Animate Dead is most certainly an Evil act.
I apologize if I'm misreading your post, but it seems to me that you're inferring that it is part of the rules as written that [evil] = evil.
This is untrue according to the CORE RULES, where it is -not- an evil act to cast an [evil] spell. The rule that states that [evil] = evil can be found in a supplemental, setting specific book called Champions of Purity, and is NOT a part of the core rules.
I apologize if I misread your post, but it seemed to me you were stating your, SKRs and JJs opinions like they were the actual rules, which I object to.
-Nearyn
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? ...
I would probably say he has to start with a worg with the young template. When he gets high enough level to have something as powerful as a worg then it has 'grown up' into an adult worg. You and he would have to work out at what level that would occur. Note: Worgs are NE.
EDIT: OK 137ben, Nearly every worg is NE and it could be considered reasonable for most to assume they are and act accordingly. See below where it looks like he wants to play a nearly evil character and someone else wants to play a paladin. From what little I have heard it sounds like much potential for friction between the players (which is much worse than friction between the PC's). Satisfied?
... 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?
Whether or not he is evil is up to you to decide in your campaign. If you are playing very RAW, most people would say he is evil if he is creating undead. Some will hand wave it away. But either way it has enormous potential for conflict.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Don't know details other than the few you provided. But it sounds like he does not want to play the same game as at least one other player.
In my experience having a paladin in the same party as a PC with an evil pet or creating evil pets is a recipe for disaster. If you have a very mature bunch of players who enjoy intra-party conflict, it can work. But most groups I have seen just implode from situations like this.
Worg on solo guard duty eats a child.
Paladin kills worg and chastises ranger.
Ranger kills paladin in his sleep for murdering his friend.
Rest of party kills the ranger for killing the heroic paladin.
Players 1 and 2 are angry and resentful.
The other players have been forced to take sides.
I would not allow it. I have started saying, “I’m not going to try to mediate a way for you to work together. The campaign doesn’t start until you guys all figure out concepts, builds, or whatever that allow you to cooperate." I have also seriously considered banning the paladin from my games because I can't tell before hand if the player intends the paladin to have a personality that ends up being game wrecking.
"That's why", mdt?
You sure?
Because that part's not in the rules.
And the only answer I ever got from SKR on this sort of thing was, literally, "Because we decided to make it that way".
So I'd really like to see where you got "Always evil acts are like a mold or virus that infects things".
And does nothing to explain why drinking the blood of your enemies is okay...unless you're a Dhampir who gains benefit from it. Then it's evil.
I said, 'if it helps think of it like this'. Obviously, that's not helping you think. So if attacking me does, go for it.
1. You don't have magical control over a virus. You do have magical control over undead you create.
2. Even if you somehow lose control...a rampaging mindless creature that kills stuff for nourishment...are you sure it isn't a lion? Do you think rearing lions is Evil because if they escape into the wild they can kill people and you wouldn't have control over them? I'd hate to be a zookeeper in your campaign.
1) You only have control as long as you are alive, and not unconscious.
2) What rules, precisely, say that undead are eating for sustenance (other than vampires)? Something that kills anything living it can get it's claws on, doesn't eat them, then goes to the next nearest thing that is alive to kill it, that doesn't sound evil to you? Are you sure? I'd hate to be an innocent bystander in your campaign where people go around creating undead killing machines and aren't stopped until innocent bystanders die.
You know...that not all worgs are evil, right? Just some. Just give him a neutral or Good worg.
Could work, but remember, people in the world are used to most worgs being evil, so most NPCs are going to assume (A) Evil (B) Dangerous and (C) KILL IT KILL IT KILL IT! Just like they would treat a Drow or an Orc or a black dragon wyrmling who's neutral.
He's not evil because he uses a great axe. He is evil because he's mugging you.
Undead in Golarion are inherently evil, that is the standard setting of the game world. You are free to disregard that for home games, but that is the standard issue setting. When playing with paladins and clerics in the group it is important to lay out the rules for how creatures that are normally automatically evil behave in your world. If they are different it needs to be esatblish, and may require re-working certain archetype or gods to account for this. For instance, I believe Iomedae's faith has a stated hatered of Undead and will go to great lengths to kill them. Further, there is a paladin archetype dedicated specifically to the eradication of Undone, but both depend on the in game world setting of Undead are always evil.
What rules, precisely, say that undead kill anything living they can get their claws on?
Zombies are the animated corpses of dead creatures, forced into foul unlife via necromantic magic like animate dead. While the most commonly encountered zombies are slow and tough, others possess a variety of traits, allowing them to spread disease or move with increased speed.
Zombies are unthinking automatons, and can do little more than follow orders. When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety.
Although capable of following orders, zombies are more often unleashed into an area with no command other than to kill living creatures. As a result, zombies are often encountered in packs, wandering around places the living frequent, looking for victims. Most zombies are created using animate dead. Such zombies are always of the standard type, unless the creator also casts haste or remove paralysis to create fast zombies, or contagion to create plague zombies.
Zombies default setting is "kill the living".
If you look under zombie and skeleton creation rules, the rules say alignment is always evil.
I suggest we get back on track and try to help the OP :)
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, the "alignment" line says "evil", not "always evil."
Wrong, I said look under the creation rules which says:
“Zombie” is an acquired template that can be added to any corporeal creature (other than an undead), referred to hereafter as the base creature.
Challenge Rating: This depends on the creature's new total number of Hit Dice, as follows:
Alignment: Always neutral evil.
Second, there are explicit examples of "always evil" creatures who are Good.
There is only one cannon example of undead not being evil to my knoweldge, and that was a ghost which isn't listed as being always evil. Even then, that ghost wasn't good, it just wasn't evil. Also, just because there are a few example of demons and devils who aren't evil doesn't mean that it is commonplace. At least not on Golarion. If you're home game is different thats fine, but thats not the default world that exist, and certianly not the world that the Wrath of the Righteous Adventure Path takes place in since it is Golarion.
Third, the text you quoted about zombies is just for zombies. It doesn't say anything about undead in general.
And finally, even if he were evil, a paladin shouldn't go around killing people just because they detect as Evil. That's called murder.
Yes, the text I quoted is specifically about zombies. But...
Devourers are the undead remnants of fiends and evil spellcasters who became lost beyond the farthest reaches of the multiverse. Returning with warped bodies, alien sentience, and a hunger for life, devourers threaten all souls with a terrifying, tormented annihilation. These withered corpses stand 10 feet tall but weigh a mere 200 pounds.
The sinister shadow skirts the border between the gloom of darkness and the harsh truth of light. The shadow prefers to haunt ruins where civilization has moved on, where it hunts living creatures foolish enough to stumble into its territory. The shadow is an undead horror, and as such has no goals or outwardly visible motivations other than to sap life and vitality from living beings.
Wights are humanoids who rise as undead due to necromancy, a violent death, or an extremely malevolent personality. In some cases, a wight arises when an evil undead spirit permanently bonds with a corpse, often the corpse of a slain warrior. They are barely recognizable to those who knew them in life; their flesh is twisted by evil and undeath, the eyes burn with hatred, and the teeth become beast-like. In some ways, a wight bridges the gap between a ghoul and a spectre—a warped animated corpse whose touch steals living energy.
I could go on, but I think thats enough. Look at the alignment of every undead, or the rules for creating them. They're all evil. All of them. The only possibly exception being that some ghosts aren't.
Also, to a Paladin, if a creature is well and truly evil (and lets not get into whether or not something detects as evil and really is or isn't) then he would violate the tennats of his faith and his code if he allowed evil to roam about freely. In a city this would mean capturing and subduing the enemy. Away from prisons or specific authorities it means killing them. Anyways, this isn't specifically about paladins and lets keep away from that topic too much lest this thread implode on itself even more.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can tell people the sky is blue until you are blue, in the face.
Some people, for all the rules you quote them, are simply incapable of admitting the rules are not on their side. At this point, after RAW is quoted, it's not worth arguing about any more Claxon, there is nothing you can say to get him to admit that the RAW says summoning undead are evil, so it's a waste of bandwidth. I've run into this with a few posters on here who want all the evil powers without all the evil baggage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the RAW is clear.
However, what MOST people (not all, certainly, as these last few posts have proved) argue about is whether shoving absolute morality in everyone's face who plays the game is a good idea.
I think it is not.
I also think it is less than desirable from a design standpoint as well.
Yes, the RAW is clear.
However, what MOST people (not all, certainly, as these last few posts have proved) argue about is whether shoving absolute morality in everyone's face who plays the game is a good idea.
I think it is not.
I also think it is less than desirable from a design standpoint as well.
The OP specifically asked for 'within the rules'. If we were talking house rules, who cares? You can houserule anything you want.
The OP specifically asked for 'within the rules'.
For an entirely different topic than what we're discussing, so that's kinda irrelevant.
The Necromancy thing was a sidebar to the "within the rules" on the Warg (and he said he liked some of the houseruling ideas as well, sooo...).
And if you wanna get REALLY technical, while it is the RAW that [Evil] spells turn you evil IN GOLARION, it's not necessarily the rule outside of it, since the Core rules try to stay setting agnostic.
|
Kobold Quarterly #19 had a white necromancer (every good) and a very balanced class
Excellent suggestion!!! In fact, New Paths 7: The Expanded White Necromancer will be released very soon ( probably a week or so). It sounds like it will be worth letting your player give it a look!
As a side note, the White Necromancer class does address and deal with the issue of the class casting evil necromancy spells in (I think) a pretty interesting way
Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.Zombies and Skeletons are mindless...undead with intelligence scores are not, and can be any alignment.
(Emphasis mine.)
Actually...
With "almost never" meaning "sometimes". And "relatively" meaning "not really".
What I get from that rules quote is "Any creature can have any alignment as you see fit."
But if that is your point as well, then ignore this post :)
I've seen a Neutral Good and a CN Necromancer. The NG necro figured the soul had no more use of the body at this point and figured it was a handy and plentiful tool. I thought it was hilarious, his inspiration was Shaun of the Dead... The CN saw a similar way, but more along the lines of finders keepers.
Vampire template says specifically it changes your alignment to any evil.
Creating a Vampire
“Vampire” is an acquired template that can be added to any living creature with 5 or more Hit Dice (referred to hereafter as the base creature). Most vampires were once humanoids, fey, or monstrous humanoids. A vampire uses the base creature's stats and abilities except as noted here.CR: Same as the base creature + 2.
AL: Any evil.
Now, yes, in my own games, I'd allow someone to 'redeem' a vampire. I'd even allow (with more regularity) neutral vampires. However, per the rules, putting the template on someone changes them to evil. And it takes time to recover from that. Even a paladin turned into a vampire becomes evil. Most likely an Anti-Paladin. Over time, it might be possible to redeem them. However, that is something I would require to be played out normally.
However, the OP has stated this is a one player game, in which case I'd probably talk the player into starting out evil, and play them changing to neutral, then to good. And it's not that hard, she can still start out as a LE Inquisitor Vampire who hunts other vampires. At first, it's to take their place, and she's trained for it. Eventually she redeems herself. Sounds like a fun game to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still laughing at [evil] doesn't mean evil.
I'm still laughing at [evil] doesn't mean evil.
Vampires aren't [Evil], they're just Evil.
Would make things easier if they were [Evil] in some ways. More difficult in others.
I'll throw this out there on the whole "That doesn't mean the template actually changes their alignment" bit.
In Book 3 of Carrion Crown there's a character. He's Chaotic Neutral. Hunts werewolves for a living, kinda hates them.
He gets turned.
Next time he shows up (which is I believe a few hours later. No more than a day, anyway), he's Chaotic Evil and loves being a werewolf, and wants to rip the party apart.
I think that's a pretty good indicator that the intent is "Yeah they turn Evil".
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.
QFT. Setting up straw men is easy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems the argument is, I can twist reality however I want to avoid being evil. A lot of that going on lately on the board. All the powers of evil, with none of the downsides. *shrug* You can talk until you're blue in the face to some people, and they'll insist evil isn't evil even while their character's barbeque newborns 'for the greater good'.
Seems the argument is, I can twist reality however I want to avoid being evil. A lot of that going on lately on the board. All the powers of evil, with none of the downsides. *shrug* You can talk until you're blue in the face to some people, and they'll insist evil isn't evil even while their character's barbeque newborns 'for the greater good'.
Again, willfully missing the point.
There's quite a huge difference between "Barbecuing newborns" and casting a spell THAT F+~%ING HEALS PEOPLE.
And it's not like [Evil] spells are even any more powerful than normal, so this post is doubly pointless.
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?
As the posts in this thread amply illustrate, there is a lot of mixed opinion on what is evil or not. The most important thing to remember is that you, as the DM, determine what is evil in your game. You are the final arbiter of Good and Evil.
My advice to you (and this is only advice based on my experiences and feelings about good and evil,) is as follows.
1. First of all, make sure the players are resolved that this is okay with both of them. That each of them is going to be intent on making this work. If either the LG paladin player or the "I'm-not-evil" player are looking for conflict, this is doomed to fail, regardless of what you rule. Personally I have never been in a campaign where evil worked, but I have read enough accounts of other campaigns to know that some groups have no trouble with it. Make sure your group is on solid footing regarding this.
2. Regarding the worg. Remember that as the DM you can change any and all rules to suit you. In this case, I'd recommend that (like another poster already mentioned) you start him out with a young, de-powered worg pup. Have him raise it. This accomplishes 2 things. Firstly, it keeps the power of his AC in line with his level. And secondly, if he's raising the worg (which is much like a wolf) from a pup, there's some basis to assume that it could turn out non-evil. The whole nature vs. nurture thing, y'know.
I always prefer, if possible, to give the player what they want. So if the player is okay starting with an appropriately statted worg pup and only gaining an adult worg when appropriate, I'd be cool with this.
3. Regarding the alternate character. If he decides to go necromancer, I tend to fall on the side of "creating undead is evil." However, that doesn't mean the creator is necessary "MUAHAHAHA" Evil, especially right off the bat. It just means that dealing with necromantic powers and creating undead is an evil thing, and the more you do it, the more you taint yourself.
Some of the best characters in fiction are those who do unspeakably evil things for sympathetic reasons. The necromancer PC could turn out to be one of these. He may not think of himself as evil. He may not even be evil to start. Then, months or years later, he is shocked when he's hedged out by a Magic Circle Against Evil and realizes he's corrupted himself...
In the end, remember that unless you're a PFS judge, all the rules are merely guidelines. It's preferable to follow them as often as possible to preserve player trust and expectations, but never feel like you are bound to follow them in every instance. There's a reason we play with DMs, and that's because strict rules simply don't cut it.
Good luck!
Actually, the core rules are setting agnostic. The assumption in the bestiary is, it turns you evil. Each individual world (homebrew, eberron, ravenloft, whatever) will have specifics to them. But the Bestiary says 'Any Evil' in the template. Templates list what the target is in the first paragraph, anything after that is effects of the template. So in this case, the template says the alignment becomes any evil, by default, core rules.
Houserules to the contrary (as I stated above) are just fine and terrific but core rules it's an instant alignment change.
Of course, there are those who simply can't be bothered to differentiate default core rules from houserules, homebrew, or altered settings.
One of the things ive noticed is the attempt to justify the use of evil things for good purposes. In alot of cases this involves alot of arguimg that things the game labels as evil are not.
Part of the problem is the game doesnt actually define how evil an [evil] spell is.
We know murder is evil we know torture is evil and that theft could be evil but is probly selfish neutral. But the game doesnt tell us where animate dead should be on this list.
As far as the pf rules are concerned creating undead is evil. How evil is left up to the dm. Though personally id rank it pretty vile.
In regards to the templates if it says any evil its any evil not someties good. Ive always favoured the buffy model where mother of 4 is turned into a vampire and wakes up a monster. The core rules seem to support this.
However,setting specific can change things. For example in golrion being a werewolf doesnt make you inherently evil. Failing to resist werewolf induced urges and reveling in things is what makes you evil. This deviates from the core assumption in the beastiary.
Anyhow, hopefully i did not ramble too much.
We know murder is evil we know torture is evil and that theft could be evil but is probly selfish neutral. But the game doesnt tell us where animate dead should be on this list.
I have seen people on these forums argue that murder is not evil, because PCs murder people that attack them and they are still good, so obviously murder is not evil.
I have seen people on these forums argue that torture to save someone is not evil.
there are other ways Vampires can get blood
a Vampire who asks permission and offers compensation, is nowhere near as evil as a vampire that takes it by force.
why is it that? drinking the blood of your slain enemies isn't evil? unless you are a vampire or dhampir who gets benefits from it?
it's kinda grotesque
but a vampire drinking blood to survive is no different to human interpretation than a human making beef is to a cow's interpretation.
why is it?
humans preying on cattle isn't evil?
but a vampire who drinks from humans, has to be evil?
to a vampire, their need for blood, is no different than a human need for the protein and iron in meat.
but because they are higher on the food chain than us, we deem them evil.
We know murder is evil we know torture is evil and that theft could be evil but is probly selfish neutral. But the game doesnt tell us where animate dead should be on this list.
I have seen people on these forums argue that murder is not evil, because PCs murder people that attack them and they are still good, so obviously murder is not evil.
I have seen people on these forums argue that torture to save someone is not evil.
To be honest of late on the boards im starting to think many of the posters on these boards do not understand what morality is. Killing somone and murder are not the same. Well, presumably all murder involves killing somone, but not all killing involves murder. I do remember reading somewhere one of the developers saying that in pf torture was evil but it not sure where.
I do get the impression a number of posters really just want the mechanical numbers behind abilities and ignore the "fluf" as unimportant. So might post not understanding why a spell described as torturiring the victim in unimaginable agony for three rounds where upon the victim explodes and spreads the spell to anyone within 20 feet that failed to save.
Im pretty sure that spell would be flagged as evil
Ultimately everyones game is different but i was under the impression that the paradigm of pf ( or at the very least golarion). Is that good and evil really isnt intended to be a giant grey area.
But maybe im wrong?
No, I agree, within the system, good and evil is black and white. :)
@137ben in most cases i think its pretty obvious why most evil spells are evil. Its nit really randon at all. Which isnt to say ive always agreed with the descriptor. I think in 3.5 deathwatch was evil? I thought dropping that made sense but i haved seen any recently i can remember disagreeing with.
Sorry for the typos im using a tablet and apparently have fat fingers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Don't ask us, ask your players. How will the paladin and cleric react to a necromancer? How will the necromancer make clear that he is not evil? They're the only ones that can figure this out. You can't, we can't. This is up to the players. Have them discuss it amongst themselves.
@137ben in most cases i think its pretty obvious why most evil spells are evil. Its nit really randon at all. Which isnt to say ive always agreed with the descriptor. I think in 3.5 deathwatch was evil? I thought dropping that made sense but i haved seen any recently i can remember disagreeing with.
Sorry for the typos im using a tablet and apparently have fat fingers.
Yes in 3.5 the deathwatch spell was an evil spell, it was evil because of how it worked and not what you did with it, the same thing with Golarion's infernal healing.
But that's not the evil part (the killing may be, that's a gray area if the person knows the risks and goes for it anyway).
It's been explicitly stated by the devs that the reason drinking blood is evil is because it's done without the victim's permission, which I like.
The part I find facedesk-ingly stupid is the part where draining someone of blood in combat is more evil than ripping their still beating heart out of their chest with your bare hands and showing it to them before they die (oh but only if you gain a benefit, biting them and drinking their blood if you're NOT a vampire of Dhampir is just creepy and inappropriate, not evil).
Uh. No. Thats evil man. Are you hearing yourself speak? Plus Lazar makes a good point about the level drain killing just about anyone they might feed on.
Uh. No. Thats evil man.
Show me where it says that all Monks who have the capability to deal piercing damage with their fists are evil and I'll believe you. And then promptly rip that page from the book and use it to wipe my ass and never speak of it again.
Are you seriously suggesting that ripping someone's heart out just so you can show it to them while they die isn't evil?
If it isn't evil, then it'd be more than enough to push you into chaotic.
Are you seriously suggesting that ripping someone's heart out just so you can show it to them while they die isn't evil?
If it isn't evil, then it'd be more than enough to push you into chaotic.
No more evil than:
-Burning them alive (along with their friends!) with a 20 ft. ball of fire.
-Chopping them into tiny pieces with <Weapon of choice>
-Turning them into a human pincushion.
-Throwing vials of acid at them.
You get the picture.
No no. Simply cutting someone down or shooting arrows at someone isn't the same. What you've done was gratuitous and unneeded. You need to reevaluate what you find evil man.
Regardless of pulling his heart out and showing it to him, the subject was already going to die. You go out of your way to cause more suffering and fear in the subject. I'd think that pretty evil.