|
Anubis would be opposed to anything that resembles desecrating corpses.
Reanimated a corpse amounts to desecrating it about as hard as you possibly can.
(Also, they're incredibly murderous animated objects. A skeleton might have an Int of -, but it still has a burning desire to liberate everyone else's skeletons from their meat prisons. =P)
well, yes. Of course any god that cares about the integrity of rotting corpses would mind. I just mean any god that cares about the souls of the dead staying dead would not care.
But skeletons are basically automatons. They mindlessly follow a set of instructions. Same with zombies
This is of course modified by variants. I speak to the base creature. Their existence is 'evil' but they have no motives. Only masters. Typically.
Since mistreatment of rotting (or very well preserved) corpses can lead to spontaneous undeath (with mummies themselves being a classic example), yes, death gods that care about the souls of the dead staying dead would care about what happens with those corpses.
Heh. The important thing to keep in mind is killer automaton. A skeleton or zombie that isn't being magically compelled to follow a set of instructions is going to be trying to kill every living creature it comes across (though it may lack the drive to go actively hunting should it "run out").
|
Rich parents trait, since if you have the starting gold you can technically start with potions,etc.
since you have GM approval, this item might be useful.
Amulet of Nondetection with the limitation of 8 hours of use in a day (only in 1 hour increments) it's basically the 1/day limitation with the same caster level and Alignment & Class requirements (Lawful & Cleric) to remove another 60% to the item cost, make it a Holy symbol for your trickster deity your going with?
The cost would be 1470 market cost with GM Permission (asking him/her/Them again for this next part)
You might be able to get it from your church for 735 GP (Creation Cost) which with Rich Parents would allow you to afford such an item.
It's a nice little Role Play angle to your characters History and get's you invested with your church and might even give a hook for a mission with a Paladin in the party to begin with.
Some GM's if they're experienced might even give you this type of item, but require you to go on a grand quest as payment for it. Which would suit going with a Paladin quite well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've asked Mr Jacobs about Anubis's clergy using death domain, and he replied here
This reopens the possibility for an Anubian Paladin side by side with an Anubian LE Cleric.
I'm sort of confused about the metaphysics here about reanimating undead. We know it's evil because the evil gods do it and the good gods loathe it, but what does the husk that the soul has departed have to do with the soul that previously inhabited the body. I mean, your soul isn't going to wait around in your bones for thousands of years just in case someone comes around to reanimate it, when a necromancer makes a skeleton out of your remains it's not you in any shape, way, or form.
So why is it necessarily evil? Is it just that for whatever reason, they always come out murderous? Is "summoning aggressive outsiders" likewise evil?
I mean, I know the undead are Evil for reasons of tradition, I'm just wondering if there's a game logic version of why it's evil to put bones that nobody is using to 'good' use. Binning things as "evil" and "good" based on whether the "good" deities like it or the "evil" deities like it seems kinda arbitrary, like what if there's a god who really hated blueberries? How are we to tell "the god's followers don't eat blueberries because they are forbidden" from "this god's followers don't raise the undead because that's evil"?
N.B. I may have played too many evil characters whose schtick was to reject the "good vs. evil" distinction.
|
|
I'm sort of confused about the metaphysics here about reanimating undead. We know it's evil because the evil gods do it and the good gods loathe it, but what does the husk that the soul has departed have to do with the soul that previously inhabited the body. I mean, your soul isn't going to wait around in your bones for thousands of years just in case someone comes around to reanimate it, when a necromancer makes a skeleton out of your remains it's not you in any shape, way, or form.
So why is it necessarily evil? Is it just that for whatever reason, they always come out murderous? Is "summoning aggressive outsiders" likewise evil?
I mean, I know the undead are Evil for reasons of tradition, I'm just wondering if there's a game logic version of why it's evil to put bones that nobody is using to 'good' use.
If your corpse has been raised as undead then you cannot be resurrected, even by true resurrection, until that undead has been destroyed. Even if it's mindless. This is a strong hint that at least part of your spirit is bound to the corpse in order to keep it animated (given that true rez requires nothing of the corpse, only the soul).
If your corpse has been raised as undead then you cannot be resurrected, even by true resurrection, until that undead has been destroyed. Even if it's mindless. This is a strong hint that at least part of your spirit is bound to the corpse in order to keep it animated (given that true rez requires nothing of the corpse, only the soul).
So suppose I'm an ethical necromancer, who only creates dead from people who have been buried for a sufficiently lengthy amount of time that it's reasonably likely that nobody is going to come around and resurrect whoever it was. In any case, if they haven't come around to resurrect this person in a thousand years, they can afford to wait until I'm done with the corpse.
Or suppose I create undead, but I always destroy them after a few days, since I"m just borrowing the corpse for a bit, then I put it back where it was.
Why are those things evil?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly because the act itself is horrible.
In the Pathfinder cosmology, reanimating the dead is actually a dick move at the cosmic level. (At minimum, you're taking a person's remains and transforming into a violent attack beast that'll rip off the face of the closest person if you don't keep it under magical control. If you reanimate the person as something intelligent, it actually gets worse.)
(Maybe this well help - let's say you torture someone until they're at negative HP. And then you heal the person afterwards. Do you feel that healing the victim negates the act of torture?)
Mostly because the act itself is horrible.
In the Pathfinder cosmology, reanimating the dead is actually a dick move at the cosmic level. (At minimum, you're taking a person's remains and transforming into a violent attack beast that'll rip off the face of the closest person if you don't keep it under magical control. If you reanimate the person as something intelligent, it actually gets worse.)
(Maybe this well help - let's say you torture someone until they're at negative HP. And then you heal the person afterwards. Do you feel that healing the victim negates the act of torture?)
I think the distinction though is that I understand why the torturing and then healing thing is awful, because "the person being healed" doesn't negate the suffering that they endured.
What I don't understand is what the specific mechanism that makes it "a dick move at the cosmic level". Like what, substantively, is different between reanimating someone's bones as a skeleton and taking someone's bones and making them into a golem or other construct. There has to be something at the metaphysical level, but is this ever addressed or just hand-waved?
Could I play an "ethical necromancer" by crafting a bunch of human sized constructs out of unattended corpses and have that not be evil?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you make somebody an undead, you do something to their actual soul—that's why no magic, not even True Resurrection, can bring back someone who is currently animated. When you make somebody a flesh golem, you just move around the body. It incorporates aspects of necromancy, but ultimately creates a creature wholly unconnected to the original.
I will say right here that I have not read the entire thread. With that out of the way:
This can work but will require cooperation between you, the paladin player and the GM. Letting the Paladin player know was a great first step. Kudos for that. Whenever I make an evil character, I always think about just how evil your character will be. The less evil your character is, the easier it will be to work with the Paladin. Until you have a way of hiding your alignment, you must give the character no reason to attempt to detect your alignment. Becoming friends with the paladin (helping him anyway you can is great for this) and having a high bluff skill is fantastic for this purpose. Furthermore unless creating Undead isn't evil, you should probably avoid creating them entirely. I have my doubts you will be able to reliably hide them from him. Once you have enough money, consider getting a Ring of Mind Shielding but you shouldn't under any circumstances commit any considerably evil acts in front of the Paladin. Finally, try to keep a good reputation with the rest of the world (donations to charities, helping out others when it wouldn't obviously benefit you, etc). The threat close to home is not the only threat you need to worry about.
When you make somebody an undead, you do something to their actual soul—that's why no magic, not even True Resurrection, can bring back someone who is currently animated. When you make somebody a flesh golem, you just move around the body. It incorporates aspects of necromancy, but ultimately creates a creature wholly unconnected to the original.
But that thing I'm doing to their soul, is it painful? Does it pull them out of their eternal reward/punishment (is it even evil if I'm doing the latter)? Is it still evil if I cast "speak with the dead" and get permission first?
If the entire harm is just "if the local wandering resurrectionist comes by in the next two days, they're SOL" I'd think it wouldn't necessarily be an evil act if you don't use their corpses for very long and you put them back later. I mean, the guy who ends up part of the flesh golem isn't getting resurrected either, and that's not evil.
It can't *just* be that "reanimating the dead requires negative energy and negative energy is evil" because negative energy is just a natural force that exists independent of intelligence or agency (in much the way that fire is neither evil nor good). If it were inherently evil, the void kineticist would need to be evil too, but that's certainly not the case.
You can assume by the [evil] descriptor that whatever you do to the soul is not good.
Also, speak with dead wouldn't work. You can't ask them questions about how they feel now, only about things they knew in life. And you could argue that a living being giving permission wouldn't be valid because they wouldn't fully comprehend what it is they're giving up.
I'm going to jump firmly into the DON'T camp.
The reason being is because I find the whole tone of the OP to be completely uninterested in collaborative story building and just being shirty about the whole affair. The entire attitude is simply 'You can't tell me what to do', and 'how do I pull one over the guy so he cant catch me out'.
Every post made is about shorting the Paladin and taking umbrage that someone *may* not be letting the player be all Evil.
It tells me a lot on his view of collaboration.
It tells me a lot on his (non-nuanced) idea of Evil
It tells me a lot about the lack of interest in other peoples character choice.
This is just another Chaotic Neutral thread in a different wrapper; let me be Chaotic Jerky and don't punish me for my life choices.
No way.
Come back to me with a thread that says 'How could we engineer it so that my X can work with the Y to the enjoyment of all parties, even if it does come across as a polar-opposite cop buddy flick'.
Read through the rest of the thread, Shifty. This is a collaborative effort between paladin and OP.
You can assume by the [evil] descriptor that whatever you do to the soul is not good.
But "evil" in this game doesn't distinguish from "evil because the evil gods like it and the good gods dislike it" or "intrinsically evil, therefore the evil gods like it and the good gods dislike it" nor does it really provide us with a means to distinguish between the two, save for real world considerations of ethics, and if "creating animate skeletons" were a thing that was possible in the real world, I would argue that it's a heck of a lot more ethical than "Killing a living person" would be, and parties of all alignments do the latter all the time in this game.
Like, couldn't this entire line of questioning I'm going down potentially be the cleric's justification for raising undead minions? That they personally think it's ethical to do within a certain set of constraints, and see no evidence otherwise? (Just because a character is evil, doesn't mean they think some things are wrong and should be avoided.) I mean, what's the paladin going to say beyond "My god says it's evil, therefore it's evil"?
|
|
You can assume by the [evil] descriptor that whatever you do to the soul is not good.
Also, speak with dead wouldn't work. You can't ask them questions about how they feel now, only about things they knew in life. And you could argue that a living being giving permission wouldn't be valid because they wouldn't fully comprehend what it is they're giving up.
The soul is fine in the case of zombies and skeletons. They can be made ghosts afterwards unlike the case of intelligent undead such as mummies.
|
why not carry around a wand of infernal healing? every time you want to do an evil act, tag yourself with the wand and try your best not to get caught.
if you want to raise dead, have a good excuse- and good bluff/diplomacy.
"We need an army to back us up! All these dead cultists could come in handy!"
also, talk to your GM about the story. if the party assembles to fight a greater evil, try the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" route with the paladin.
if you get lumped together much to everyone's disagreement- like captured by slavers, etc- then work with the paladin, tell him right off "yes, i worship an evil deity. Try not to smite me, and i shall not sacrifice you to mine. Agreed?"
They can be made a ghost, but they can't be made alive. There's clearly some sort of difference.
You could play an evil cleric of a non-evil neutral god as you can be one step off from your god alignment wise. In that case you don't detect as evil until you're level 5, so the paladin has no way to know that you're evil until then. You can also cast Undetectable Alignment from level 3, so then you're good to go on that front as well and his detect evil shouldn't become an issue. Since neutral clerics can also channel negative energy he will likely assume that you are simply a neutral cleric.
Actually a cleric always radiates an aura of his deity’s alignment so even after 5th level he would still not need undetectable alignment.
He could potentially get away with it by using a more obscure symbol for his deity I suppose but that's not a surefire way if the Paladin keeps up with ranks in Knowledge Religion.
I don't see anything about Anubis being subordinate to Pharasma, but he has a very anti-undead stance himself. In fact, Adventure Path #80 states that paladins and clerics of Anubis try to eradicate undead whenever they find them. The spells in the domains he grants that relate to creating undead are replaced with other spells (animate dead -> speak with dead, create undead -> antilife shell, create greater undead -> symbol of death).really? As a true deity I would have thought Anubis wouldn't be directly subordinate to someone elseUm...in Golarion, Anubis is a servitor of Pharasma and has the same anti-undeath stance (and domain spell substitutions) as she does. Very bad choice.Anubis is a lawful neutral deity of death who has burial, the dead, funeral rites, mummification and tombs as his portfolio. His domains include death, earth, law, protection and repose. His subdomains are ancestors, defense, inevitable, metal, purity, and souls. This not only side steps the whole detecting evil situation, but also removes your deity as a problem as well.
Yeah, this seems odd to me as well. I couldn't find any info on Anubis aside from the basic stuff for cleric features. Him being anti-undead I could believe, but him just doing whatever pharasma says seems odd.
Either way, there's probably an LN god that will work somewhere. If not, drop the undead and suddenly things get a lot easier.
James Jacobs mentions it in a forum post here
Handaxe Beak wrote:
How does the older faith of Anubis influence or relate to current worship of Pharasma in Osirion, given that they've got such similar outlooks?
As a subservient faith that's mostly left to do its own thing. I've always seen Anubis as one of Pharasma's best minions. In any event... Pharasma and her faith have been around a LOT LOT LOT longer than Anubis has.
|
|
They can be made a ghost, but they can't be made alive. There's clearly some sort of difference.
It's also possible that despite the fact that the soul is not used in the construction of zombies or skeletons they didn't want to write an exception to the general rule for undead and raise dead.
Now, there are a ton of ways to play this.
1) Their bodies are 'alive' thus they can not be raised. Even if that life isn't their own, but an unnatural one.
2) Their bodies are counted as 'destroyed' for resurrection purposes until the undead are slain, thus true ress would work in the case of non-soul using undead. Since 'they' are not undead, just their remains. As their soul is not involved, and can be used for other things.
3) Their souls are somehow tainted by their fleshy(or not so, as the case may be) remains being disturbed and possessed by a negative energy life-like construct.
4) Just play the rules as is, don't read into it and don't explain it.
5) Pharasma holds their soul as hostage until the 'filty undead' that their bodies became are slain.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does the older faith of Anubis influence or relate to current worship of Pharasma in Osirion, given that they've got such similar outlooks?
As a subservient faith that's mostly left to do its own thing. I've always seen Anubis as one of Pharasma's best minions. In any event... Pharasma and her faith have been around a LOT LOT LOT longer than Anubis has.
"As old as God. Maybe older. Neither of us can remember anymore. Life, death, chicken, egg. Regardless -- at the end, I'll reap him too." "God? You'll reap God?" "Oh, yes. God will die, too, Dean."
-Death
Of course, in the end, out-of-book banter from game devs is just that—persuasive headcanon. It's not official until it's referenced in a book.
|
|
Of course, in the end, out-of-book banter from game devs is just that—persuasive headcanon. It's not official until it's referenced in a book.
Well, of course. And, honestly, what book would they write that explains the entirety of the metaphysics behind undead creation? All we have is a couple of rules and banter to work with, and it will probably stay that way.
But, isn't part of the fun of the game in playing with 'does this mean', 'could this mean'?
As Anubis and Pharasma are both gods with potential roles in future APs, there are actually tons of opportunities for it to come up. Clerics of the deities collaborating, for instance.
Try
"I'm not evil! I was tricked by devil and now I have given away my property to travel around and make good deeds to save my soul."
or
"When was baby, I falled on cauldron full of tiefling blood."
Party strife debate aside, angelskin armor (+1000g) will last you until 10th level. You can even have it at lvl 1 by spending a trait.
At 10th, you can switch to Deceiving armor rather easily (+5,000g), which will protect you in a lot of situations without eating up an item slot or giving off an enchantment aura.
creatures with 4 or less HD do not detect at all. So no problem for you first lvl PC.
Yeah, I'm not giving up my character concept, because of the paladin.Sorry if this sounds harsh, but that's not a very mature response. Take it not only from me but from the other posters on this thread. Also search for this kind of thing and you'll find hundreds of other threads that all say the same thing.
This will lead to big problems. Problems that cannot be resolved by a handshake or a bluff check. Problems that will make that paladin fall or make him kill you or die trying, or at least cause one of your characters to leave the group (generally, whichever one is the most unusual alignment for the whole group).
Saying "I'm not giving up my character concept" is really saying "I plan to ruin this game and obstruct the fun of the paladin player, the GM, and even the other players and I'm willing to do that for my own fun because my fun is all that matters."
If that's your idea of fun gaming, you might want to abandon table-top gaming right now and stick with computer gaming where this kind of "fun" is far more appropriate.
I'm posting this (at length) because I hope that is NOT what you're trying to do.
That's why I'm asking for advice, and if the only thing that might work is bluff, then bluff I shall.Good, you're asking for advice, which means you see the problem and you don't want to be the cause of the problem, right?
Bluff won't solve it.
Unless that paladin is deaf, blind, and has no nose, and also dumped his INT and WIS down to about 2 each, he's going to see, hear, and smell your undead, detect them magically, and detect your alignment too. Bluff can't beat all that. And if you're spending a significant portion of your daily spells to hide all this (which you cannot do until long after the paladin already knows what you are), then you are playing a limited spellcaster who doesn't get all his spell slots for actual adventuring.
At best, at the very best, Bluff might delay the inevitable problem. The problem...
Echoing this. It isn't "just paladins." Consider any good priest or good character, that roleplays that character. If you're going to go evil, have the other players on board.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If my memory does not play any trick on me detect evil is a cone, simply stand behind the paladin at all time.
Also mess up the expectation of what evil look like.
If you walk around in dark robes wear mascara and overall look like somebody you would not let your kids approach, chances are the paladin will try to focus the detect evil on you.
Describe your character clothes being white and pure with highlights of gold, dont show off your deity symbol too often or better just buy a holy symbol of a good aligned religion and wear it proudly. Always be smiling and pious looking for the right opportunity to do the bad thing when no one is looking.
Your domain is trickery act like it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my memory does not play any trick on me detect evil is a cone, simply stand behind the paladin at all time.
You're not the first person who has said this, but it's a very impractical suggestion. At first I thought it was a joke, but it's been said so many times that now I think some people posting it have meant it.
This statement amounts to:
"I am evil, but I never do anything evil. I just am. For no reason other than the fact that it says it in my stat block or on my character sheet. Because I never, ever, EVER commit any evil acts, my close ally and traveling companion, a man with whom I spend about 24 hours every day staying within eyesight and earshot every minute of every hour of every day, will never, ever, EVER see me do anything evil. So as long as I stand behind him 24 hours a day, every day, never, ever, EVER being in front of him, never facing him, never conversing with him, then I'll never have to worry about his AT-WILL ability to detect that evil alignment in my stat block."
This is wrong on so many levels:
1. Why would you choose an evil alignment and then NEVER do any evil thing? If you're not going to do evil stuff, don't write "Evil" on your character sheet. And if you are going to do evil stuff, then the paladin will figure it out even without using Detect Evil. Remember, the alignment you write on your character sheet is supposed to be a reflection of who you really are and how you really behave.
2. Staying behind someone for 24 hours a day, every day, all the time, especially when you're with him 24 hours a day in eyesight at all times, is going to be impossible. Even a ninja couldn't do it forever... ;) Sure, he doesn't have his Detect Evil always on, so you really only have to avoid being in front of him when he uses it. But consider when you're sleeping and the paladin is on watch, using his Detect Evil like a radar to alert him if evil enemies are sneaking up on the group. Etc.
3. The biggest level is the idea of creating a party that can't work together and then trying to make them work together through artificial solutions like deception and subterfuge and impossible concepts like being behind the other guy 24/7. Even if all players are on board, this is just like putting a cat and a dog in the same closet and then trying to trick the dog into thinking he's in there with another dog rather than a cat - and then expecting them to get along. Forever. It's doomed to fail.
Now, if you can handwaive all that and work it into your game so that everyone is cool with the ninja/lead sheet/bluff/LawfulStupid solution, then go for it, have fun with it, because it works there at your table. But it might not be a solution for many tables.
Why would you choose an evil alignment and then NEVER do any evil thing? If you're not going to do evil stuff, don't write "Evil" on your character sheet.
This is tangential to your point, but I think ti's completely valid to play a character who has impulses and desires to do evil things but understands rationally that they shouldn't do these things (for reasons of expediency if not ethics) and so works to overcome and control their evil impulses but still has them, so putting "evil" on the character sheet is totally valid. A character like that can be really fun to roleplay, and is precisely the character the Paladin shouldn't smite just because they set off the "detect evil" radar.
I personally believe you shouldn't write down the alignment on the sheet until you've already thought through who this character is, what they believe, and why. If the character comes out as someone who believes and does things that are evil, then they're an evil character regardless of how noble they are otherwise. If your Inquisitor tortures people and thinks that's fine, then they're evil no matter how much time they spend helping orphans and the homeless the rest of the time. It's better to play characters than stereotypes anyway.
I know you have your heart set on being a LE cleric and I'm not sure about whether your GM is allowing 3pp, but Kobold Press did release a White Necromancer in one of their Kobold Quarterly magazines. Basically it was a 'not-evil' necromancer. Undead summoned by the white necromancer generally had an alignment that matched the necromancer (unintelligent undead were neutral, intelligent matched the caster IIRC).
It doesn't fit your concept on the general alignment and intentions, but it does provide an interesting concept in itself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you choose an evil alignment and then NEVER do any evil thing? If you're not going to do evil stuff, don't write "Evil" on your character sheet.This is tangential to your point, but I think ti's completely valid to play a character who has impulses and desires to do evil things but understands rationally that they shouldn't do these things (for reasons of expediency if not ethics) and so works to overcome and control their evil impulses but still has them, so putting "evil" on the character sheet is totally valid. A character like that can be really fun to roleplay, and is precisely the character the Paladin shouldn't smite just because they set off the "detect evil" radar.
That's actually how I get by with my 'Evil-lite' characters in campaigns where Evil is off the table, like organized play. They espouse Evil ideals and methods but never actually perform such acts, and I mark their alignment as Neutral to satisfy campaign requirements.
|
|
There are LOTS of ways for this kind of situation to work, but what it comes down to is that these two players will have to get together OOC and work out what the dynamic between their PCs will be, and the players will need to cooperate in order to make it successful.
Off the top of my head, I can see the Paladin always trying to convert/redeem the evil cleric, but never being quite able to do so.
You may find some interesting roleplay ideas that help you in this book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd list a "has evil impulses but won't ever act on them for reasons" character as neutral.
Having fantasies about doing bad stuff (like just physically attacking that one guy you really hate) while being completely aware that it's bad and you shouldn't ever do it is probably(?) just normal human experience.
For a character to merely have bad thoughts and actually be evil, they'd have to be some sort of ticking time bomb - a person who hasn't acted on their desires yet, but will gladly do so if the opportunity presents itself.
And if you're the evil cleric of an evil god and yet you're in the "won't ever actually perform evil deeds" camp, why are you bothering?
Heh. I am now going to refer the OP to Master Arminus's posts in this thread for a great example of an openly evil character functioning in a mostly good-aligned party. (Though the game was under first edition rules).
I'd list a "has evil impulses but won't ever act on them for reasons" character as neutral.
Having fantasies about doing bad stuff (like just physically attacking that one guy you really hate) while being completely aware that it's bad and you shouldn't ever do it is probably(?) just normal human experience.
For a character to merely have bad thoughts and actually be evil, they'd have to be some sort of ticking time bomb - a person who hasn't acted on their desires yet, but will gladly do so if the opportunity presents itself.
I think the you only end up in neutral if you have made good on your intention to resist your desires an impulses. After all, your alignment at level 1 is where you start not where you end up (though I grant "cleric of an evil god" is a tough position from which to change your alignment).
What I had in mind specifically was a character I had who was a changeling who, under the influence of some heavy intoxicants in her youth had killed and eaten her lover (it runs in the family), and was so horrified by this action that she ran away and joined a monastery and took a vow to adhere to a strict vegetarian diet, but she knew deep down (in those quiet moments in the dark when you're all alone) that her ex was delicious and that this is kind of a thing she'd enjoy doing again, but that rationally she shouldn't do this. That character started at LE, and only moved to LN after some time campaigning (I did miss interpreting "intimidate" rolls by describing to antagonists how best to prepare their corpses to make them most palatable, I mean she was 4'6 and 100 lbs, how else is she going to intimidate people?)
@ PossibleCabbage - I'd still consider that changeling neutral at 1st level - mostly because of her overwhelming remorse at what she did (and I'm guessing the compounding guilt from knowing she actually enjoyed it). People can do pretty terrible things and still remain neutral. (And also, one of the hallmarks of an evil character would be doing something terrible and then only regretting the repercussions, rather than regretting the act itself. Did your changeling actually regret what she'd done, or did she "merely" regret that she'd FUBAR'd her own life by doing it? And also, yay changelings. "Anthrophagia runs in the family. No, really, I'm not kidding.")
@ TOZ - So an opportunist. Okay.