Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 07:30 PM	If a Succubus has Vow of Abstinence, then can she bestow negative levels via a (chaste) kiss without violating her vow?
nyluenatha 03-09-07, 07:41 PM	well, i'd view a Vow of Abstinence as a refraining from sexual contact. And I somehow don't view a succubus' abilities as chaste. In any way. BUT, I'm inclined to say yes in this case, just cuz that'd be so awesome. A succubus with a Vow of Abstinence! Ha!
paladin2019 03-09-07, 07:42 PM	What would be consdiered breaking this vow for a human character? What type (and this is a fluff question) of kiss is necessary for the effect? I would rule (without having access to the feat description or discussions of it) that a kiss one would give a child or colleague (like Galadriel to Aragorn and Frodo in Jackson's adaptation) would not be sufficient to violate the Vow. However, given that the succubus as the personification of lust and illicit sex, the creature's theme means it's not sufficient to activate her powers either. I think the requirement here would be a kiss more blatantly sexual, which would probably violate her vow. The test would be if exciting the other person with another blatantly sexually themed act, such as a striptease, would violate the Vow. If so, then yes using this ability also violates her Vow.
Vegepygmy 03-09-07, 07:45 PM	FrostHammer: I think you mean Vow of Chastity. The answer depends on whether your DM considers a kiss "sexual contact." I'm sure Wizards was too squeamish to actually define it for us, but in the real world (as far as the California Penal Code is concerned), a kiss is not sexual contact.
paladin2019 03-09-07, 07:48 PM	If it's a vow of chastity, she just has to get married and she's set. Chastity is abstinence only until marriage. But that's probably not what the rules for this say.
Bhaal006 03-09-07, 07:53 PM	What is it with you, all these crazy questions, holy macaroni!
Wraithwin 03-09-07, 07:56 PM	I think you mean "Vow of Chastity" - Vow of Abstinance: "To fulfill your vow, you must not consume intoxicating, stimulating, depressant or hallucinogenic substances, including alcohol, caffeine and other drugs..." Chastity is the nookie one. :) If we're going by Chastity, and dictionary/olden-tymes definitions; I'd say that it would probably break the vow. The Succubi's kiss, by very definition of the creature, is far more than a simple peck on the cheek. That being said, part of one body entering another (tongue in this case), was the olden-tymes definition of such otherwise spoken of in private acts. :eek: (hope I didn't break the board rules with this explaination... LOL) If we're going by Abstinance, then I would still say that yes, the vow is broken. Succubi take great joy and physical pleasure from the act, and as such it would fall under one of the listed categories of effects. One could argue that a "soul" is not a tangible thing (and thus not a substance), but I'm going to avoid ALL philosophical battles here and simplify it as this - In a game world where such a thing can be condensed (various poisons and such in Book of Vile) or trapped in a gem (Soul Jar), you could, and definately should treat syphoning out some of a person's as imbiding a substance. Regardless of what we're going by, negative energy and energy drain are both considered dark, if not outright evil acts. The vows are "Exalted" feats - which require you to be playing a character in the Exalted fashion, which is much more rigourous than simply good. At best, negative energy is neutral, and energy drain is neutral leaning evil. Neither of which are even remotely Exalted. The book talks about redeemed creatures (which I'm guessing the Succubus here is), and if I'm not mistaken it requires them to give up and/or foreswear all blantantly evil abilities as well as any that cause undue or prolonged suffering (which the Negative levels sure will when the pleasure stops). My ruling: Regardless of which feat it is, you cannot use the Energy Drain ability and expect to keep ANY Exalted feats, especially those like the Vows. The other feats are recoverable if you cease to use the ability (and may require an Atonement spell depending on DM), but the Vows - once lost - are gone for good just like the book indicates.
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 08:03 PM	yes I meant Chastity sorry. And this Succubus could be using her powers only on evil mortals to further the cause of good. where in the BoED does it define Energy Drain as a strictly evil activity? Killing can be both good and evil, depending on who does it and for what purposes, for example. Bestowing negative levels is just anotehr way of killing, and this Succubus has NOT taken the Vow of nonviolence.
Bhaal006 03-09-07, 08:06 PM	yes it may be a good act, but doe it measure up to the Exalted standard, I know we commonly diagree but this would definatly violate the vow, if you want to kill them you could just stab them the old fassioned way. and I'm pretty sure that removing someones soul is evil.
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 08:10 PM	Wait, this removes their soul? I thought it only bestowed negative levels? I'm reading the Monster Manual entry right now, and I don't see anything abour sucking the souls right out of men. If it does remove their soul, then I'd agree with you.
paladin2019 03-09-07, 08:21 PM	I'm reading the Monster Manual entry right now, and I don't see anything abour sucking the souls right out of men. Must resist, this is not the mature forum...:noway: :rimshot: Do spells like enervation have the evil descriptor? What about the energy drain description in the Monster Manual?
Wraithwin 03-09-07, 08:25 PM	yes I meant Chastity sorry. And this Succubus could be using her powers only on evil mortals to further the cause of good. where in the BoED does it define Energy Drain as a strictly evil activity? Killing can be both good and evil, depending on who does it and for what purposes, for example. Bestowing negative levels is just anotehr way of killing, and this Succubus has NOT taken the Vow of nonviolence. FrostHammer, friend, it's not a matter of what she uses it on or even HOW she uses it. None of that matters. It boils down to the fact that's it's a lingering effect that causes undue and lengthy suffering. And exalted character that is trying to kill the subject (evil creature of course), should be trying to do just that; Kill it. When you can inflict grievous injury to the thing instantly with a sword or spell, an Exalted character could not justify using a slow and un-necessary thing like the Succubi's energy draining. I do not claim that they ARE evil effects as you imply, I merely say that -I- think energy drain borders on the darkside, and regardless of your point of view you cannot in good faith and sincerity call it an Act of Good, which is pretty much what Exalted characters are expected to try and do. There is no specific page, and I'm not up for reading through it all again myself (having done so several times already), but you may want to check the beginning of the book again. There is if I remember correctly, a couple sections (or maybe one two-part section) that describes what seperates Exalted actions and characters from others, as well as at least 2 full pages of things that are expected of exalted characters. One of them, is that the character is expected to be merciful, even in zeal. If the thing is pure evil that must be destroyed, you are still expected be merciful by dispatching it quickly and not drag out it's suffering (again with the above). If you want to get even more technical, using the kiss to gain advantage could even be considered torture, making it weaker instead of finishing it off. If you go by that, torture is defined as evil by both books, cut-and-dry. They both (Exalted and Vile) say that there isn't any gray-area what-so-ever when it comes to torture. From the MM itself; "whereupon the Succubus applies her life-draining kiss" (I think there's a section in the description/explaination of exalted characters that says something to the effect of "Life draining spells and abilities are considered evil acts" - but don't quote me on that) I give that I am largely being crucial here and implying things off of what the book says, rather than quoting it directly. This is because 90% of source material is meant to be open to interpretation. But I stand by what I'm saying as what should be the approximate decitions, and state this in my defense; Any DM, and I do mean any, that has read entirely though the Book of Exalted Deeds (excluding crunchy bits like feats, classes, monsters, items, etc) and honestly understands what is expected of an Exalted character, would make the very same decision I have. I've ran games for 4 different Exalted characters, and have on several occasions had to re-read them part of the "what's expected" sections when they've argued against my warnings or decisions (when the warnings didn't sink in). :P
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 08:31 PM	I can maybe see weakening the enemy mentally may be torture, but I'm not convinced that level drain necessarily involves pain. In fact, the victim coul dbe thoroighly enjoying it. What if the Succubus needed to save the world, and by Pelor she knows her skills in pure combat aren't going to be able to stop the Big Bad Evil Wizard. She's gotta save the world SOMEhow, and she can't do it except by weakening the enemy first. I guess this is all DM-dependant. Ask the specific DM first before doing things.
Frugal 03-09-07, 08:32 PM	I'm pretty sure the negative levels are a negative energy effect, which I do believe is usually considered evil.
Wraithwin 03-09-07, 08:34 PM	Add-on in reply to the two posts made while I typed my big one... LOL FrostHammer; No, it doesn't say that. I'm merely going on definition of the creature, and historical-mythical definition of the being that the numbers were modeled after. The game itself doesn't say it's their soul, no. Paladin2019; Nope, neither Energy Drain (the spell or MM entry) nor Enervation have the Evil descriptor, though the MM does say "This attack saps a living opponent's vital energy" - which is pretty much a nice way of saying "soul" without having to use a word that would make parents stop their kids from playing. :P Conceivably, only living creatures have them, and only living creatures can be Energy Drained... 2+2 I think. I still say that, regardless of debate trajectory and angle, that it would fall under the BoED line of "Cause Undue/Un-Necessary Suffering" when a more immediate means is available. FrostHammer; I could conceded to your point in only one instance that I can think of; If the character is presented with no other option (the creature must be defeated/destroyed), and nothing else she can do will actually do anything - weapons don't hurt it and spells or other abilities you have don't effect it (not literally persay, just consecutive failures), then it would be fine. This is because something like that ceases to be "Undue" when it is quite literally your only option. :P
Frugal 03-09-07, 08:39 PM	Just to follow-up on my last post. How does a creature with the evil subtype qualify for exalted feats? Part of the effect of the kiss is a suggestion to want another kiss, once a character acquires a number of negative levels equal to their HD they are slain and rise as a wight the next night, how is creating evil undead not evil?
Wraithwin 03-09-07, 08:41 PM	What if the Succubus needed to save the world, and by Pelor she knows her skills in pure combat aren't going to be able to stop the Big Bad Evil Wizard. She's gotta save the world SOMEhow, and she can't do it except by weakening the enemy first. I guess this is all DM-dependant. Ask the specific DM first before doing things. Yeah, that would fly, but you'd have to TRY your weapon first instead of assuming it won't work. If there's a chance the better option will work, it must be taken. If you hit at'em and it does nothing... Clearly your only available option is the energy drain, so bam! There's your DM silencer. LOL Yeah, it'd be a good idea to ask the DM first. I do warn though, that if your DM is well read in the BoED, I can almost garauntee they'll reach the decisions I have. Frugal; Interesting thought. DMG has nothing on it, and PHB index directs you to the entry on clerics turning or rebuking - where it says that "Evil clerics channel negative energy" - which could loosely be taken as "Negative Energy should be considered an Evil thing". That's a bit of artistic liberty though, and I'm trying to stick with BoED explainations. :) That's a good arguement against it, though not complete.
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 08:45 PM	It couldbe time sensitive. Let's say she only has ONE shot (since she gets a surprise round on the wizard) and she needs to make it count. With the lives of everybody on the material plane in jeapardy, would she really gamble that her 1d4+1 knife damage (or whatever it is) will really cut it?
Wraithwin 03-09-07, 08:48 PM	Just to follow-up on my last post. How does a creature with the evil subtype qualify for exalted feats? Part of the effect of the kiss is a suggestion to want another kiss, once a character acquires a number of negative levels equal to their HD they are slain and rise as a wight the next night, how is creating evil undead not evil? 1) The Book of Exalted Deeds has a set of guidelines for "Redeeming" evil creatures like that. Now that you mention it, I'm not sure Outsiders are on the list of redeemable things, but for arguement's sake let's say they are. They give an example of a Lawful Good Mindflayer Monk. :eek: 2) You die when you get Neg Levels equal to or greater than your own, but not every Neg Energy effect raises you as an undead. It's really creature-by-creature, and the Succubus' doesn't.
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 08:52 PM	They give an example of a Lawful Good Mindflayer Monk. :eek: Forget Mindflayer Monks...I want to see an Exalted Mindflayer Nightmare Spinner!
Wraithwin 03-09-07, 09:11 PM	Exalted; Redeemed Death-Giant Frenzied Berserker. Mechanically works, ethically (IE: via expectations of Exalted) doesn't. Friggin fearsome either way. Non-Exalted; Mindflayer Reaping Mauler - As an NPC foe, your players will hate you FOREVER!
Fargren 03-09-07, 09:20 PM	It couldbe time sensitive. Let's say she only has ONE shot (since she gets a surprise round on the wizard) and she needs to make it count. With the lives of everybody on the material plane in jeapardy, would she really gamble that her 1d4+1 knife damage (or whatever it is) will really cut it? In terms of alignment, the end does not justify the means in D&D. f he saves the world by commiting an evil act, the act will still be evil, and if the character has vowed to not commit evil acts, the vow will be broken. However, I don't know if kissing should actually be concidered sex, and I don't know if it would be evil for a succubus to use her kiss. Historically, it is defined as draining the soul, but this is not mentioned on the MM.
Frugal 03-09-07, 09:24 PM	1) The Book of Exalted Deeds has a set of guidelines for "Redeeming" evil creatures like that. Now that you mention it, I'm not sure Outsiders are on the list of redeemable things, but for arguement's sake let's say they are. They give an example of a Lawful Good Mindflayer Monk. :eek: I know in my campaign I'm planning I'm lose on alignments for non-outsiders (even dragons aren't going to be colour coded for your convenience, they're alignments vary on an individual basis) but I figure outsiders should be pretty set in their alignments given they're constructed from the essence of their native plane. So an evil outsider is constructed from pure evil, I'd say that's beyond redemption. 2) You die when you get Neg Levels equal to or greater than your own, but not every Neg Energy effect raises you as an undead. It's really creature-by-creature, and the Succubus' doesn't. I was going by the SRD: A character with negative levels at least equal to her current level, or drained below 1st level, is instantly slain. Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight. Note it says that depending on the creature they might raise as something else but if it's not specified they raise as a wight.
Bhaal006 03-09-07, 09:42 PM	It couldbe time sensitive. Let's say she only has ONE shot (since she gets a surprise round on the wizard) and she needs to make it count. With the lives of everybody on the material plane in jeapardy, would she really gamble that her 1d4+1 knife damage (or whatever it is) will really cut it? It's called a Tragic Hero, congratulations.
Wraithwin 03-09-07, 09:45 PM	If you're going loose on your alignment system, then neither "Book of Exalted Deeds" nor "Book of Vile Darkness" material should be allowed, because those are very sharply alignment specific. I know it doesn't really have anything to do with this all, but the topic started on the BoED, so I figured I'd throw this in. LOL
Malruhn 03-09-07, 11:17 PM	The way I see it, the kiss could be as grandmotherly as possible - and the victim still gets socked for negatives... so NO, in my campaign, it wouldn't be a violation of her Vow. Look some of the Disney kisses in the movies/cartoons... a simple "magical" kiss could leave the guy just zonked out, eyes closed/fluttering, and him completely stunned. And there is nothing blatantly sexual about the kisses at all. So, the kiss could be totally closed and puckered lips - and totally (Sahara Desert) dry - and the guy would still be effected. So the kiss would be successful. Considering the circumstances, there's no sex involved. My rule: No Vow violation!
Wraithwin 03-10-07, 12:47 AM	Malruhn - you're missing like 80% of the discussion. The kiss was only about 20% of why it would bust the vow (and we threw that out). The Vow being an Exhalted Feat - Exhalted things having a very specific criteria of character behaviour - it's not so much the actual Kiss, as opposed to what it's doing. :P
FrostHammer 03-10-07, 01:23 AM	So the question is: Does level-draining cause undue pain and suffering?
Red_Rabbit 03-10-07, 09:36 AM	I read the above, but if you kiss on the lips it's sexual, because you don't kiss your children or your mother on the lips. Kissing on the lips is personal something that is shared between lovers or for people who are paying for it in some cases. Alot of people are gonna find it flimsy, but even if it's the only way to save the world is to kiss someone on the lips you are still breaking your vow to do so. It's doesn't take away that you sacrificed your believes for the world. Which to me is a heroic sacrifice If you kiss on the cheek it's innocent and a sign of friendly affection. If the DM says so it could still activate your Energy Drain power this would be in the air. The Rabbit
shift244 03-10-07, 09:46 AM	There are specific entries in some Vows that state that you cannot perform acts of level drain as part of the Vow. Why? I reason that this means other Vows would not cause volition by level draining (keeping an open mind here since I know very well that not stating something do does not imply that it do not). But there are also no references that bestowing negative levels are not Exalted (That it is Good is not good enough. There's Good, and then there's Exalted.), and as I remember (no referencing here so I'm sorry if I got it wrong) the only mentions about ability damage goes under certain Vows, not those currently involved. It's a Su ability and there's no indication anywhere that it does cause these things. So if it does, it would seem like it's your interpretation, not the rules. And if it happens that an exalted character placed in a position that would require it's use, then so be it. I doubt a character using Enervation spell would have a problem here, at all (certain Vows barring). But the kiss itself would probably break the Vow already, depending on your interpretation of chaste/abstain. In the times where a D&D campaign usually is set in, it would be a pretty preposterous act for any lady to do that (my believe.) or do they? :D That said, if a character was exalted, s/he would not have performed a questionable act if s/he was unsure of it's exaltedness (unless not acting is un-exalted). But to me, an exalted character would also probably take the penalty of loosing exalted status where there seems no better choice, and repent (albiet technically useless, other than role play) for the action for the rest of his/her life. (Read: probably retire the character and play another one.) Suggestion: An exalted character is more than simply Good. Having lead such a life and belief, it may be easier to think of reasonable actions than the player might at the spur of the moment. To have gained the exalted blessings/benefits indicates a higher connection/reach to ones patron/saint/etc. Perhaps, if there's a chance, have an Int or Wis check rolled for the character and the DM provide hint(s) to possible reactions depending on the success of the roll. This hint would be what the character truly believed and have come up with at the spur of the moment, some (perhaps divine?) insight that the player may have missed (especially true for high Int/Wis characters, common, we're not always that good). A good DM, knowing the PCs invovled, should have planned a possible opening, which s/he can hint about. It's all about having fun together right? Not to be abused of course, but for instances where a player is unsure about a DMs ruling on a certain matter, it might be a way out instead of lengthy philosophical discussions. Whichever floats your boats.
runestar 03-10-07, 10:50 AM	But what about the intention to induce lv drain with the kiss? Wouldn't that notion alone violate the intent of the vow? Yes, I know that VOP sorcs can cast enervations and energy drains...It still sounds wrong somehow...:(
Bhaal006 03-10-07, 10:51 AM	Here's the way I see it, a succubus is an inherently evil creature, therefore any natural ability of the succubus is inhrently evil, it is the direct manipulation of negative energy to cause extened suffering and pain, and the only reason a creature would find it enjoyable to have their soul sucked out(that's pretty much what expererince amounts to) is because of the suggestion effect that goes along with it. Also, and you can quote me this straight out of tBoED, the ends NEVER justify the means, the rule is hard and fast on the subject.
Frugal 03-10-07, 01:04 PM	Well as I've pointed out, the SRD at least says that if you're slain through level drains you raise as a wight (unless the specific effect states otherwise, the succubus' does not), I'd say using an ability which can create evil undead is an evil act, at the very least it's not good, certainly not exalted.
DarknessEternal 03-10-07, 01:21 PM	yes I meant Chastity sorry. And this Succubus could be using her powers only on evil mortals to further the cause of good. "The ends justify the means" is NOT Exalted. Perpetrating evil against evil may be fine for a normal Good character, but not an Exalted one. Here's the way I see it, a succubus is an inherently evil creature, therefore any natural ability of the succubus is inhrently evil, This guy is absolutely correct. They have the Evill subtype. Any natural ability they have is Evil. Incidently, an Exalted succubus still has that Evil subtype.
Frugal 03-10-07, 01:23 PM	"The ends justify the means" is NOT Exalted. Perpetrating evil against evil may be fine for a normal Good character, but not an Exalted one. Not even for a good character, D&D is absolute on it's alignment terms, committing evil acts makes you evil, or at least due for an alignment shift. I could see it for a neutral character though, commits evil acts to fight evil and balances it out with other good acts.
FrostHammer 03-10-07, 01:25 PM	The kiss does not cause any ability damage, unless you count level drain as ability damage. But remember...the Vow of Chastity says nothing about damaging people. That's vow of peace and vow of non-violence. And I'm not sure about that one hero "trading in" her exaltedness to save the world to be honest. In the BoED it says specifically your exalted is not a commodity to be traded. If you consider such a trade acceptable, then you're not exalted inthe first place, because any net shifts the balance between good and evil, no matter what good comes of it. So the question only really is: Is there a non-evil way to use level-drain kiss.
Bhaal006 03-10-07, 01:29 PM	Read the description of what an Exalted feat is at the beggining of chapter four. Quite simply no, there is no non-evil way to remove someones soul.
Frugal 03-10-07, 01:41 PM	So the question only really is: Is there a non-evil way to use level-drain kiss. 3rd time I'll say this now, if you kill them with a level drain they rise as a wight, creating evil undead is an evil act. You can't know if the kiss will kill them or not (with in-game knowledge I mean) and even if it doesn't it comes with a suggestion to want another kiss, so the intent is to drain them of all their levels and kill them.
FrostHammer 03-10-07, 02:07 PM	1) I'm not sure you're sucking their soul out 2) You don't know if your next hit is going to kill them, because you don't know how much HP they have, unless you metagame. Ergo, hitting things is evil as well? becuase you *could* crit and kill them? *gasp*
Frugal 03-10-07, 02:20 PM	2) You don't know if your next hit is going to kill them, because you don't know how much HP they have, unless you metagame. Ergo, hitting things is evil as well? becuase you *could* crit and kill them? *gasp* Killing isn't defined as an evil act, creating evil undead on the other hand would certainly qualify. If not as an evil act, certainly enough to lose exalted status.
Wraithwin 03-10-07, 03:12 PM	Yeesh... Lots of repetitions in the post. :P I'm going to have to side with Frugal on this one. I re-read the "Energy Drain & Negative Levels" section, and in fact he is entirely correct. Ability Drain and Energy Drain are two entirely different things, and the Succubus' effect is in fact Energy Drain. Let us agree to disagree for a second, and say that the Succubus' kiss does not drain one's soul, simply because nothing in the actual monster entry says anything about that. Let us, for the sake of arguement, agree that it does not drain the soul. Any form of energy drain what-so-ever (unless directly specified otherwise) can, and given enough drain does in fact, turn the subject into a Wight (or worse, depending). As a final ruling, throwing all of the debatable bits aside; Yes, willing your kiss to drain energy violates ANY Exalted feat you have. As stated above, there's good - then there's Exalted. The use of any effect what-so-ever that results in the creation of Evil Undead, regardless of whether or not it actually does when you use it, definately and without a doubt violates the Exalted conduct/mindset. That's looking past whether it's evil or not even... It simply, by nature, would purge you of all your Exalted feats to willingly use it. Simplified Conclusion; The creation of Evil Undead is an Evil Act, no question. The use of an ability that CAN create evil undead is questionable at best. "Questionable Acts" are NOT Exalted by any stretch of the word. Using an ability to drain energy, described as vital life essence, causes suffering. (Given that they enjoy it while the Succubus does it, but the second they stop...) Using the kiss simply to give some drain instead of ending them, is inducing unnessary suffering. Using the kiss to finish them off is definately evil, because it makes Evil Undead. The use of Energy Draining effects may not be evil, but it sure isn't Good. (On the above, who the heck would let an Exalted sorc thow Enervations like confetti? That's a DM without understanding of the BoED... LOL)
shift244 03-10-07, 05:49 PM	Trade-jack: who the heck would let an Exalted sorc thow Enervations like confetti? That's a DM without understanding of the BoED... And why not? There are "exalted poisons", glorified with different names and descriptions but essentially does the same thing to even the playing field, when an opposition is tougher. Enervation suppresses life force giving the level drain for up to a maximum of 15 hours, and leaves no other side effects. Nothing lasting*, and no wight becoming. There is nothing indicating any pain or suffering what so ever in the descriptions, which I fail to see where it keeps being included from. Had I missed anything somewhere?:confused: As for trading exaltedness as a commodity, heck no. That's a different debate. But I find it beyond my ability to accept/comprehend the psychology of an exalted character, when faced with the stress, being unable to find an exalted solution (exalted loosing actions are available) to a decidedly disastrous problem at hand, would do nothing and let the disaster happen (divine intervention excluded). Is that any more exalted than actually giving up the exalted status/benefits and preventing the disaster? I fully agree with the ends does not justify the means, but I suppose, as there are Good, and then there's Exalted, there are also Exalted, and then there are Heroes?:) I would have PM-ed, but it seems more than one person might've liked to reply, and do feel free to ignore this post, or PM me instead of continuously thread jacking. I might've started a new thread, but then a single good answer might satisfy me enough. End thread-jack. *Edit: I'm making the assumption that the caster does not go commoner plinking with the spell and use it as a tactical/strategical tool.
FrostHammer 03-10-07, 05:58 PM	yeah, don't Ravages do the same things as poisons anyways? But yes, according to the BoED, if an exalted Paladin has to choose between torturing an evil prisoner for information to save the world and to not torture and let the world fend for itself, he should pick the latter, because torture is evil. I'm not sure BoED takes into account doing evil through inaction.
Bhaal006 03-10-07, 06:05 PM	Actually, it also says an exalted character shouldn't let his less Scrupulous friends torture anybody either.
Red_Rabbit 03-10-07, 11:53 PM	Having an Evil Subtype doesn't make the ability evil it makes the creatures nature evil, and weak to some spells. Even a Celestial falls from the heavens every now and than. There's one on every world where a Celestial falls and a Demon/Devil rises to redeem it's self for the side of good. Kissing on the mouth is a personal and sexual act. After all you don't kiss your Mom, Dad, Grandma or your best friend on the mouth. Those people you'd probly kiss on the cheek. You kiss on the mouth to show closeness and love to someone special or for pleasure for those paying. The Rabbit
paladin2019 03-10-07, 11:55 PM	After all you don't kiss your Mom, Dad, Grandma or your best friend on the mouth. You don't.
Vegepygmy 03-11-07, 12:50 AM	After all you don't kiss your Mom, Dad, Grandma or your best friend on the mouth.Wrong.
Yadot 03-11-07, 01:22 AM	After all you don't kiss your Mom, Dad, Grandma or your best friend on the mouth. Eh, depends on the culture.
JulesCARV 03-11-07, 01:32 AM	I don't think bestowing negative levels is evil, unless you bestow more negative levels than the creature has hit dice, in which case you're killing someone in a manner which will cause them to rise as a wight, which is evil. If you can permanently drain, say, a level 12 rogue/assassin down to a level 6 rogue, then capture him later, then you've made a problem much more managable, and are likely to be able to handle such a prisoner without killing, which gives you a possible oppurtunity to redeem him, get information, etc. If you don't kill them, but reduce their level, there's nothing so terrible about that. Many people (arguably most people) live perfectly satisfactory, ordinary lives with just one level, even if they usually aren't particularly powerful, and why is an evil person entitled to retain his power? I don't really see where it describes negative level-bestowing effects as particularly painful. I mean, I'm sure it's not picnic, but I don't see where it talks about them being painful and horrible in a way that, say, scorching rays or cones of cold are not. (In contrast to, say, Symbol of Pain, which does have the [evil] descriptor, not that that stops Jozan from casting one) (Also, Fall-from-Grace from Planescape: Torment didn't seem to regard hostile kisses as breaking her vow of chastity, although, of course, she was LN, so she didn't have any exalted feats.)
Frugal 03-11-07, 01:11 PM	I don't think bestowing negative levels is evil, unless you bestow more negative levels than the creature has hit dice, in which case you're killing someone in a manner which will cause them to rise as a wight, which is evil. If you can permanently drain, say, a level 12 rogue/assassin down to a level 6 rogue, then capture him later, then you've made a problem much more managable, and are likely to be able to handle such a prisoner without killing, which gives you a possible oppurtunity to redeem him, get information, etc. Yes, but without metagame information, how do you do this? How do you tell that's not a commoner 1 who will die from 1 kiss? How do you reconcile that the ability includes a suggestion for the recipient to want further kisses (ie, leading himself to his doom)?
shift244 03-11-07, 01:33 PM	I'm not sure BoED takes into account doing evil through inaction.Good reference, I almost forgot that example. It seems extremely iffy to me to avoid performing Evil only ending up "doing" evil through inaction, but then again, I'm not exalted. Which is why the BoED has the exception clause that it's mature content, and it's contents are open to interpretation. If anyone is interested (are you guys?), we can open a new thread under the mature boards on this (if there isn't one on it already). Back on topic: My votes: Is the effect of Kiss non-exalted? No. there is nothing that would indicate so. Is the action itself non-exalted? Likely, depending on how strict one would define being chaste, and the extent of the act of kissing. to allow it to come within reasons that the vow is not broken is quite (to me) within the spirit of the vow. I would think it's akin to vowing to abstain from consuming alcohol and then indulge in smelling it's fragrance. Of course, the grapple portion of the Kiss does diverge the ability from the more traditionally portrayed seductive succubi, which if seen as a purely neutral tool perspective, might be allowable. But again, quoting above: "If an exalted character is unsure of an action, do it don't!"
Bhaal006 03-11-07, 03:15 PM	You don't think removing a portion of a creatures "vital essence" is evil, this pretty much refers to a removing a piece of a creatures soul, sure it doesn't particularly mention soul, but what else is "Experience", knowledge, learning, personal vitality, removing a level is tantamount to removing a portion of a creatures soul, any innate ability of an inherently evil creature, is evil, just as any innate ability of an inherently good creature is good.
Red_Rabbit 03-11-07, 09:08 PM	The Energy Drain ability is something the Succubus activates so it doesn't always happen when she kisses. She has to want to use it, and the Suggestion is just used to make the target want to kiss her again in the use of this ability. The Rabbit
shift244 03-12-07, 12:23 PM	You don't think removing a portion of a creatures "vital essence" is evilWell, no. Not really, mainly due to not seeing it entirely as "soul", as you have mentioned. The level drain seems to work more like a muffler, suppressing the maximum potential during the duration in which it is active. This, I have no problems with in the case of exaltedness. The only portion of the level drain that might be Evil, is the part where failing the save makes the effect permanent. Hmm... come to think of it. I'm beginning to shift and say that while I might content that it is not Evil, it is not Exalted either.
Frugal 03-12-07, 12:45 PM	The only portion of the level drain that might be Evil, is the part where failing the save makes the effect permanent. Hmm... come to think of it. I'm beginning to shift and say that while I might content that it is not Evil, it is not Exalted either. I was more thinking that the part about having them rise as a wight was pretty evil too.
Red_Rabbit 03-12-07, 02:55 PM	Where do people see this if you Energy Drain someone they turn into a Wight. I don't see it under the MM Succubus, Savage Species Succubus or under Energy Drain in the PHB. I'd like to know where people are getting that an Energy Drain victim turns into a wight. The Rabbit
Vegepygmy 03-12-07, 04:14 PM	DMG, page 293.
shift244 03-13-07, 08:29 AM	I was more thinking that the part about having them rise as a wight was pretty evil too.Ahh... yes. The wight part. Don't know how I could've missed that having it brought up so early. So it would seem that it is definately not exalted.
Flan 03-13-07, 03:25 PM	So the question is: Does level-draining cause undue pain and suffering? It certainly ranks higher than subdual damage. 1) I'm not sure you're sucking their soul out I don't think it's every explicitly said, but yes, yes you are. In 3.5 though you don't destroy their soul by doing it to the point of killing them, you've just weakened them and made their soul less profitable for the devils that get their grubby mitts on it in the afterlife. 2) You don't know if your next hit is going to kill them, because you don't know how much HP they have, unless you metagame. Ergo, hitting things is evil as well? becuase you *could* crit and kill them? *gasp* That is the definition of evil in the player's handbook, yes. If you're playing exalted, better get used to subdual damage. I assume this is inspired by Fall-From-Grace (http://www.gamebanshee.com/planescapetorment/companions/fall-from-grace.php)
Bhaal006 03-13-07, 04:03 PM	Exalted characters don't have to only do subdual damage, they can still do lethal damage, the reason killing someone with level drain is a bad thing is because the subject will rise as a wight, Evil Undead, the creation of which is an evil act, sometimes evil must be dispatched, their is no rule that says killing someone is evil, it doesn't even say you can't in BoED, although to be on the safe side you might want to use nonlethal damage more often than lethal.
Scion of Coldshard 03-13-07, 08:00 PM	According to some people here creating a Holy weapon is an evil act. Interesting. I say the redeemed succubus can make chaste kisses all she likes and energy drain people all over. It is not any different than sticking someone with a sword. An undead might rise? Big deal. If the creature dies from the kiss then the succubus will know what is up and being exalted will go through extreme measures, possibly to her death, to stop that creature before it does any harm. Otherwise, it is no different then using an alchemist fire on someone.
Vegepygmy 03-13-07, 08:10 PM	An undead might rise? Big deal. If the creature dies from the kiss then the succubus will know what is up and being exalted will go through extreme measures, possibly to her death, to stop that creature before it does any harm.Creating undead is evil, regardless of whether the undead so created does anyone any harm. Create Undead Necromancy [Evil (if someone gets hurt)] :nonono:
FrostHammer 03-13-07, 08:13 PM	Maybe the Succubus could refine her powers so a Wight won't be created. It's not too hard to imgine as something the Succubus can learn to control after some training nad perhaps a quest.
Scion of Coldshard 03-13-07, 08:21 PM	Creating undead is evil, regardless of whether the undead so created does anyone any harm. The create unded 'spell' has the [evil] descriptor. Now prove that creating undead in general is evil. No matter what the cause was. And then tell me how anyone creates a Holy weapon. And why enervation does not have the [evil] tag.
Vegepygmy 03-14-07, 02:39 AM	Now prove that creating undead in general is evil. No matter what the cause was.(1) Undead are created/powered by negative energy. PHB, pages 216, 250. (2) "Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil." PHB, page 160. Not good enough for you? How about: ANIMATING THE DEAD OR CREATING UNDEAD Unliving corpses--corrupt mockeries of life and purity--are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit. Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place. (Book of Vile Darkness, page 8.) And then tell me how anyone creates a Holy weapon.Even if we assume that creating a weapon that can possibly, if handled by someone it is not intended to be handled by, result in the creation of a wight is morally equivalent to deliberately subjecting someone to an effect that is highly likely to result in the creation of a wight (which I don't)...good people can perform evil acts. It doesn't even necessarily change their alignment. And why enervation does not have the [evil] tag.Because game designers are fallible. They also missed chill touch, touch of fatigue, and the inflict line of spells, which clearly state that the caster channels negative energy (which we know from page 160 is an evil act).
JulesCARV 03-14-07, 03:37 AM	The fact is, in practical, everyday game terms, a succubus will probably be able to make judgment calls about bestowing negative levels without exceeding hit dice and killing the target while still weakening the target. This isn't metagaming, because neither the player nor the character probably have access to information about how many hit dice the enemy has -- it's based on a rough guess, but if a succubus errs on the side of caution, she could easily weaken enemies without killing them and causing them to rise as wights. Is there a risk? Yes. If she screws up and creates a wight, she has a responsibility to destroy it, and the succubus should probably also lose the benefit of her exalted feats (although not her good alignment) until she atones. Bestowing negative levels can create wights, but doesn't have to.
Flan 03-14-07, 10:38 AM	(2) "Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil." PHB, page 160. This is in the undead turning section and we have to assume this applies only to undead turn/rebuking, otherwise the alignment system is completely out the window. Because game designers are fallible. They also missed chill touch, touch of fatigue, and the inflict line of spells, which clearly state that the caster channels negative energy (which we know from page 160 is an evil act). And cure spells channel positive. Imagine all those good acts the evil party's cleric is doing all the time! Animate Dead got tagged with evil because creating undead is considered evil always, inflict and the others on the other hand are up to the DM to decided based on why it's being used. What I fail to understand is why summoning an evil creature to get it's butt kicked for you in combat is evil, but summoning some celestial cannon fodder is considered good.
Scion of Coldshard 03-14-07, 10:57 AM	(1) Undead are created/powered by negative energy. PHB, pages 216, 250. Although there are exceptions. Generally this is true though. (2) "Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil." PHB, page 160. Yep, channeling energy for turning like that is defined to be good or evil for some reason. But that does not mean that every use of those energies is good or evil. Try again! ;) Not good enough for you? Not even close. I'd like something that actually says what you are going for. I could grab rules on grappling to prove that the sky is blue if you like, it'd be just as useful. How about: [QUOTE=Vegepygmy;11761708] (Book of Vile Darkness, page 8.) Ahh.. there is the problem. You are looking to the book of vile darkness, and likely the book of exalted deeds, to actually give you reasons for why things are good and evil. I would suggest not doing that. They mess up in a lot of places going by the core, typically by saying things that are actually 'chaotic/lawful' are 'evil/good'. Confusing the law/chaos side for good/evil is an easy enough mistake to make, it is too bad they made it over and over again in those books. Even if we assume that creating a weapon that can possibly, if handled by someone it is not intended to be handled by, result in the creation of a wight is morally equivalent to deliberately subjecting someone to an effect that is highly likely to result in the creation of a wight (which I don't)...good people can perform evil acts. It doesn't even necessarily change their alignment. So you are saying that creating a Holy weapon is an evil act? If so I am thinking that somewhere your logic chain has a break in it ;) Because game designers are fallible. Or perhaps you are making a mistake? If this is all you have for proof then I would suggest that you are making leaps in logic that are not supported. Death is a part of life, both can be used for good or ill. Negative and positive energy are the same way, they can both be used for either good or ill and are effectively neutral. In fact, they are neutral in basically the same way that fire is neutral.
Frugal 03-14-07, 11:26 AM	My reading of holy suggests it wouldn't create an evil undead so I'd say it's not evil. As for using BoVD or BoED for defining "good" or "evil"? Well we're talking about someone who's exalted, not just good, which is defined in BoED so I'd say that's certainly fair game. We know that a succubus' kiss does create a wight if the creature is slain by the negative levels (standard rules for energy drain, not overridden by the succubus' description). The statblock for a wight lists it as always LE. So we can all agree that killing someone with the succubus' kiss does create an evil undead. So, is creating an evil undead an evil act? Well we can debate that but the fact that the spells to do so usually (always?) carry the evil descriptor is pretty suggestive. At the very least, I think we can argue that it's not a good act. Now then, regardless of whether it's an evil act, exalted status requires an even higher standard. I would definitely argue that willingly using an ability that you know has the potential of creating an evil creature is not within the requirements of remaining exalted.
Ozzymandias 03-14-07, 11:27 AM	Succubi are evil-aligned outsiders. Where do they come from? I ask because, in the D&D cosmology, all creatures stem from a specific origin. In previous editions, the exact nature and origin of some creatures was not known. It was left to the DM to decide how best to handle those questions. In 3.5 most monsters have origins, and with the printing of more and more books, more origins are being discovered. The succubus is a tanar'ri; her home is the Infinite Layers of the Abyss. Using the Fiendish Codex I, we learn that creatures spawned in the Abyss are born of pure chaos and evil. Hence, it goes to follow that their powers (specifically, anything not extraordinary in nature) would stem from their origins in the primordial chaos of existence. What does this mean for an exalted succubus? Were I the GM, the first thing it would mean is that the creature no longer has the [evil] subtype. I may even allow it to have the [good] descriptor. Second, any spell-like and supernatural abilities would be stripped from the creature (with some consideration, and perhaps one or two exceptions, on a case-by-case basis). Consequently, the exalted succubus probably wouldn't have the ability to bestow negative levels through a kiss, and thus the issue would no longer be called into question. Simplicity: more often than not, the best approach when dealing with the rules quagmire that is D&D 3.5.
Scion of Coldshard 03-14-07, 11:34 AM	My reading of holy suggests it wouldn't create an evil undead so I'd say it's not evil. Ok, how do you read it that way?
Bhaal006 03-14-07, 11:39 AM	It doesn't say anywhere in the description that using positive/negative energy is a good/evil act only when it applies to undead, it says it flat out, that channeling positive/negative energy is a good/evil act, note the lack of qualifiers.
Vegepygmy 03-14-07, 11:50 AM	Even if we assume that creating a weapon that can possibly, if handled by someone it is not intended to be handled by, result in the creation of a wight is morally equivalent to deliberately subjecting someone to an effect that is highly likely to result in the creation of a wight (which I don't)...good people can perform evil acts. It doesn't even necessarily change their alignment.So you are saying that creating a Holy weapon is an evil act?I've highlighted the important phrases you seem to have missed. Because game designers are fallible.Or perhaps you are making a mistake?That's certainly possible...but I see no evidence of it. If this is all you have for proof then I would suggest that you are making leaps in logic that are not supported.We will have to agree to disagree, then.
Frugal 03-14-07, 11:51 AM	Ok, how do you read it that way? Well the fact that it only ever bestows 1 negative level means it'd have to be a 1 HD evil creature wielding it in order to be slain by the negative level. Plus, it says that it never results in actual level loss, it's just an effect while the weapon is wielded. It's not 100% spelt out that it doesn't but I'd be inclined to say that it doesn't.
Scion of Coldshard 03-14-07, 11:52 AM	It doesn't say anywhere in the description that using positive/negative energy is a good/evil act only when it applies to undead, it says it flat out, that channeling positive/negative energy is a good/evil act, note the lack of qualifiers. Note that the section it is in and the entire time it is talking about channeling the energy for the purpose of turning undead. Channeling positive energy/negative energy in that way is considered a good or evil act. Using positive or negative energy in general is not defined as a good or evil act. Lots of places in the books use positive and negative energy without it being evil. The few times when it is considered good or evil it say so, but there is no general rule that I have ever seen.
Scion of Coldshard 03-14-07, 11:55 AM	Well the fact that it only ever bestows 1 negative level means it'd have to be a 1 HD evil creature wielding it in order to be slain by the negative level. Plus, it says that it never results in actual level loss, it's just an effect while the weapon is wielded. It's not 100% spelt out that it doesn't but I'd be inclined to say that it doesn't. 1HD or less evil creatures, or those with negative levels already totaling up to 1 less than their total HD or some other similar circumstance. The actual level loss is immaterial. In fact, once you are killed by the pile of negative levels they may actually never result in real level loss, you might just stay dead instead. While it is true that the weapon description itself does not say anything about it the general rule of negative levels 'does' and the weapon does not change them. Hence...
Scion of Coldshard 03-14-07, 11:59 AM	I've highlighted the important phrases you seem to have missed. Didnt miss it, it just wasnt important to my point. That's certainly possible...but I see no evidence of it. I could go back through the thread and highlight the relavent text, but I doubt it would do any good. How about a 'which is more likely' game? Which is more likely. That out of all of the instances of when and how to use negative and positive energy the designers forgot to make a general rule or to place the descriptors in some few places but not the majority of others accidentally or that they made the differences on purpose? We know that only a very few even mention good or evil, and those say something along the lines of 'using it in this way' or the equivalent. We also know that the planes of negative and positive energy themselves are not aligned. We will have to agree to disagree, then. If that is what you would like.
Evil Succubus Evaligan 03-23-07, 04:36 PM	Exalted succubus can kiss to a friend but they don't use her energy drain ability in a foe or ally because they think that is "evil". Eludecia is a good example of that. Created a undead is always evil (See The Books of the Vile of Darkness).