were a character of its cohort level, and when it gains enough XP to advance a level, it should generally gain a key class level (fighter is often the best choice for most cohorts). You can use the monsters on the following table as guidelines when determining effective cohort levels for monsters not on this list.
Bestiary Monster Cohorts
Monster Level
Babau (demon) 11
Bralani (azata) 11
Young dragon Special*
Drider 11
Erinyes (devil) 16
Ettin 15
Ghoul 5
Giant eagle 6
Griffon 8
Hell hound 7
Hound archon 7
Manticore 9
Pegasus 6
Pixie 8
Satyr 7
Skeletal champion 6
Stone giant 18
Unicorn 8
Worg 5
Wyvern 10
* A young dragon's effective cohort level equals its CR + 8. Dragon cohorts do not advance via aging as normal dragons do, but by gaining class levels (typically in fighter or sorcerer).
Bestiary 2 Monster Cohorts
Monster Level
Aranea 8th
Avoral 15th
Axiomite 14th
Azer 5th
Blink dog 4th
Dragon horse 16th
Howler 7th
Leonal 17th
Leucrotta 9th
Redcap 10th
Bestiary 3 Monster Cohorts
Monster Level
Adlet 14
Ahuizotl 11
Derhii 10
Dragonne 10
Garuda 16
Giant owl 8
Giant vulture 7
Kech 6
Kirin 13
Maftet 11
Nephilim 13
Sabosan 9
Sasquatch 6
Shadow mastiff 8
Shae 7
Shedu 14
Sleipnir 16
Tanuki 8
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Had this same request before.
I took the Sable Company Marine archetype, which grants a Magical Beast companion of similar CR, and just replaced it with the Worg.
Here it is:
You can gain a Worg as a companion. This ability works identically to hunter's bond when used to gain an animal companion, but can only be used to gain a Worg companion. You gain a +2 bonus on Ride checks made when riding your Worg companion, and whenever you are within 20 feet of your Worg, it gains a +2 morale bonus on all saving throws made against fear effects.
This ability replaces favored terrain 1 and hunter's bond.
Worg Companion:
Starting Statistics:
Size Medium; Speed 50 ft.; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6 plus trip); Ability Scores Str 14, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 6, Wis 14, Cha 10; Special Qualities darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, scent.
7th-Level Advancement:
Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d8); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Be very careful about the worg; it is way better than a wolf. It has 2x the HP, better senses, higher perception, darkvision, more WIS than anyone else in group except the cleric, nearly 4x more likely to hit with its bite, more damage, more likely to trip the enemies, etc. It is smart enough to speak languages and might speak more languages than most human fighters. It is very powerful, compared to a wolf.
I would suggest making him start with a wolf and get used to that for a couple levels, then maybe he can find a worg if you want to allow it (which means ignoring the fact that it's a Magical Beast - your call, but I'd suggest not letting him have it right away).
Necromancy is full of spells with an Evil descriptor. Using those spells, deliberately, wantonly, and regularly would result in a person being evil, even if they didn't start out that way. If he avoids those spells, sticks to only the necromancy spells that don't have that descriptor, then there is no reason to call him evil (assuming he doesn't do other evil things and/or behave like an evil schmuck).
However...
In my experience, nobody makes a character called a "necromancer" if all they want to do is cause fear and make their enemies weak and exhausted. Those guys are often called sorcerers, wizards, mages, maybe even enchanters, but rarely "necromancers". Most everyone, which probably includes your player, assumes that "necromancers" are people who control hordes of undead. If he's doing that, but wants to pretend it's not evil, then he might need to look at the spell descriptors a little more closely. And if he still tries it, and marches into Magnimar with a posse of zombies following him around, the guards will kill him outright no matter how many times he protests that he's "not evil"...
Of course, you could be a lenient GM. You could let him raise entire armies of undead and call himself good. You could let the guards of, well, everywhere, just shrug and say "Fine, you and your zombies are all wonderful good guys, stay out of trouble." and leave him alone. That's your call. But such leniency would probably not be the norm at most game tables so make sure you and your player are on the same page here.
Can't you just give him a wolf and say it's a worg? many animal companions are weaker versions of the original.
It is possible to be a good necromancer, but walking around with an undead horde carries its risks, like losing control in an inhabited area... And the undead themselves are of course evil.
kobalt quarterly #19 had a white necromancer (every good) and a very balanced class
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Few necromancy spells are evil. I'd say let him play a necromancer and if he turns out to be evil anway let the other PCs kill him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i wouldn't consider recycling slain enemies via animate dead evil either. it's environmentally friendly. i would even consider it good, because you are giving your foes a second chance at life, recycling, saving resources spent building coffins and digging graves, and so on.
i fail to see how the use of negative energy is evil, when the inflict spells don't have an alignment descriptor, nor do harm or chill touch and a variety of death effects.
hell, even a good necromancer has a series of valid uses for undead partners.
disrespectful to the dead? what rights does a corpse have over their body? they are dead, they are meant to be recycled
as long as you aren't out murdering civilians to animate
i am fine with a bit of grave robbing, as long as you use the animated corpses for the greater good
the paladin and cleric might be offended at first
but tell them it is better than letting the vessel rot inside the earth to become compost, be burned to ash, be put on public display, or similar treatment
The intelligent nature of the Worg, and ability to speak, makes the Wolf a poor substitute.
Oops, didn't notice a wish for a speaking companion, wolf withdrawn.
The intelligent nature of the Worg, and ability to speak, makes the Wolf a poor substitute.Oops, didn't notice a wish for a speaking companion, wolf withdrawn.
Since you're the DM and this sounds like a home game, charge him a trait or feat (whatever you're comfortable with) to have his animal companion speak, and give him a wolf, then call it a worg. I'd go with a trait, since honestly, its really not that big of a deal. If he goes for this, then you can see its a roleplaying thing. If he demands a real worg in stats, you can see that its a powergaming thing.
There are necromancers, those that specialize in the necromancy school of magic and/or use a bunch of necromancy spells, and there are NECROMANCERS, those that have an raise the corpses of their enemies in order to make sure that every loss of their enemy becomes a gain for their force, drink the blood of innocents, desecrate holy places etc.
Now if the player wants to play the first then everything should be ok (as long as he rarely uses evil spells and never raises undead) even in wrath of the righteous. If he wants to play the second kind of necromancer, especially in wrath of the righteous, then i suggest to tell him again what the theme of the adventure is.
Since you're the DM and this sounds like a home game, charge him a trait or feat (whatever you're comfortable with) to have his animal companion speak, and give him a wolf, then call it a worg. I'd go with a trait, since honestly, its really not that big of a deal. If he goes for this, then you can see its a roleplaying thing. If he demands a real worg in stats, you can see that its a powergaming thing.The intelligent nature of the Worg, and ability to speak, makes the Wolf a poor substitute.Oops, didn't notice a wish for a speaking companion, wolf withdrawn.
Me?(it's not my thread) I'd might give him the wolf and have it become a worg as its 4th level improvement, or simply give him the worg, because I don't care that much about balance. I care for more about interesting characters than I do about following the rules.
But I like and respect the rules, and my players can usually get away with anything that doesn't give them GM powers, like infinite wealth schemes. (I've had a few "I start with a million clubs and sell them for firewood"-players)
Hey Popupjoe.
I think BBTs Sable Company Marine alternative is one of the better solutions to the Worg issue, but do keep in mind that Worgs are really powerful. If you have a good handle on advancing or regressing monsters, according to the monster rules, then I suggest you regress the worg quite a bit to begin with, and let it catch up as appropriate.
In regards to the necromancer idea. The idea of a necromancer can either be a severe problem, or not a problem at all (depending on the other characters and how they are culturally attuned to necromancy). Having a paladin presents the main issue, since he'd usually be inclined to stop evildoers from doing evil things, but here's where you got a way to fix at least that issue, quite easily.
casting spells with the [evil] descriptor is not actually evil. It is not an evil act just because the descriptor is involved, that just determines how the spell reacts with other spells, how it detects alignment-wise, and which clerics may prepare it. So if your necromancer summons legions of undead, and use them for good, then he and the more traditionally good-inclined characters, may find common ground. Evil is in the act and motive, not in the tools you use (note that this is subject to circumstance, and that there ARE tools which colour your act evil. [evil] however, is not one of them).
With that being said, there is an issue. What I just said about the alignment descriptors not affecting alignment, is by the CORE RULES. If your group uses supplemental rules, you should know that in the setting book Champions of Purity, using a spell or item with the [evil] descriptor is spelled out as being an evil act. Since this is not part of the core rules, it should not be difficult to take out, and indeed it'll save you quite the headache not including that rule IMO. If you DO include that rule, you're gonna risk severe issues with the paladin and any good aligned clerics every time an [evil] descriptor spell is cast, and they succeed on their spellcraft checks. So if you are gonna use that rule, I suggest you do not allow a traditional necromancer, it'll be more disruptive than it'll be fun and memorable. As some of the others have remarked, there is quite alot to necromancy, and some of the best necromancers Golarion are followers of Pharasma, a goddess who opposes the walking dead. Their mastery of necromancy is in controlling and destroying them, so they may find rest, and so that they do not cause harm to innocents. So it can still be done.
Hope it helps.
-Nearyn
@Nearyn
First of all since the OP is going to run wrath of the righteous then it's probably is going to be in Golarion where the casting of evil spells is an evil act and raising undead is a major evil act on it's own.
But even about the core rules, i think that you are incorrect, i remember a post by SKR where it said that casting spells with the evil descriptor is an evil act*, i will try to dig up the post.
*In PFS this rule doesn't exist.
@Nearyn
First of all since the OP is going to run wrath of the righteous then it's probably is going to be in Golarion where the casting of evil spells is an evil act and raising undead is a major evil act on it's own.
But even about the core rules, i think that you are incorrect, i remember a post by SKR where it said that casting spells with the evil descriptor is an evil act*, i will try to dig up the post.*In PFS this rule doesn't exist.
Quite right your are sir, it is very likely that he'll be using Champions of Purity, but that does not mean he has to include every rule in that book.
It is easy to remove that one rule, and it leads to quite a bit less headache than including it. Since it's presented in a setting specific book, NOT using it should not clash with the core system either. So what I'm saying is that if he does use CoP, I advice that he does not use that rule, in case his player wants to play a traditional necromancer. It will remove many of the issues he would otherwise have with his party.
Also the core rules do not support that [evil] is evil, I'm afraid. I've seen the thread you're speaking of, and I know SKR's stance on this issue. However his opinion is not RAW. His opinion is his opinion, and by core RAW, [evil] is not evil.
-Nearyn
I would be worried, especially at 1st level, about the worg being an independently intelligent creature. They aren't just magical wolves. It would be more akin to having a dragon or orchid as an animal companion.
Rangers don't get companions until 4th level.
@Nearyn
I think it would be best not to argue alignment and whether SKR's post should be considered rulings or not.
I will take the issue away from rules for now, i think about aesthetics and theme. In an AP like wrath of the righteous where you are supposed to play the heroes, to stop the forces of the abyss, to interact with the churches of good deities like Iomidae. And now imagine that a party of characters who are suited for such a theme but one of the characters has the themes, asthetics and trappings of a villan and oh so sudden the rest of the characters who would otherwise beat the crap out of such a character simply don't do so because he has "PC" engraved in his forehead and the NPCs do the same.
I don't know about others but i would have a problem with that either as a player or as a DM.
@Nearyn
I think it would be best not to argue alignment and whether SKR's post should be considered rulings or not.
hear hear! It's not good to derail the thread with our different opinions :)
I will take the issue away from rules for now, i think about aesthetics and theme. In an AP like wrath of the righteous where you are supposed to play the heroes, to stop the forces of the abyss, to interact with the churches of good deities like Iomidae. And now imagine that a party of characters who are suited for such a theme but one of the characters has the themes, asthetics and trappings of a villan
2 words: Raistlin. Majere.
A character is what you make of it. The most obviously transparently, self-interested villain can save the world. :)
GM and player cooperation is key to making a good adventure, not class combinations and how they mix :) (Subjectivity warning)
-Nearyn
The intelligent nature of the Worg, and ability to speak, makes the Wolf a poor substitute.Oops, didn't notice a wish for a speaking companion, wolf withdrawn.
+1 Int, take 1 rank in linguistics? Technically not possible though I would allow it.
@Nearyn
I think it would be best not to argue alignment and whether SKR's post should be considered rulings or not.hear hear! It's not good to derail the thread with our different opinions :)
I will take the issue away from rules for now, i think about aesthetics and theme. In an AP like wrath of the righteous where you are supposed to play the heroes, to stop the forces of the abyss, to interact with the churches of good deities like Iomidae. And now imagine that a party of characters who are suited for such a theme but one of the characters has the themes, asthetics and trappings of a villan2 words: Raistlin. Majere.
A character is what you make of it. The most obviously transparently, self-interested villain can save the world. :)
GM and player cooperation is key to making a good adventure, not class combinations and how they mix :) (Subjectivity warning)
-Nearyn
What, who, where when are Raistlin and Mejere?
I know that a villain might be able to save the world but this a very different kind of story from what wrath of the righteous is about (from what i have heard about it anyway).I am not talking about class combinations, i am talking about how the characters (and NPCs) behave and how they appear, now from what i understand the majority of the AP and (from what i gather from the OP) the rest of the party are going to be holy warrior, devout men, cruseders again the demonic hordes of the abyss. And then one of the players decides to make a character that is a blasphemous, vile, power hungry undead lord, this seems way out of place for this adventure for me.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably veto the necromancer unless the player has a long history of showing he can make things like that work.
You are making other players who are playing concepts that are consistent with the theme have to change how they play to accommodate someone else who is trying to play something not consistent with the theme.
I'm not going to punish the players who are doing what was asked thematically speaking, in order to accommodate the player who isn't.
YMMV.
What, who, where when are Raistlin and Mejere?
Raistlin Majere is the quintessential good-guy-villain, or bad-guy-hero depending on how you look at it. He travelled with a paladin and a primarily good adventuring party, but was an ambitious self-interested powerhungry wizard, who did his fair share of bad things. In a way, he's the poster child for how in-party conflict can be a good thing, if only it makes for excellent story :)
Nevertheless, I get the feeling you may be right in regards to Wrath of the Righteous, and since I haven't read it, I cannot fully comment on the viability of morally ambiguous characters in that AP.
I'll just say that with GM and player cooperation most things, if not anything can work in nearly any setting. Be it a Worg riding ranger or a team-playing necromancer do-gooder :)
-Nearyn
|
|
Had this same request before.
I took the Sable Company Marine archetype, which grants a Magical Beast companion of similar CR, and just replaced it with the Worg.
Here it is:
** spoiler omitted **
I like this idea! I also thought about givng him a baby worg ie regressed but it would be my first time doing that to a creature. I have a slight problem with my player saying "if its not a worg then forget it" I feel im trying to compermise and says im nerfing him.
regardless it would be neat in stroy. He wanted to play mute and let the worg talk for him.
In the Golarion setting all Undead are fundamentally evil. If your player wants to play a necromancer as raising undead to fight for him (the traditional necromancer) then there is almost no way this can work. Your Paladin player would be compelled by his code, his alignment, and his god to destroy any and all undead. He would not work with someone who was constantly raising them, and when they were raised he would probably strike them down quickly leading to PvP. That is susposing that the character was played corretly. That kind of necromancer simply cannot exist with a Paladin in the party, unless you just want to turn a blind eye and ignore conflicts that exist. If the player wants to play a necromancer of Pharasma who communicates with the dead and uses other necromantic abilities such as enervation and energy drain while abhoring undead then you shouldn't have much problem with a character like that. However, I don't think that is the kind of character your player has in mind.
Had this same request before.
I took the Sable Company Marine archetype, which grants a Magical Beast companion of similar CR, and just replaced it with the Worg.
Here it is:
** spoiler omitted **
blackbloodtroll I think you have the best answer mechanically. I think most of use are over thinking it. The Worg is just a supped up wolf.
|
|
What, who, where when are Raistlin and Mejere?
Raistlin Majere is the quintessential good-guy-villain, or bad-guy-hero depending on how you look at it. He travelled with a paladin and a primarily good adventuring party, but was an ambitious self-interested powerhungry wizard, who did his fair share of bad things. In a way, he's the poster child for how in-party conflict can be a good thing, if only it makes for excellent story :)
Nevertheless, I get the feeling you may be right in regards to Wrath of the Righteous, and since I haven't read it, I cannot fully comment on the viability of morally ambiguous characters in that AP.
I'll just say that with GM and player cooperation most things, if not anything can work in nearly any setting. Be it a Worg riding ranger or a team-playing necromancer do-gooder :)
-Nearyn
My player loves Raistlin. he likes his guys to be sarcastic stickit to the man dark dudes with big power hopes. He played an assassin in my last game and likes to play darker guys in my other games.For instance we played a Scion game he was son of Hades. I offered to let him play a convicted mage who in the course of his actions redeems himself but he felt he should have nothing to nesesitate redeeming. I said you can play a necro if you concentraight on putting the dead to rest and wresting control away from others. He didnt like that either, he wouldnt promise not to raise dead.....so hard. he has stated that he feels im controling every idea he has but I just want it to fit without a fight.
There is a place for dark characters in the path if they are willing to work with good and become betterfor it. I would love reading that in a novel.
In the Golarion setting all Undead are fundamentally evil.
I might be misremembering this, but I seem to recall that even creatures who are birthed of pure evil and chaos I.E demons, are not so evil that they cannot be redeemed. This is supposed to go for sentient undead as well, I believe.
-Nearyn
In the Golarion setting all Undead are fundamentally evil.I might be misremembering this, but I seem to recall that even creatures who are birthed of pure evil and chaos I.E demons, are not so evil that they cannot be redeemed. This is supposed to go for sentient undead as well, I believe.
-Nearyn
The issue isn't whether thay can be redeemed or not, Claxon said that all undead are by default evil (except ghosts, those rarely can be of other alignments).
My player loves Raistlin. he likes his guys to be sarcastic stickit to the man dark dudes with big power hopes. He played an assassin in my last game and likes to play darker guys in my other games.For instance we played a Scion game he was son of Hades. I offered to let him play a convicted mage who in the course of his actions redeems himself but he felt he should have nothing to nesesitate redeeming. I said you can play a necro if you concentraight on putting the dead to rest and wresting control away from others. He didnt like that either, he wouldnt promise not to raise dead.....so hard. he has stated that he feels im controling every idea he has but I just want it to fit without a fight.
There is a place for dark characters in the path if they are willing to work with good and become betterfor it. I would love reading that in a novel.
I think I understand what your player is feeling.
I'm a bad adventurer. I like the safe, long-game, where I plan circles around the BBEG and then strike, completely collapsing his plans and winning by default, without endangering myself. That's not classic adventuring, and it does not mesh well with regular parties and the way most APs are written. So I compromise and play characters that act differently. Characters who WILL do stupid and unsafe things for the sake of heroics and the greater narrative. Do I understand WHY I need to play like this? Yes. Do I still feel stiffled and a bit blocked? Yes.
I do not know your player, so what I'm about to say is pure guesswork, but here goes.
Your player wants to play these types of characters, not because he cannot think of something else, but because he wants the experience of playing out his ideas. He wants to make the character, not to detract, but to add to the group, and he thinks he has the talent to do it. He might be wrong, but he wants to try it. To him, the idea of playing such a character in wrath of the righteous in probably very appealing. Playing the dark contrast to the shining heroes, travelling with them for his own reasons, and fighting the good fight, because he feels it's right. Not out of obligation to the greater good or some god. He wants to implement this concept, and you are blocking him. You do so, because you feel it would be best for the path, and for your fellow players, you are doing your job. But he feels like you're blocking him in. After all, he has given you not one, but TWO character concepts, and you've been hesitatnt to agree to either. He likely thinks that you do not believe he is good enough to play these characters, without disrupting the game, or without starting alot of PVP. I'm guessing he's sad that he cannot get to implement his ideas, because he already has alot of mental imagery of how fun it COULD be.
In my opinion, the biggest, most glaring problem with his ideas is not that they don't mesh with the campaign, but that they might conflict with the rest of the party. It then becomes your players' responsibility to talk to eachother, and make sure that they can use their ideas without crossing swords 2 sessions in.
Presently, I have in my Rise of the Runelords party, a Paladin and a Chaotic Neutral, medically insane halfling rogue. They are nearly complete opposites, with the halfling regularly stepping foot in evil territory, and yet, my players work together quite well. There are no issues around my table, because both characters have been fighting back to back to save Varisia now, for the past year, and they respect eachother, both for their skills and friendship, their ability to come through in the end, but also for their differences. This is something the characters do, and they do so because my players want the game to go well. They could easily have decided to go at eachother, but they didn't and instead wrote footnotes into their characters, to help make the game work. For themselves, and for me, the Gamemaster.
My advice may not be the one for your, and you may find your table must take a different approach. But I remember a time in Greyhawk where Wee Jas Paladins would reanimate their dead comrades to hold the line, to defend the innocent against the hordes of evil. I remember Raistlin and his dickish behavior, and how he and Sturm clashed, but still worked as a team to overcome great odds. I remember reading story after story, where character ideals and interest conflict, but where the adventure is what brings them together and cements relationships that go beyond alignment and profession. Stories where a runaway Drow gets accepted by a surly dwarf. Stories where the proud warrior of the proud kingdom, clashes with the decisions of his fellow travellers, and try to steal the ring, to help his people. Yet he realizes his mistake and would have made a formidable companion, had he not died to defend his fellows moments later. Those were the best stories, at least the best I remember :)
If your players, ALL your players, want their ideas to work, they can MAKE them work. (Note that I know nothing of your group and may be completely wrong. I'm an optimist :) )
-Nearyn
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My player loves Raistlin. he likes his guys to be sarcastic stickit to the man dark dudes with big power hopes. He played an assassin in my last game and likes to play darker guys in my other games.For instance we played a Scion game he was son of Hades. I offered to let him play a convicted mage who in the course of his actions redeems himself but he felt he should have nothing to nesesitate redeeming. I said you can play a necro if you concentraight on putting the dead to rest and wresting control away from others. He didnt like that either, he wouldnt promise not to raise dead.....so hard. he has stated that he feels im controling every idea he has but I just want it to fit without a fight.
There is a place for dark characters in the path if they are willing to work with good and become betterfor it. I would love reading that in a novel.
As for the original question, unless you have the system mastery to regress the Warg, or are willing to rely on the expert system mastery displayed by several lovely forumites on this thread, you shouldn't give a Warg to the Ranger. There's a reason they're not on the current Animal Companion list after all. If he's not willing to accept a reskinned animal from the current lists as a Warg, then he's likely after it for the power, not the role playing.
As to the necromancer, I would perceive the raising of dead as an evil act. As seen in this thread, so would some others. As shown in the Golarion setting, so do the NPC's the PC will be dealing with. Asking the Cleric and Paladin players what their opinions on raising dead, without specifying that there's another player with that concept in mind, would be a good way to find out their opinions on the matter. And then consider your own position/opinion. All in all, it's something that seems likely to cause setting/player conflict, which is a pretty good reason to not allow it.
As for the player's feeling of being controlled, let's put it in a different context. A GM wants to run a no magic, medieval game. A player comes with five concepts. A magic user, a mutant, a guy in power armour, an ancient god, and a shape changer. The GM says none of those fit the campaign. The player gives off that the GM won't accept any of the concepts he is putting forward and is controlling him. Do you think the GM is in the wrong there? I don't. And I don't think you are either. Your player's gotta learn that the campaign setting doesn't adapt to you, you adapt to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the Golarion setting all Undead are fundamentally evil.I might be misremembering this, but I seem to recall that even creatures who are birthed of pure evil and chaos I.E demons, are not so evil that they cannot be redeemed. This is supposed to go for sentient undead as well, I believe.
-Nearyn
Cannon, there are examples of non-evil undead (one ghost only to my knowledge) and there are examples of devils and demons and such who have overcame their inherent evil nature (Ragathiel for example). However, my understanding for general game play is no, you can't create non-evil undead. It was a big to-do about the Juju Oracle and how Paizo said it was a mistake that never should have existed and was the only way to create non-evil undead in the first place.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Normally you create undead under your complete control. If you are not Evil, and are not using your thralls for Evil, then it isn't Evil.
And really, which spells have the [Evil] descriptor makes no sense. Retribution? It only works in self-defense! It's less Evil than a greataxe, which you can actually use for unprovoked murder.
Animate Dead is most certainly an Evil act. It says so right here ;
School necromancy [evil]
No, I meant the rules text where it says using an aligned magic item or an aligned spell is an evil act.Core Rulebook, Magic chapter:
According to the rules, an [evil] spell is "categorized as" evil.
Would you argue that an [acid] spell isn't acid? That an [earth] spell isn't earth? That a [fear] spell isn't fear? That a [mind-affecting] spell isn't mind-affecting? If not, why are you arguing that an [evil] spell isn't evil?
Descriptors categorize spells. That doesn't make them fire acts to cast a fire spell.The game never refers to "fire acts" in the way it refers to "evil acts."
Creatures don't have "energyments" that push them to acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic extremes based on their "energy acts."
Creatures do have "alignments" that push them to chaotic, evil, good, or lawful extremes based on their "alignment acts."
So your argument trying to equate "fire acts" to "evil acts" is irrelevant.
BTW, read the next section of the Descriptors entry in the Core Rulebook:
The descriptors govern how the spell interacts with alignment.
It doesn't say "with cleric and druid alignment."
It doesn't say "with the Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells class ability of clerics and druids."
It says "with alignment."
Anyone's alignment.
Everyone's alignment.
As in, "using this spell interacts with the character's alignment."
So if an [evil] spell "interacts with" the caster's alignment, what's the obvious way it's interacting with that alignment? Is the [evil] spell making the alignment more pink? Is the [evil] spell making the caster's alignment more spicy? Is the [evil] spell making the caster's alignment more musical? Heavy? Sticky?
No, the [evil] spell is making the caster's alignment more evil.
That's the only reasonable interpretation.
Just to be sure Sean:
Casting a spell with the evil descriptor: Evil act?
Casting a spell with the good descriptor: Good act?
Casting a spell with the chaotic descriptor: Chaotic act?
Casting a spell with the lawful descriptor: Lawful act?I already said that casting an [evil] spell is an evil act. The same correlation applies to the other alignment spells.
Sean, I think the problem James is having is that a) your answers aren't absolutely clear in your statements (some might consider them evasive, though I consider them to be abundantly clear) and b) that the game rules do not give a clear and definitive statement regarding this issue.
Because Signifer's Rally has the evil descriptor, does casting it repeatedly make one evil? It was pointed out to me that you said spells with the evil descriptor turn the caster evil, but the spell in question has not evil effect and is completely harmless.In time, yes. Repeated casting of Evil spells should make you evil. At least, that's how it works in games I run and Golarion products I develop.
Summoning an evil outsider is an evil act. Even if they remain under your control, you're still exposing yourself to evil outsiders of your own free will. Summoning one evil outsider isn't as bad for your alignment as summoning lots, of course, and if you want to go evil even faster, just order your devil to do something evil.
But yes. Summoning devils is an evil act. Whether or not that's enough to cause your alignment to shift is up to your GM.
To everybody who says: "it's a minor thing, homerule it and be happy !" - yes, but what about PFS?PFS uses the core rules. Animate dead is evil, and animating dead is evil, and undead are evil. They're more or less off limits for PCs to play with as a result.
Normally you create undead under your complete control. If you are not Evil, and are not using your thralls for Evil, then it isn't Evil.
And really, which spells have the [Evil] descriptor makes no sense. Retribution? It only works in self-defense! It's less Evil than a greataxe, which you can actually use for unprovoked murder.
Doesn't matter. Undead are inherently evil upon creation in the Golarion world setting. Under normal assumptions, casting spells with the evil descriptor is actually evil (though alone not enough to actually change your alignment, usually).
Edit: Thanks LordSynos, you found quotes I've been too lazy to go looking for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Worg is no more powerful than the Hippogriff, which can fly, and is a big boon because of that.So by that logic you as a GM are handing out hippogryhs to Rangers who are functioning as first level Druids irregards animal companions?
You have a bizarre tendency to pick on things out of context and to (purposefully?) miss the points posters are making so you can make sarcastic and/or rhetorical responses to them.
Proposed solution:
"Change the Sable Company Marine archetype slightly to allow for a Warg instead of a Hippogriff".
Your response:
"So you'd give him a Hippogriff for free? *scoff*"
I just don't get it.
...Normally you create undead under your complete control. If you are not Evil, and are not using your thralls for Evil, then it isn't Evil.
And really, which spells have the [Evil] descriptor makes no sense. Retribution? It only works in self-defense! It's less Evil than a greataxe, which you can actually use for unprovoked murder.Animate Dead is most certainly an Evil act. It says so right here ;
School necromancy [evil]** spoiler omitted **
As this is the Advice forum, and not the Rules Questions one, this doesn't matter.
He can feel perfectly free to ignore such a stupid rule as "Always evil because reasons regardless of use" actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If an undead is under the control of a Good caster, then it probably isn't doing anything evil.Normally you create undead under your complete control. If you are not Evil, and are not using your thralls for Evil, then it isn't Evil.
And really, which spells have the [Evil] descriptor makes no sense. Retribution? It only works in self-defense! It's less Evil than a greataxe, which you can actually use for unprovoked murder.Doesn't matter. Undead are inherently evil upon creation in the Golarion world setting. Under normal assumptions, casting spells with the evil descriptor is actually evil (though alone not enough to actually change your alignment, usually).
Edit: Thanks LordSynos, you found quotes I've been too lazy to go looking for.
A bioweapon in the hands of a 'good' person doesn't make it any less contagious and deadly.
Within the core rule assumptions, assume that anything with an alignment tag is basically a metabacteria or metavirus. Just it's mere presence taints things around it, like mold or a virus infecting anything it comes into contact with.
That's why the rules treat undead as evil, no matter what, and why the spells have an [evil] alignment tag. By their very nature, they are causing evil to enter the world, which taints everything around it (this can be seen by the detect <alignment> spells, which can pick up the aura of the alignment after the thing with the alignment has left).