| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Post-death Obiwan Kenobi.Force ghosts don't count, since they only form from good Jedi and not evil Sith, according to one interpretation I've read.How did Anakin Skywalker pull it off, then? I would be skeptical if that last hour of remorse was enough to pull an alignment 180.
Though it puts the whole practice of people waiting until their deathbed to repent in a whole different light...
The process for becoming a force ghost has not remained consistent throughout the franchise. Yoda in RotS implies that Qui-Gon was the first person to become a force ghost, and his force ghost taught Yoda how to do it. But, then, it's unclear when Anakin could have learned how to become a force ghost.
Also, in Splinter of the Mind's Eye, Kenobi's ghost somehow enhances Luke's lightsaber skills beyond where they are in the next movie, and then that power of force ghosts is never mentioned again.
At the end of the day, George Lucas changed his mind a lot during development, and Lucas changing his mind is the source of a lot of continuity errors in SW.
So the reason the EU contradicted itself is because each was projected from a different Splinter of the Lucas Eye?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm a lot more concerned about players thinking "it's a dark-skinned elf, it must be evil, let's kill it!" than "the Drow aren't scary enough."
I mean, you can be plenty scary with just humans, it's not what you are that makes you scary, it's what you (can) do.
Oh why! Wherefore ist thy speaketh thine name! Woe! Woe onto thee that speaketh of thee, for whence it was about calling the dead to do thy bidding.
Verily.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks! It's been a while since I brushed up on my Shakespeare. :-)
Exactly! They are NE! Not Evil!Zombies are. Not evil ... Just Hungry.......They are NE, actually... and hungry.
??? The E does stand for Evil, last time I checked. Maybe I'm missing something...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
??? The E does stand for Evil, last time I checked. Maybe I'm missing something...Exactly! They are NE! Not Evil!Zombies are. Not evil ... Just Hungry.......They are NE, actually... and hungry.
It's a joke. Using NE to stand for Not Evil instead of Neutral Evil as it actually means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a joke.
Jokes are evil, everyone knows that. It's on Unwritten Paizo Rules, page 734.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jokes are evil, everyone knows that. It's on Unwritten Paizo Rules, page 734.
It's a joke.
I don't have that book. Paizo seems not to have written these unwritten rules.
Luckily, I prepare Protection from Evil enough times, that if I do fall to evil, a few quick casts are all that's necessary to make me a saint again, as far as the gods are concerned.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh oh, Tacticslion is in this thread now! Quick, make a bunch of posts for him to favorite!
Is making posts in a thread that you know Tacticslion is reading an Evil action?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm a lot more concerned about players thinking "it's a dark-skinned elf, it must be evil, let's kill it!" than "the Drow aren't scary enough."
Hmm... yes, consideration of this does have some unfortunate implications. With how in a fantasy setting which has it that the black-skinned elves as evil and the light-skinned elves as good does have some racial connotations, even though most players and DM may very well not have given it a second thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jokes are evil, everyone knows that. It's on Unwritten Paizo Rules, page 734.
It's a joke.
The page is blank, admittedly. Unwritten and all. Still, it is all there in black and white.... I mean all there in white.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I spent much of my between-scan tour time yesterday doing research. Nowhere in the Core Rulebook does it say that Undead must be Evil. The descriptions in the Bestiary indicate Evil behavior. Open the CRB to the section where alignments are discussed, and compare it to the descriptive text of each Undead creature. However, if you want to houserule exceptions, be my guest. I won't stop you or tell you that you're wrong. It is your game, after all.
I dont think must(as in 100%) was the argument being made. The argument is that evil is the default alignment and it is rare that they are not evil for most types of undead. As an example most ogre's are terrible creatures to be around, and they will likely kill and eat humanoids which they can get their hands on, but that does not mean that somewhere in fantasyland you can't find at least 1 good or civilized ogre.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but how many fairy tale ogres for one Shrek? same is true of undead.
To the folks who bring up this question time and time again, I have to ask why?
1. Are you looking to play an undead character because it's edgy? If so, you're about a decade too late.
2. Are you looking to have it be socially acceptable for your necromancer to raid the local cemetary for his work force?
...
1. Are you looking to play an undead character because it's edgy? If so, you're about a decade too late.
LOL
What you asking people who play fighters, wizards, clerics and rogues?
Same for elves, dwarves and halflings?
Their 4 decades to late or what?!? ^^
I never claimed that any of my characters was "pushing the edge", "breaking the box" or whatever slogan is in fashion these days. :)
Look at my avatar.. it's as generic elf as one can get.
If you say Drizzt you also have to say Elistraee.
The CG Godess of good Drows!
It Drow, not drows. The word is it's own plural form.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the folks who bring up this question time and time again, I have to ask why?
From a GM perspective it's because NPCs who defy expectations are more interesting, and NPCs who cast a positive or redemptive light on a traditional monster that PCs have been deciding to kill on sight for decades is more interesting than "kill that monster on sight."
So the vampire who loves the city of his birth and puts a lot of his considerable riches towards public works policies (but may have an ulterior motive) is more interesting to me than "the vampire you kill because it's there."
To the folks who bring up this question time and time again, I have to ask why?From a GM perspective it's because NPCs who defy expectations are more interesting, and NPCs who cast a positive or redemptive light on a traditional monster that PCs have been deciding to kill on sight for decades is more interesting than "kill that monster on sight."
So the vampire who loves the city of his birth and puts a lot of his considerable riches towards public works policies (but may have an ulterior motive) is more interesting to me than "the vampire you kill because it's there."
Such a character can still be as evil, or even more so than Dr. Doom. There is nothing about the general tendencies of undead that precludes having one-off exceptions.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, an elf!
Some folk would ask why not a human but something nearly immortal or longliving, awesome magic potential, great weapons just by race, immunity to some spells and abilltys and thin and pale....
Oh wait, seems like elves are daylight vampires without the weaknesses... ;-)
Why make differences between fantasy creatures?
For me its a matter of taste!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Such a character can still be as evil, or even more so than Dr. Doom.
But they also don't need to be (I wouldn't say Dr. Doom is always evil either, he flickers between LE and LN depending on the story.) In practice, I find that when PCs are hunting for the solution to a mystery anything they find that pings on a detect alignment spell is going to be considered untrustworthy.
So if I want morally gray characters, I don't make them evil in a tangible way. Personally, I'd prefer to do away with alignment entirely in my games, but some people like it. So I prefer my vampires to be conflicted, my demons and devils to have legitimate grievances about the unfairness of universe a la Milton, and my Angels to be kinda jerks. Anything sapient whose alignment you can glean from looking at a bestiary I like to subvert that expectation from time to time.
Such a character can still be as evil, or even more so than Dr. Doom.But they also don't need to be (I wouldn't say Dr. Doom is always evil either, he flickers between LE and LN depending on the story.) In practice, I find that when PCs are hunting for the solution to a mystery anything they find that pings on a detect alignment spell is going to be considered untrustworthy.
So if I want morally gray characters, I don't make them evil in a tangible way. Personally, I'd prefer to do away with alignment entirely in my games, but some people like it. So I prefer my vampires to be conflicted, my demons and devils to have legitimate grievances about the unfairness of universe a la Milton, and my Angels to be kinda jerks. Anything sapient whose alignment you can glean from looking at a bestiary I like to subvert that expectation from time to time.
Doom is that type of character who lulls the reader by being affable, almost even reasonable and benevolent at times until like Vlad Teppes, something relatively minor, causes him to reveal the cruel monster which lies beneath the civilised veneer. Or simply launches a scheme or contingency which reveals his true nature. Such as having Kristoff implanted with a clone of his personality.
If you really want to do away with alignment, you should ditch the classes and mechanics that ride on it.... like Paladins and their cousins. WarPriests with some tweaking such as ditching the alignment domains, would fill the function of Paladins in your game.
|
Fascinating thread!
As the person who wrote the White Necromancer class for Kobold Press, the subject of non-evil undead is something I know a little bit about :)
In fact, the Kickstarter for the newly revised, updated, and vastly expanded, full-color HARDCOVER version of the New Paths Compendium(the book the White Necromancer appears in) just launched yesterday. It contains the White Necromancer class itself, plus some White Necromancer archetypes, undead oriented spells etc
If you like the option of having undead that are not always evil in your game, I think the White Necromancer class is worth checking out!
You can check out (and hopefully decide to back! :) the New Paths Compendium kickstarter here
|
|
Hey everyone! Just wanted to let you know the Expanded and Updated New Paths Compendium Hardcover is now available right here on Paizo.com!!
Expanded and Updated New Paths Compendium Hardcover
Includes the White Necromancer plus 11 other new classes (plus archetypes, spells, feats, and more)
Of course not.
Any sentient creature can choose its own moral and ethical path in life, or unlife as the case may be.
|
|
Undead and Outsiders being the exception to that.
Undead are not specified as such an exception anywhere, actually. Mindless undead are Evil, and so are most intelligent ones, but they don't have an alignment subtype or anything.
And even if they did, we've had redeemed fiends, so redeemed undead are equally possible.
Undead and Outsiders being the exception to that.
Nope. Free will equals free choice. The Bestiary itself expressly states this.
"Only in special cases is this more fixed, such as ... planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind). "
Unusual, not nonexistent.
Undead and Outsiders being the exception to that.Undead are not specified as such an exception anywhere, actually. Mindless undead are Evil, and so are most intelligent ones, but they don't have an alignment subtype or anything.
And even if they did, we've had redeemed fiends, so redeemed undead are equally possible.
Alignment subtype and 'personality alignment' (for lack of a better term) are unrelated. Nothing at all prevents a being with Chaotic and Evil subtypes from having a Lawful Good personality.
|
Undead and Outsiders being the exception to that.Undead are not specified as such an exception anywhere, actually. Mindless undead are Evil, and so are most intelligent ones, but they don't have an alignment subtype or anything.
And even if they did, we've had redeemed fiends, so redeemed undead are equally possible.
Yes, and those are the exceptions, not the rule. Sentient undead can change their alignment, which is a bit different than “can be any alignment.”
|
|
Alignment subtype and 'personality alignment' (for lack of a better term) are unrelated. Nothing at all prevents a being with Chaotic and Evil subtypes from having a Lawful Good personality.Undead and Outsiders being the exception to that.Undead are not specified as such an exception anywhere, actually. Mindless undead are Evil, and so are most intelligent ones, but they don't have an alignment subtype or anything.
And even if they did, we've had redeemed fiends, so redeemed undead are equally possible.
And how many of those exist?
Aligned Outsiders + Mindless Creatures are the only creatures described to have difficultly changing their alignments.
|
|
Undead and Outsiders being the exception to that.Nope. Free will equals free choice. The Bestiary itself expressly states this.
"Only in special cases is this more fixed, such as ... planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind). "
Unusual, not nonexistent.
And Outsiders don’t have as much free will as mortals.
Unusual almost to the point of being nonexistent.
And how many of those exist?Alignment subtype and 'personality alignment' (for lack of a better term) are unrelated. Nothing at all prevents a being with Chaotic and Evil subtypes from having a Lawful Good personality.Undead and Outsiders being the exception to that.Undead are not specified as such an exception anywhere, actually. Mindless undead are Evil, and so are most intelligent ones, but they don't have an alignment subtype or anything.
And even if they did, we've had redeemed fiends, so redeemed undead are equally possible.
Does it matter? They do exist, canonically and logically. I'm not saying they aren't rare. I'm saying it's not impossible. Even if there's just one, it proves that your statement is false.
Also, the answer is 'depends on the campaign world', of course. This boils down to a basic truth ... the GM can have the NPCs in his world do what he wants. He wants a succubus paladin in the game world? There she is. Angel hellknight? Lo, shall it be. Even if the books outright said 'no, impossible, cannot be, no way Jose', not a chance', the GM has every right to just Sharpie over it.
By the same token, of course, the GM is free to ignore what it says in the books now, and declare that alignment subtype dictates personality (in all defiance of free will and self-determination, but I digress).
|
|
Undead and Outsiders being the exception to that.Nope. Free will equals free choice. The Bestiary itself expressly states this.
"Only in special cases is this more fixed, such as ... planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind). "
Unusual, not nonexistent.
And Outsiders don’t have as much free will as mortals.
Unusual almost to the point of being nonexistent.
This is totally true. Fallen angels and redeemed fiends are way more rare than, say, a Good Orc. Can you find a similar line regarding undead?
|
|
This is totally true. Fallen angels and redeemed fiends are way more rare than, say, a Good Orc. Can you find a similar line regarding undead?Undead and Outsiders being the exception to that.Nope. Free will equals free choice. The Bestiary itself expressly states this.
"Only in special cases is this more fixed, such as ... planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind). "
Unusual, not nonexistent.
And Outsiders don’t have as much free will as mortals.
Unusual almost to the point of being nonexistent.
I go off their write ups when it talks about their drives, and how they’re statted up in official products.