Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Flushmaster 06-28-05, 03:57 AM	Lately I've been DMing more than playing. In the past few months I've been unsuccessful in finding a good long term campaign but have managed to set up or (in one case) get into several one shots (one case was set up to be a full campaign but has only had 2 sessions and likely won't see another). In all but one of these I've been DM. Today while stopping by the mall I ran into a guy I went to high school with and haven't seen for close to five years and by pure accident we discovered that we both play D&D (a friend of mine came out the door while we were smoking and asked me offhand what provokes an attack of opportunity am the kind of guy that has acquaintances randomly pop up and ask me a D&D rules question] and both I and my long lost acquaintance answered at the same time). This got us talking anout D&D and I found out that he's been trying to find some local players for an "advanced" campaign (one that doesn't involve training newbies during play); I gave him my number and he said he'd call the couple of other local serious gamers he knows and try to set up a game. One of these guys would be the DM, and from conversation I gather that he's a fairly good DM (the type that sets up some tough challenges but is fair and rewards player creativity and such), so I'll be a player. I've been wondering which of the half dozen character concepts that I've come up with in the past few months I should use, and one comes to the foreground. But I'm not sure how well it would be received by a DM. I myself would allow it, if I thought the player was a good enough roleplayer to pull it off (and I think that I can), but I won't be the DM in this game, so I'm asking for opinions on it here to decide (a) if I should try to pitch it to this new [to me] DM and (b) how to pitch it if I decide to do so. The Idea is a paladin who worships Wee Jas. Setting isn't an issue, I already know that this DM uses the "standard" pantheon (or the Greyhawk pantheon, whichever appelation you prefer). The thing I'm wondering about is that paladins must be lawful good and Wee Jas isn't a good deity, she's lawful neutral. Her clerics can be lawful good (one step away) which is why I figure a paladin could worship her. But I can see various reasons (mainly the lack of a "mandate of goodness" in her doctrine) that a DM might not deem her an appropriate deity for a paladin. Here's the character concept, or at least the relevant parts. Wee Jas' portfolio includes death, law, and magic; paladins tend to encounter (and/or bring about themselves) all of these during an adventuring career. Paladins must be lawful and they use magic by way of spells and various divinely granted class features (detect evil, lay on hands, divine grace, their special mount, etc). Death will be encountered by any adventurer in most campaigns, at least being a matter caused by the villains and often is a necessity to stop said villains. The character I have in mind would, like any good worshiper of Wee Jas, consider death to be an integral part of life yet still a sacred thing; meaning that those who cause it by needless killing must be punished. To this guy a murderer isn't just a criminal but also a blasphemer. True to his alignment he would oppose any injustice, cruelty, abuse of power, or other evil, but would take particular exception to any offense involving death and view any such occurance as being especially deserving of retribution on behalf of the Stern Lady. He considers the most important alias of his goddess to be Death's Guardian; those who disregard the sanctity of death must be taught the ramifications of their actions and in most cases this "education" includes experiencing death themselves. Necromancy isn't necessarily a bad thing to this character. After all, studying all aspects of death is necessary to properly understand and know how to respect it. Still, there is a certain line that shouldn't be crossed. Raising the corpses of defeated enemies of the evil variety (orcs, goblins, etc) isn't a bad thing if you put the resulting zombies/skeletons/etc to good use, but if you slaughter a village for raw materials in experiments then you've abused the use of death and must be stopped in a decisive fashion (meaning you gotta die). Wee Jas, as a lawful neutral deity, does grant spells and powers to evil clerics; this character views this as his deity's way of giving evil beings a way to learn about and (hopefully) understand the importance and sanctity of death in hopes that they will not abuse it in the future. This may well be just a personal opinion, but as a neutral deity on the good/evil scale, Wee Jas has no official position on the matter and if she supports evil characters then she should support good ones as well (if she supports LG clerics then it should stand to reason that she'd support paladins as well). I'm wondering what other DMs think of this? Am I missing something big? Do I actually have a good and feasible character concept? I'm trying to go for something here that isnn't commonly done. I know that there will likely be events that may call the character's beliefs into question or at least demand that I explain his stance, but that's the point since I want an interesting character. I like to think that I'm a pretty decent roleplayer. Can I pull this off? Would you allow it in your game?
Cymraegmorgan 06-28-05, 04:20 AM	I'm wondering what other DMs think of this? Am I missing something big? Do I actually have a good and feasible character concept? I'm trying to go for something here that isnn't commonly done. I know that there will likely be events that may call the character's beliefs into question or at least demand that I explain his stance, but that's the point since I want an interesting character. I like to think that I'm a pretty decent roleplayer. Can I pull this off? Would you allow it in your game? I love it! Would I allow this. In a heartbeat. Very well thought out. Since LN is a balancing act between Good and Evil, the assumption here is that Wee Jas shows you special favor because she needs you to correct the balance, because evil is out of control. She will not be as forgiving as a LG deity if you screw up your code, so tread carefully. And if you are successful, and vanquish much evil, she may have to "balance" your character. :eek: This has all the trappings of a memorable campaign.
stranger-654 06-28-05, 04:44 AM	I have to agree its a great concept.....and although i think that a paladin doesnt nesscisariryl (or however you spell it) have to be LG partly because they need a deity and how many deities are LG anyway good concept wish i could think that well lol
Nom 06-28-05, 08:45 AM	Play up the Lawful aspect. In many ways, there are similarities to playing a paladin of St Cuthbert, who is also a LN deity. You're probably part of a small splinter order, who most of the members of the cult see as a little tainted by these ideals of good that you espouse. However, since you seem focused on delivering proven lawbreakers (who are perhaps evildoers also) to the Stern Lady's embrace, you must be OK.
clarkvalentine 06-28-05, 09:50 AM	Given Wee Jas's portfolio, you could consider allowing multiclassing with wizard or sorcerer, if the player was interested.
Merestil Haye 06-28-05, 11:38 AM	Having read that :- I would allow that kind of character. There is nothing (by the RAW) that prevents any deity sponsoring a paladin, and that is a well-thought out concept. Of course if I were the DM I would be watching you closely for slippages from alignment, but that is because, as others have said, you'll be walking a fine line between Wee Jas's codes and the ethos of Good a paladin requires. Have fun in the campaign, whatever you play.
nightwing 06-28-05, 02:53 PM	According to RAW, you are completely within limits to play this character. There is no reason you should fear to propose it to the new DM. He may like it or may hate it, but it's within the rules' limits. IMCs I require paladins to be followers of LG dieties. Yes, the rules say the alignments don't have to match, but it's a rule I disagree with, so I houserule it. IMHO, it only makes sense that for a god to sponsor a mortal with divine power, that mortal must be 100% "in tune" with that diety's goals and worldviews. So, IMC, I wouldn't allow your paladin to worship Wee Jas, but it is good flavor, and doesn't seem to abuse the rules in any way, so it really can't do any harm. It's just a flavor thing. Cheers
celtredleg 06-28-05, 03:21 PM	Just lay it out for the DM. Nothing in there thats out of control. I would allow this one, even though I dont usually like to let in Pallys Not a problem with the class, just to many lawful/stupid players in the past.
Cyra 06-28-05, 03:37 PM	well if nobody else will, I'm going to rain on your parade! I would not allow it, simply because the necromatic ability to spawn undead creates evil beings, granted mindless, subservant, brrrraaaaaaaiiiiinnnnnssss evil beings but evil none the less. A paladin would never knowiungly associate with an evil being and therefore you won't be too happy in a typical wee jas temple. Being a paladin, you turn undead, there is no rebuking. I like the concept, don't get me wrong, but this is kinda playing fast and loose with the class concept as a whole and I, as a DM, would have reservations about letting you play it. Still kudos, about asking a paladin question and simply dealing with game mechanics and a well thought out character concept!
Sylver_Dragon 06-28-05, 03:59 PM	Think I would answer this in two parts: 1. As stated, yes I would allow. If nothing else, it sounds like a great hook for lots of adventures and mischief on the DM's part. 2. As a DM I tend to toss out the "must be LG" bit of paladins. I use a "must match diety alignment" rule insted. Yes, this then allows for paladins of some really screwball dieties, but why not? As far as I am concerned a paladin is a holy warrior of a cause and/or diety. I do tend to tweak the class a bit as alignment changes, (e.g. CE paladins would have a harming touch) but that is to be expected. Of course, what the unknown DM will do is up in the air. But you should still pitch the character concept to him, what's the worst that will happen, he says no, and you have to come up with a different character. Might want to have a backup idea ready to roll, just in case.
Gyrofthewastes 06-28-05, 04:10 PM	I'd definitely allow it. Not sure about 3.5, but the 3.0 specifically mentioned Lawful Good clerics of Wee Jas (that they turn/rebuke...as opposed to the unusual case of neutral Wee Jas clerics)...implying their existence. Whether this is acceptable in the campaign in question...and whether worship of Wee Jas in said campaign frequently involves creation of the undead (which might be a problem for a paladin)....that's another story.
Flushmaster 06-28-05, 04:43 PM	Being a paladin, you turn undead, there is no rebuking. I know this may seem strange to most players, but remember that Wee Jas supports LG clerics and they turn undead also. She may have the Death domain but she doesn't have the Evil domain; a LE death worshiper would make a lot more sense if they venerated Nerull (NE) if you ask me. Most appearances of worshippers of Wee Jas in most campaigns is usually something along the lines of an evil necromancer, a lich, or some other evil entity. As a neutral deity it only makes sense that she would support and empower good aligned worshippers just as much as she does the evil ones that are more commonly encountered. The villainous necromancers could easily be just as much of a "splinter faction" of the faith as would a chapter of paladins. I've personally yet to see anything in any rulebooks that explicitly says that necromancy is in itself an evil process. Last I checked, a player could make a lawful good wizard specializing in necromancy as long as they use it for good purposes. Nerull's entry in the PHB specifically mentions evil necromancers being among his worshippers while Wee Jas's entry notes her worshippers including many powerful sorcerors and wizards, "especially necromancers," but applies no alignment descriptor there. It doesn't exclude evil necromancers worshipping Wee Jas, but the lack of "evil" there does strongly imply that not all necromancers (and not all of those who worship Wee Jas) are evil. Are the non-evil necromancers necessarily good? No. In fact I'd think that most are neutral due to the general "bad rap" that necromancy gets among most good circles, but still nothing says it can't be used for good. The character I'm thinking about would not necessarily be upset by necromancy and undead, but he would immediately begin seeking information on the necromancer(s) involved and keep an eye on them to "keep them honest." Why did they raise those zombies? where did the bodies come from? Looting graveyards or, even worse, killing innocents for "raw materials" would be obvious infractions against his reverence of death. If the zombies were, in life, evil creatures who were defeated and killed then their bodies being raised would be viewed as a little bit of payback for their sins, as long as the resulting undead are commanded to a good purpose. I do really appreciate all the responses. Thanks a lot, everybody!
Cyra 06-28-05, 04:53 PM	I'll give you that necromancy is non sentient and therefore devoid of ethics and morality, however, necromancy begets evil. Undead are always eveil One of Necromancy's pillars is the power over life, death, and undeath. thus a good 3rd of it's power source is inherently evil, and another third (death) ain't so great, I mean wich would you rather be? Dead or Alive? I will not however say that death is evil, death is an intrigal part of life and it is also natural. Undeath however is most certainly not natural, and certainly is evil. I hate to cite splat books as examples but Complete Arcane states that most necromancers are evil, nuetral at best.
Astinex 06-28-05, 05:20 PM	I would allow your concept. I won't get into my philosophies about the subject as I'm not in the mood to debate them today. One thing I would ask as a DM, and I would urge you to consider, is what your Paladin’s code is for dealing with sentient undead? How are you, based on your worship and the tenets of We Jas, going to react / deal with sentient undead? My only reason in doing this is to ensure as DM and Player we set parameters at the beginning of the campaign for something that will most likely arise, and could cause a dilemma on your behalf.
sylvanwolf 06-28-05, 05:24 PM	Well as a DM I'd allow it. I have a CG paladin to the god of mistief. And she is one of the most inresting elements in the game. I'm never at want for a plot hook to trap the party (of course she's also kinder which helps). It's a lot of fun to have in a campaign a well thought out palidin. I like the optional rule in unearthed arcana that allows for non - LG paladins. I think all dieties need their champions who are mortal extensions of them selves.
Flushmaster 06-28-05, 05:45 PM	How are you, based on your worship and the tenets of We Jas, going to react / deal with sentient undead? A sentient being is a sentient being, alive or undead. They would be treated as anybody else would based on their actions. A lich that lives off in some secluded tower to study arcane secrets is just fine as long as he/she doesn't decide to kill, conquer, enslave, etc the surrounding populations. If they do that then it's smiting time. Most sentient undead are evil (exceptions do exist but are quite rare) and would be treated as evil bings first and undead ones second. Undead are always eveil. A skeleton or zombie may be evil, but if it's under the control (being commanded by) a non-evil creature then it's not going to be doing evil things. Of course a good aligned necromancer would have to be a responsible one since they're playing with fire, so to speak, and an extra prepared command undead spell is a good precaution for dealing with them as would be any other method of "containment" (including their destruction) should they get out of control. Along these lines, the character I have in mind would likely carry a bludgeoning weapon as his primary weapon (likely either a flail or warhammer) because it's more likely to be effective against undead and he knows that most of those he is likely to encounter aren't going to be going about good deeds.
Cyra 06-28-05, 06:04 PM	I agree on all points except that a Lawful Good Paladin as written will never knowlingly associate with an evil being Detect evil will certainly highlight a zombie, it's not like the character wouldn't know. I just feel that Paladins are set apart because of their moral stance, a steadfast belief in their alignment. the paladin in this case, is Lawful Good and most of the rules, I believe, apply. Being undead is a painful existance, if I were lawful good, I wouldn't put any soul in that situation.
SwitchUK 06-28-05, 07:10 PM	You have my respect for coming up with an A) original and B) PRETTY DAMNED AWESOME character concept.
Mula 06-28-05, 07:24 PM	The character concept sounds terrific and I would accept it in a heartbeat. However, there is that problem with raising undead. Animate dead and its cousins are [Evil] spells. [Evil.] There’s no way around it. Continuous raising of undead, even for good and beneficial purposes, is not good—it’s still evil. A paladin, in my opinion, would never—never—accept this. I don’t care about the feelings of the deceased one or where the corpse was taken from; the simple fact that the means to create or animate these vile abominations of life is [Evil], is enough to view it unacceptable. A paladin of Wee Jas is thus a tricky concept. Maybe he should just condemn this part of the faith and focus on the other aspects (while also trying to change his religion’s outlook on the undead).
Rotipher 06-28-05, 07:24 PM	One possibility that hasn't been mentioned yet, but certainly deserves some thought, is that a PC's religion (deity) isn't necessarily the sole influence on his or her beliefs. Perhaps the paladin was brought up in Wee Jas's faith, but also adheres to a paladin's code of conduct, having joined an order of knights that upholds those standards ... standards, which are Lawful enough to meet Wee Jas's demands (though they go even farther in forbiding acts of Evil). So long as the order's creed doesn't demand *Chaotic* behavior -- which it obviously doesn't -- it needn't be incompatible with Wee Jas's faith, any more than following the moral creed of, say, the Girl Scouts would violate an IRL teen's religion.
SwitchUK 06-28-05, 08:06 PM	raising dead may = evil spell, but he worships a neutral deity of death. Tricky, but I'd allow it - after all, much of morality stems not from the act itself, but the intent. Animating the dead for your own selfish ends would be evil. Calling forth those who have passed to the Ruby Sorceress' lands to aid in the fight against those who would defile the natural order of things, that's a different order of things altogether. To be fair, I'd be tempted to create a purely Lawful Neutral paladin, and swap all his "good" alignment-based spells and abilities to the law/chaos axis instead - detect Chaos, protection from Chaos, etc... If you're familiar with Paladins of Tyranny, freedom and the like, then perhaps a paladin of Wee Jas would be a Paladin of Order?
Mula 06-28-05, 08:11 PM	Raising undead to help build orphanages is pretty much the same as torturing your enemies to fund said orphanages, in my opinion. I’d also like a lawful paladin variant. Too bad none of the books have one, though I’ve understood that an issue of Dragon has such paladins. The champion class from Arcana Evolved is sweet, though.
SwitchUK 06-28-05, 08:24 PM	Hardly the same - it's not like an animated corpse is actually capable of COMPLAINING. Or, indeed, screaming in agony every time the knife sinks into its flesh... *ahem* Sorry... ( :p ) Basically, what you've got in an animated corpse is an inanimate lump of slightly stinky meat that just happens to be a certain convenient shape. I mean, having a selection of animated corpses build the orphanage would hardly be different to building the orphanage using a number of small golems. You may be right, however. Perhaps scrap that ability, and replace it with the ability to rebuke undead, rather than turn them?
Mula 06-28-05, 08:31 PM	Yes, the deal with undead would be just as you’ve described, Switch—if it weren’t for the Evil descriptor the spells have! That’s why good clerics can’t have access to those or other evil spells. That’s how it is according to RAW.
SwitchUK 06-28-05, 09:01 PM	Which begs the question - is bringing the RAW into it really all that useful, or indeed relevant, when we're discussing how to make a variant paladin work in the game? Regardless, I've always taken a somewhat more flexible approach to the RAW - It's a good guide, I won't dispute, and a DM shouldn't ignore it completely, but at the same time, I think that sticking to the very letter of the RAW (heh... :rolleyes: ) can get in the way of creativity and good RPing, so I usually treat it more as a very good guide, as opposed to "This Is How Thou Shalt Act, And Woe Betide Those Who Stray". Anyway, on to the slightly tricker world of ethics. I figure that animate dead is off-limits to good clerics either because their deities forbid its use, or else because they have made a moral decision to abstain from its use. Normally, I'd guess that a lawful good paladin would be obstructed from using that spell thanks to A) his alignment and B) the deities he worships (most commonly Heironeous, I should think). A paladin of Wee Jas, however, would worship a neutral deity whose portfolio includes death. The godess herself would probably allow the paladin to employ the animated dead, provided the reasons were good, and the paladin's own code of strict morality would likely require that he abstain from raising the dead except in the direst circumstances, in combat against those who would seek to defile death's realm. Flushmaster would seem to be the kind of person that, as a DM, I'd trust to RP well and employ the spell in precisely that sort of context. And if he didn't, I could always exercise rule 0 and strip him of that spell with the justification "The godess is displeased with your disrespectful treatment of the dead. Atonement quest, please..."
Mula 06-28-05, 09:10 PM	No, no! A paladin employing undead in his good work? I don’t think so. :) Seriously, though, I always strive to stay as close to the RAW as possible in my games. I don’t know why, really, and I hardly expect everyone else to do the same. The thing is, though, that Evil and Good are tangible forces operating in the world of DnD, and spells such as animate dead simply are evil. No way around it. Regardless of the deity a paladin serves, he or she still must be Lawful Good, and undead creating/animating spells are an anathema to everything that Good represents. If those spells weren't [Evil], Flushmaster's character would work just fine in all aspects.
SwitchUK 06-28-05, 09:19 PM	So we return once again to the concept of a neutral paladin... in itself, not necessarily a bad thing. A champion of pure, unyielding law and order sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Maerdash 06-28-05, 09:36 PM	I love the idea and would allow it in a heart beat its very well thought out and seems interesting. On the undead being evil, just throw out the raw here its stupid. Zombie = evil but flesh golems are just peachy? Please. And to my knowledge it says no where in the raw that negative energy is evil, if it does, please show me so that I can at last understand the stupidity that is animate dead. Oh and on a side note the monster manual specificaly states that when an AL block says always evil/good that exceptions are possible. So always isn't always and undead aren't by their very nature evil. Edit: One question, what makes the animate/create undead spells inherently evil? Just because the game designers say so? Because they didn't take into account that a player/dm mighht want to have a nation that sees it as an honor to the dead to use their bodies to better the lives of their descendants? Dm's change perfectly good rules all the time to suit their vision of what the game world should be so why do some of you have such a problem with changing a rather insignificant little rule when it comes to a player creating their vision? Re-edit: Im not attacking anyone here, I'm honestly interested in hearing your opinions.
Mula 06-28-05, 09:44 PM	Please, no… not another 'undead-negative energy-what is evil' discussion. Animating a corpse causes suffering to the soul or something.
Maerdash 06-28-05, 09:49 PM	Please, no… not another 'undead-negative energy-what is evil' discussion. Animating a corpse causes suffering to the soul or something. No it doesn't at least not according to the raw, the body is powered by negative energy while the soul goes on to its final reward. Also to support letting a paladin be in an order that uses undead: The Shadow dancers shadow companion has the same AL as the shadow dancer. Wizard of the coast is willing to ignore the rule for character concept why shouldn't we?
Mula 06-28-05, 09:51 PM	Well, a Shadow Dancer’s shadow companion isn’t created with [Evil] spells. Undead aren’t necessarily evil, only the spells which create or animate them are.
Maerdash 06-28-05, 09:56 PM	Well, a Shadow Dancer’s shadow companion isn’t created with [Evil] spells. Undead aren’t necessarily evil, only the spells which create or animate them are. Ok why? Negative energy? Game designer infallibilty? Arbitrary ruling based on a generalized character archtype? My point though is that if we as dm's are willing to change rules because it suits the game better than the raw why shouldn't we do the same for our players?
UltimateReality 06-28-05, 10:02 PM	Because they didn't take into account that a player/dm mighht want to have a nation that sees it as an honor to the dead to use their bodies to better the lives of their descendants?But they did. See the Undying Court in Aerenal, the Eberron Campaign Setting. IIRC, there is another good-aligned undead somewhere too (Libris Mortis probably?)...but yes, the vast majority of undead are evil by the RAW, and undeath is seen as an evil act and unnatural state of being. The designers may very well have not realized that people would like to run more interesting campaigns.
Starmage21 06-28-05, 10:12 PM	One of Necromancy's pillars is the power over life, death, and undeath. WRONG Necromancy is power over life and death. Undeath is a side effect of evil necromancers. *edit* A paladin of Wee Jas is a most interesting idea that I would certainly allow. Suggestion: Death is part of the portfolio of Wee Jas. It may be part of a paladin's mythos to put foes to death instead of letting them go.
Maerdash 06-28-05, 10:25 PM	But they did. See the Undying Court in Aerenal, the Eberron Campaign Setting. IIRC, there is another good-aligned undead somewhere too (Libris Mortis probably?)...but yes, the vast majority of undead are evil by the RAW, and undeath is seen as an evil act and unnatural state of being. The designers may very well have not realized that people would like to run more interesting campaigns. Thanks ultimateReality I'll be sure to cjeck that out. I guess I just don't see the problem that some people will allow the "good" undead that the raw allows and then turn around and say that animating a mindless corpse is wrong because the spell says so.
Cymraegmorgan 06-28-05, 10:55 PM	On the undead being evil, just throw out the raw here its stupid. Zombie = evil but flesh golems are just peachy? Please. I have been playing D&D for almost 25 years, and I never thought about that. :clap: :clap: :blink: :shocked: If the zombies were, in life, evil creatures who were defeated and killed then their bodies being raised would be viewed as a little bit of payback for their sins, as long as the resulting undead are commanded to a good purpose. And, as someone else mentioned, what about the Wee Jas faithful? Would not a devotee of this Goddess want their body to serve their Goddess, even after their soul had gone to join her? Conceptually, Flushmaster, you have an excellent idea, and the RAW can be tweaked just a touch to fit it, without unbalancing a thing.
SwitchUK 06-28-05, 10:55 PM	I love the idea and would allow it in a heart beat its very well thought out and seems interesting. On the undead being evil, just throw out the raw here its stupid. Steady on... just because people can sometimes be a little over-zealous in its application doesn't mean that the RAW is stupid. For the most part, it's very intelligent and useful, so let's try avoid sweeping, hyperbolic statements, yeah dude? Zombie = evil but flesh golems are just peachy? Please. dude, a flesh golem is basically Frankenstein's monster, and the creation of a flesh golem is usually taken to be an evil act. I mean, when was the last time you heard about Frankenstein's contributions to charity? And to my knowledge it says no where in the raw that negative energy is evil, if it does, please show me so that I can at last understand the stupidity that is animate dead. Could I maybe respectfully suggest that you refrain from using the word "stupid" and the like to describe perfectly innocuous things? It makes you sound like the kind of person who, by rights, should be disqualified from the right to express an opinion at all, due to being incapable of forming a sensible one... From a purely philosophical standpoint, negative energy is not in itself evil, so much as it is the karmic opposite of positive energy - it's basically the D&D world's version of "yang" - it's the black side of the swirly glyph, the tails to heads, the up to down, the black to white. In short, negative energy is the dark side of the Force. It's a raw elemental force, and as such HAS no alignment, not even neutrality, being incapable of autonomous action, behaviour or decision. On the other hand, I can't say that a "Good" use for a phenomenon that sucks all the light and life out of the world immediately springs to mind, and I'm fairly certain that such an application simply doesnt exist. The only possible use for negative energy is as a weapon. Oh and on a side note the monster manual specificaly states that when an AL block says always evil/good that exceptions are possible. So always isn't always and undead aren't by their very nature evil. Quite true. Many of them are mindless automata that lack a mind or will of their own. The ones that do posess intelligence, however, seem to be uniformly evil. Ever hear of a good Liche? I haven't. You could create one, I suppose, but it'd be somewhat unbelievable... Edit: One question, what makes the animate/create undead spells inherently evil? Just because the game designers say so? Because they didn't take into account that a player/dm mighht want to have a nation that sees it as an honor to the dead to use their bodies to better the lives of their descendants? Good question. and the answer's probably that that's exactly the case - WotC maybe just didn't take into account the possibility of necromancy being used for a Good purpose. Either that, or they did, and discounted it. the problem is that pretty much anything that is commonly described as "Evil" can be passed off as a good thing, given the right circumstances and a sufficiently strong argument. If all the jews in Germany had been the carriers for a fatal and virulent disease that could have wiped out the human race, Hitler would be a hero. Nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima caused the second world war to end months or even yeas prior to when it would have, at a cost of twenty million lives, as opposed to two hundred million. Does that make it a Good thing? No. Lesser of two evils? Certainly. The point is that, if we dip back into the somewhat more rigidly defined system of D&D ethics, the use of an Evil force/spell/other to effect a Good deed averages out, at best, as a Neutral act - perfect for a neutral paladin, but probably something that your garden-variety lawful good paladin would never consider doing, even if it was the best course of action. Dm's change perfectly good rules all the time to suit their vision of what the game world should be so why do some of you have such a problem with changing a rather insignificant little rule when it comes to a player creating their vision? Because some people treat the RAW as gospel. Similarly, others ignore it entirely. I personally think that the middle ground is best. It's a free Internet... Ok why? Negative energy? Game designer infallibilty? Arbitrary ruling based on a generalized character archtype? Intent. Animating a corpse causes suffering to the soul or something. Possibly, but I'd think that would only be the case if the corspe were animated and (ab)used without the soul's permission. I rather imagine that respectfully petitioning a soul for the right to employ it's mortal shell in pursuit of a good cause would be perfectly alright by the departed spirit of most good characters...
Cyra 06-28-05, 10:58 PM	WRONG Necromancy is power over life and death. Undeath is a side effect of evil necromancers. escardon me, but I do believe that Command Undead is a necromatic spell and thus some power over undead is implied
Maerdash 06-28-05, 11:35 PM	Steady on... just because people can sometimes be a little over-zealous in its application doesn't mean that the RAW is stupid. For the most part, it's very intelligent and useful, so let's try avoid sweeping, hyperbolic statements, yeah dude? Ok yeah the use of the term stupid here comes about because I'm tired and my mind refuses to breathe life into originality, sorry I'll be more tactful in the future. dude, a flesh golem is basically Frankenstein's monster, and the creation of a flesh golem is usually taken to be an evil act. I mean, when was the last time you heard about Frankenstein's contributions to charity? Yes it is ussually taken to be an evil act, but its not explicitly stated via the raw as an evil act and therefore is not evil in the minds of many when the only difference between it and a zombie (non stat related) is that its powered by magic while the zombie is powered by negative energy. Could I maybe respectfully suggest that you refrain from using the word "stupid" and the like to describe perfectly innocuous things? It makes you sound like the kind of person who, by rights, should be disqualified from the right to express an opinion at all, due to being incapable of forming a sensible one... See above. From a purely philosophical standpoint, negative energy is not in itself evil, so much as it is the karmic opposite of positive energy - it's basically the D&D world's version of "yang" - it's the black side of the swirly glyph, the tails to heads, the up to down, the black to white. In short, negative energy is the dark side of the Force. It's a raw elemental force, and as such HAS no alignment, not even neutrality, being incapable of autonomous action, behaviour or decision. On the other hand, I can't say that a "Good" use for a phenomenon that sucks all the light and life out of the world immediately springs to mind, and I'm fairly certain that such an application simply doesnt exist. The only possible use for negative energy is as a weapon. True, there are of course other possible applications of negative energy, but none that spring to mind are innately good, yet that as you say doesn't make it evil. Quite true. Many of them are mindless automata that lack a mind or will of their own. The ones that do posess intelligence, however, seem to be uniformly evil. Ever hear of a good Liche? I haven't. You could create one, I suppose, but it'd be somewhat unbelievable... Actually yes, Libris Mortis. Also shadows aren't mindless automata and there is a prestige class that allows for the "calling" for lack of a better term of good aligned shadows. Vampires are another type of undead that have often been portrayed as non-evil, well maybe not often. Good question. and the answer's probably that that's exactly the case - WotC maybe just didn't take into account the possibility of necromancy being used for a Good purpose. Either that, or they did, and discounted it. I have to say they discounted it, otherwise I would have to say they were stupid and I have not only agreed not to do that, but would also make myself look like an idiot for playing a game made by a bunch of hacks therefore they made a descision I don't agree with. :D The point is that, if we dip back into the somewhat more rigidly defined system of D&D ethics, the use of an Evil force/spell/other to effect a Good deed averages out, at best, as a Neutral act - perfect for a neutral paladin, but probably something that your garden-variety lawful good paladin would never consider doing, even if it was the best course of action. Thats just my problem, intent should IMO have more to do with an action being good or bad than what kind of energy it uses or how inpolite an action may be. Because some people treat the RAW as gospel. Similarly, others ignore it entirely. I personally think that the middle ground is best. It's a free Internet... Yes the middle ground is always best.....always....you wanna argue....NO I"M RIGHT YOUR WRONG!!! lol Intent. Exactly, intent and if intent is good enough for the game designers then its good enough for my players.
SwitchUK 06-29-05, 12:11 AM	Yes it is ussually taken to be an evil act, but its not explicitly stated via the raw as an evil act and therefore is not evil in the minds of many when the only difference between it and a zombie (non stat related) is that its powered by magic while the zombie is powered by negative energy. A zombie isn't really inherently evil so much as being a decaying, lurching, moaning machine designed for slowly shuffling after things in slow groups and attempting to eat their BRRAAAIIIINNNSS... Being mindless, it's impossible to assign an alignment to them. Actually yes, Libris Mortis. Also shadows aren't mindless automata and there is a prestige class that allows for the "calling" for lack of a better term of good aligned shadows. Vampires are another type of undead that have often been portrayed as non-evil, well maybe not often. I stand corrected. Neverhteless, those are the exceptions, rather than the rule. I have to say they discounted it, otherwise I would have to say they were stupid and I have not only agreed not to do that, but would also make myself look like an idiot for playing a game made by a bunch of hacks therefore they made a descision I don't agree with. :D :heehee: Thats just my problem, intent should IMO have more to do with an action being good or bad than what kind of energy it uses or how inpolite an action may be. D&D is a world of quite black and white morality, really, with a narrow, equal band of grey in the middle. This is not accurate, it is expedient to gameplay. having nine possible alignments which, for the most part, catch the vast majority of the philosophical, ethical and moral mindsets to which a person could belong greatly streamlines things because you don't have to spend half an hour outlining the tenets character's morality, you just say that they're Chaotic Evil and get on with it. The same applies to spells - defining some spells as "good" and others as "evil" is not intended as being an absolute - a spell is a spell is a spell. It's basically just another form of tool, like a hammer. And I could build an orphanage and then beat a homeless guy to death with the same hammer. A tool, from a philosophical standpoint, cannot possibly be evil, good or even neutral by simple dint of lacking the capacity for self-regulation. Magic, being a tool, is, outside the context of the game world, ineligible for being targetted with accusations of being good or evil - the type and effect of energy being channeled is irrelevant. what counts is the purpose to which it is directed. On the other hand, in game terms, it makes sense to describe some spells as being evil and others as being good - healing somebody with a cure spell is generally a nice thing to do, whereas summoning a demon to destroy your enemies probably won't be done in the interests of the greater good so muc as in the interests of keeping yourself out of the fight while a slavering beast from the nether realities rips your foes limb from limb. The point is that a game must be balanced in order to work. This can be relatively complicated, and mean avoiding nasty scenarios where some loophole in the rule comes along that provides such an utterly unstoppable advantage, that everybody will want to exploit it, or it can be as simple as saying "if we have spells that damage, we need spells that heal. If we have positive, we need negative. If we want good, we need to have evil" and so on - thus are spells with the "good" and "evil" moniker created - not in order to shed light on any deep philosophical point of belief on the part of WotC, but in order to produce a game that not only functions in a balanced manner, but is also (hopefully) fun to play. Basically, what I'm saying is, why don't we quit arguing real-world ethics and trying to apply them to a game set in a fictional universe, and instead go about the business of cheerleading an original concept, and presenting possible ways in which the idea could be expanded upon and improved?
Maerdash 06-29-05, 12:31 AM	A zombie isn't really inherently evil so much as being a decaying, lurching, moaning machine designed for slowly shuffling after things in slow groups and attempting to eat their BRRAAAIIIINNNSS... Being mindless, it's impossible to assign an alignment to them. I stand corrected. Neverhteless, those are the exceptions, rather than the rule. :heehee: D&D is a world of quite black and white morality, really, with a narrow, equal band of grey in the middle. This is not accurate, it is expedient to gameplay. having nine possible alignments which, for the most part, catch the vast majority of the philosophical, ethical and moral mindsets to which a person could belong greatly streamlines things because you don't have to spend half an hour outlining the tenets character's morality, you just say that they're Chaotic Evil and get on with it. The same applies to spells - defining some spells as "good" and others as "evil" is not intended as being an absolute - a spell is a spell is a spell. It's basically just another form of tool, like a hammer. And I could build an orphanage and then beat a homeless guy to death with the same hammer. A tool, from a philosophical standpoint, cannot possibly be evil, good or even neutral by simple dint of lacking the capacity for self-regulation. Magic, being a tool, is, outside the context of the game world, ineligible for being targetted with accusations of being good or evil - the type and effect of energy being channeled is irrelevant. what counts is the purpose to which it is directed. On the other hand, in game terms, it makes sense to describe some spells as being evil and others as being good - healing somebody with a cure spell is generally a nice thing to do, whereas summoning a demon to destroy your enemies probably won't be done in the interests of the greater good so muc as in the interests of keeping yourself out of the fight while a slavering beast from the nether realities rips your foes limb from limb. The point is that a game must be balanced in order to work. This can be relatively complicated, and mean avoiding nasty scenarios where some loophole in the rule comes along that provides such an utterly unstoppable advantage, that everybody will want to exploit it, or it can be as simple as saying "if we have spells that damage, we need spells that heal. If we have positive, we need negative. If we want good, we need to have evil" and so on - thus are spells with the "good" and "evil" moniker created - not in order to shed light on any deep philosophical point of belief on the part of WotC, but in order to produce a game that not only functions in a balanced manner, but is also (hopefully) fun to play. Basically, what I'm saying is, why don't we quit arguing real-world ethics and trying to apply them to a game set in a fictional universe, and instead go about the business of cheerleading an original concept, and presenting possible ways in which the idea could be expanded upon and improved? Hmmm How could I argue anymore, your above post is all so....reasonable that I find I have no valid arguement to counter your position. Kudos for the concise and polite debate I will still house rule thing sbut I'll definatly take the above points into account when doing so. As to getting back on topic I see no reason why a paladin couldn't be a follower of wee jas, its not like the LG clerics and the LE clerics all operate under the same roof (at least to my understanding) so the paladin really shouldn't be confronted with any moral issues he has about his church raising undead as his church most likely won't be raising undead Sorry about getting off topic earlier I tend to get a little to into things sometimes. :D
totoro 06-29-05, 01:57 AM	If you want to get around the RAW [evil] descriptor problem, allow the paladin to take Animate Zombie-like Flesh Golem. Same effects, but no [evil] descriptor. Problem solved. Since it is so similar to Animate Dead, you may as well just call it Animate Dead, though. ;)
Flushmaster 07-01-05, 05:22 PM	Hmmm How could As to getting back on topic I see no reason why a paladin couldn't be a follower of wee jas, its not like the LG clerics and the LE clerics all operate under the same roof (at least to my understanding) so the paladin really shouldn't be confronted with any moral issues he has about his church raising undead as his church most likely won't be raising undead After reading through the various contributions here, I think this might well be the best way to approach the subject. The character wouldn't approve of undead in general, though might be willing to tolerate them in extenuating circumstances. Any indivivudal who creates or commands undead will immediately gain his attention, and the result will not likely be good for them. As to the earlier mention of the paladin being willing and ready to put foes to death, that is an important piece of this character concept. Not all enemies deserve to die, but this paladin will not hesitate to kill those he sees as deserving of death. Those who kill needlessly (and disrespect the sanctity and importance of death by doing so) invite death upon themselves according to this character and he is more than willing to be the executioner in such a case. In most fights he'd be going for the kill unless he specifically wanted prisoners; if you use a deadly weapon to attack somebody prominently displaying the symbol of a death goddess then you should be able to figure out how he defines self defense in that situation. I really do appreciate all of the thoughts and comments here. A few details would of course have to be worked out with the DM, but I've always been a fan of running character concepts by the DM first anyways (just to make sure it fits well with the campaign).