Post/Author/DateTime	Post
caesura 04-30-06, 05:28 PM	And use it to its full potential? The description I read mentioned that chaotic creatures would be hit with a -1 level penalty, but it didn't say anything whatsoever about neutral creatures using it.
Esponer 04-30-06, 06:04 PM	Yes, a neutral character may use an axiomatic weapon to full potential. Axiomatic: An axiomatic weapon is lawfully aligned and infused with the power of law. It makes the weapon law-aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against all of chaotic alignment. It bestows one negative level on any chaotic creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. This negative level never results in actual level loss, but it cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) while the weapon is wielded. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the lawful power upon their ammunition.
AngelDust Anderson 04-30-06, 06:38 PM	Yeah, He Can Just like the true neutral character can weild a holy unholy axiomatic anarcic longsword. That sword can exist!
StevenO 04-30-06, 07:25 PM	The Sword (even if unitelligent) doesn't HATE you so it will work normally. You could even say it is encouraging a LAWFUL alignment since it works best against Chaotic foes. The weapon proposed by AngelDust is an example of what a True Neutral may create to destroy creatures with Extreme Alignments.
caesura 04-30-06, 08:01 PM	Thanks for the replies! I brought up the unholy/holy/axiomatic/anarchic sword to my DM, and he's of the opinion that it cannot exist. He's a stickler for the rules, though, and is generally loathe to homerule things, so where can I find a source that would prove to him that such a weapon is legal within the current game structure?
RaspK FOG 04-30-06, 09:12 PM	While there is not black-and-white rule as to the opposite, both the names of the special abilities as well as part of their rules text (most particularly the fact that they are aligned, sort of), makes the whole thing seem too much like an: "I want to deal HUGE damage!" kind of syndrome. There's no reason one can't make a special ability of his own making that works a little different from this (+1d6 for every step away from N, for example).
Yak of Darkness 04-30-06, 09:41 PM	While there is not black-and-white rule as to the opposite, both the names of the special abilities as well as part of their rules text (most particularly the fact that they are aligned, sort of), makes the whole thing seem too much like an: "I want to deal HUGE damage!" kind of syndrome.It's only "HUGE damage" if you're fighting someone who has a Lawful-Good-Chaotic-Evil alignment. All of them. Otherwise, you're paying for a net +8 enhancement that gives you, at most +4d6 damage (and the ability to bypass alignment-based DR), and at least . . . nothing. You can do +4d6 damage with a net +4 enhancement (corrosive/flaming/frost/shock). Getting that much, at most, from a +8 enhancement is a big damn ripoff. There's no reason one can't make a special ability of his own making that works a little different from this (+1d6 for every step away from N, for example).If caesura's DM is a stickler for rules and doesn't like houseruling things, this wouldn't work. However, since weapon abilities are assumed to stack unless explicitly stated otherwise, a "stickler for the rules" DM should allow a holy/unholy/axiomatic/anarchic weapon since, well, it's legal. As a weapon of "balance," it makes perfect flavor sense as well (since it hurts people of extreme alignments more than anyone else; plus, usually only powerful outsiders with alignment subtypes carry alignment-based DR). And it sure as hell isn't overpowered.
ClementWillowbreaker 04-30-06, 09:49 PM	The reason why the weapon is unlikely because at least two clerics of opposing extreme alignments that have selected alignment domains (or more likely three or four) to have the required spells must sequentially enhance the weapon. Even more unlikely than a Chaotic Evil cleric spending massive amounts of money empowering a Lawful Good weapon (rather than just sundering it for free), are two such clerics working together. Most DMs would strip the cleric's spellcasting for such overt action against their alignment and god- working to create a Evil/Good/Lawful/Chaotic item reasonably falls within casting a spell of those alignments. Aside from requiring a crazy circumstance that would never happen on its own, and be nearly impossible to organize yourself. In most settings, you can go to a large city and buy a +1 Longsword off a merchant. In all but the silliest will you ever find one of these things laying around.
Watchdog_of_Hades 04-30-06, 10:01 PM	If a chaotic evil cleric makes a lawful good weapon anarchic and unholy, I'd call it corrupting, not empowering.
Yak of Darkness 04-30-06, 10:04 PM	But that doesn't change the fact that the item is legal, by the rules. Would something like that likely be rare in most campaigns? Likely. Will it come up in random treasure rolls? Almost never. Will the DM place one? Doubtful. Will the PC have to find some way to get it themselves? Almost certainly. And though the "gathering of unlike-minded clerics" is probably not going to happen, there's always: Wish, which can instantly create any magic item to the caster's specifications. Warlocks. Artificers. TN archivists. That's with about a minute of thinking, and never having played an item-crafter. I'm sure there are other ways to go about making it as well.
ClementWillowbreaker 04-30-06, 10:10 PM	Archivists don't have access to the domain spells required. Warlocks can do everything (and so can Wish- I would say using Miracle to create an item opposed in alignment would also not be kosher with one's diety), and given their own alignment requirements, it is unlikely they would bother adding Holy and Axiomatic. Artificers I can't say anything about, except they are for Eberron. As for "corrupting" it, you make it bestow a negative level on your theological enemies...in exchange for drastically increasing its combat effectiveness, at huge cost to you. It is a very metagame-response to consider it corrupting, when it is not a practical means of doing so.
Yak of Darkness 04-30-06, 10:28 PM	Archivists don't have access to the domain spells required.If they can get their hands on a scroll of the spells, they can. Warlocks can do everything (and so can Wish- I would say using Miracle to create an item opposed in alignment would also not be kosher with one's diety), and given their own alignment requirements, it is unlikely they would bother adding Holy and Axiomatic. Artificers I can't say anything about, except they are for Eberron.The point is, none of these examples require, in your words, "a crazy circumstance that would never happen on its own, and be nearly impossible to organize yourself." Most of them require the effort of only one person. It's not all that tough to get one person to agree to do something, especially if it's yourself. ;) Your average cleric is not going to (nor will he even be able to) just sit down and crank one of these out. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to make the weapon. That doesn't mean that it's even a terribly difficult and complex procedure to make the weapon. And it doesn't mean that the weapon is illegal by the RAW. It can be done. And an enterprising player who wants such a weapon won't need too long to find a way.
ClementWillowbreaker 04-30-06, 10:55 PM	Those spells aren't on the Archivist's (or normal cleric) spell-list, so he will have to UMD it like anyone else. One scroll for every 1,000gp of the base price, and by time you are getting to the last one, you will have to have that cleric chained to a desk cranking out scrolls of Order's Wrath for months. Anything is possible. "Practical" is the important thing for a DM to decide to have an item encountered, or let such a player's attempt succeed. A player could want a staff that has every wizard spell in the Spell Compendium in it, and it is legal to make it. Getting it is an entirely different story.
runestar 04-30-06, 11:13 PM	For every other conflicting alignment, there's always UMD... ;)
Yak of Darkness 04-30-06, 11:22 PM	Those spells aren't on the Archivist's (or normal cleric) spell-list, so he will have to UMD it like anyone else. One scroll for every 1,000gp of the base price, and by time you are getting to the last one, you will have to have that cleric chained to a desk cranking out scrolls of Order's Wrath for months.At any time, an archivist can also add spells found on scrolls containing divine spells into his prayerbook, but he must make any rolls and spend the time required (see Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook on page 178 of the Player's Handbook). The archivist can learn and thus prepare nonclerical spells in this fashion but the two free spells he gains for advancing in class level must be selected from the cleric spell list.Like I said, if he gets a scroll, he's fine. Anything is possible. "Practical" is the important thing for a DM to decide to have an item encountered, or let such a player's attempt succeed.The only one of my examples that requires the DM to place anything is the archivist (which requires the domain spells on a scroll). The wish, the warlock, and the artificer can all do this on their own (the latter two requiring successful UMD checks and the proper item creation feat, of course), both as a "possible" and a "practical" matter. Sure, the DM could not "let" this happen. Just as a DM could not let a fighter get bonus feats, or a DM could not let clerics have domain spells. The DM could let and not let anything happen with any variety of houserules. That's not relevant to the discussion of the actual rules.