Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JadeFox 09-18-06, 11:44 AM	I am playing a CG Vampire Spawn 5 (Libris Mortus rules) in a 5th level game. One of the other PC's is a cleric going into Radiant Servant of Pelor, a fairly fanatical anti-undead class. She is making the argument that killing my charachter for being undead even when she knows him not to be evil isn't an evil act, because he is undead, which is just as bad as having the [Evil] subtype, since not evil-undead are Deathless. What is the best way to refute this argument? Furthermore, even if she dosn't slay me so long as I'm good, IC, she watches me like a hawk, waiting for me to slip up and do something that justifies a holy mace to the face. What alignment is this action, and what should I do to try and diffuse the situation?
DonJuanDemarco 09-18-06, 12:01 PM	Killing a good character because they are undead is not good. She does hate undead, so I can understand her argument for wanting to kill you, because she hates undead, but make it clear to her that is isn't good so much as it is a little racist. Watching you like a hawk is natural. she hates undead, you are one. Watch her like a hawk, too, because she has it in for you, and hope she dies first.
DarthVenator 09-18-06, 12:05 PM	This generally sounds like the reasoning of those oh so intelligent Paladins... Ask her whether she would kill an orc child. If she says "No, of course not" ask "Why not? Its the right thing to do as the orc is undoubtedly evil because its an orc" And so on and so forth. Finish by tying it in with you being a non-evil undead creature that has simply been given bad hand by fate. Your not evil, your misunderstood, and if she was any sort of decent person she would allow you the chance to redeem yourself before passing into the next life...again. Perhaps even turn it back on her by telling her that she shouldnt let her blanket hatred cloud her judgement, and that by killing you she will be doing exactly that. I find by generally placing them in similiar moral delima's that actually make people think about their actions, motivations and consequences leads them to logical conclusions that suits the ones you desire, if your the one to herd them into reasoning in such a way to begin with. A personal favorite of mine, thats been used in a movie, is "If you could end all suffering and injustice in the world by personally killing one child, would you do it?" As for if she does "Grant" you your unlife, her reactions after wards are kind of expected. You are, after all, a blood drinking undead creature working with a member of an order that loathes undead to the point that they can be considered fanatically anti-undead. Its kind of a situation you would have to kind of expect to role play given your current choice in class. Perhaps after a while of you doing nothing else but good, she may learn to trust you, and make you an exception to the Undead-must-die-again rule she has been imprinted with from the dogma of her chosen order.
mightymouse1107 09-18-06, 12:12 PM	I don't see what the problem is. Sounds like good, solid role playing on both your parts. (BTW, undead ARE inherently evil. Why do you think good clerics can turn them rather than rebuke them? This is why the occasional good aligned undead is an anomaly, and an opportunity for good role playing.) While attacking you may not be good, it would definitely not be evil, regardless of your alignment. And it would certainly not anger Pelor enough (probably not at all) to punish his cleric. The more interesting part should be when you do something spectacularly heroic, or even save her life. If she is role playing well than your character's good, if somewhat independent, conscience should create an internal conflict for her. (Javert, anyone?)
danielinthewolvesden 09-18-06, 12:17 PM	Why did your DM allow you both in the same campaign?:confused:
Azrael The Dark 09-18-06, 12:26 PM	Well, he's good after all.
Missing Minds 09-18-06, 12:45 PM	This really goes up to the character's deity, as that is the one that grants said ability. Undead are a corruption of nature no matter what way you spin it. This is not the same as saying "all undead are evil and must be destroyed." If you are destroyed, you can't claimed to be killed. You are already dead. If you are destroyed, other player can aways claim that they were just releasing your soul. As it comes down to it... its really that its that player vs. you. Obviously that player has some issue and is going to make your rp heck it seems. Or if the player is a good rper and there isn't anything else, it could make for very interesting rp. I'd just talk it over with both player and DM as I'd hope all would want a fun time for all.
Bruunwald 09-18-06, 12:48 PM	Watching you so closely doesn't seem to be so much the work of an alignment-conscious character as it does an a**hole player. The tone of your post suggests that this is not bothering you in-character, but seems to be a problem of attitude between yourself and the other player. My advice so far as that goes is, either stick totally to being in-character and don't let it bother you so much, or have an out-of-character discussion with the player about how uncomfortable her focus and her zeal are making you. As for the problem with undead = evil in this person's mind, ask her what she would do if her beloved, long-dead grandfather's ghost made an appearance to warn her of some future danger. A ghost is undead. Would she attack it on sight, without listening to its warning or considering that the warning itself is the caring act of a beloved deceased person? I somehow think not. If she says she would, she is lying, and either way, she is applying a different standard for your character than she would in that case for other undead. If you can get away with it without being confrontational, you might want to then ask her what the holy-you-know-what her problem is with you.
danielinthewolvesden 09-18-06, 12:56 PM	As for the problem with undead = evil in this person's mind, ask her what she would do if her beloved, long-dead grandfather's ghost made an appearance to warn her of some future danger. A ghost is undead. Would she attack it on sight, without listening to its warning or considering that the warning itself is the caring act of a beloved deceased person? I somehow think not. If she says she would, she is lying, and either way, she is applying a different standard for your character than she would in that case for other undead. . She should do exactly that. She's a Radiant Servant of Pelor, a VERY fanatical anti-undead PrC of a very anti-undead Faith. She isn;t just a cleric- She's a special undead-killing tool of a special undead hating diety. Undead must be destroyed. Again, the question goes to the DM- why allow such antis characters int eh same group? Would you allow a Blackguard and a Paladin?:confused:
Deathstalker 09-18-06, 01:01 PM	You should convert to worship of Pelor. That should confuse the bejezus out of her, especially when you don't get struck down by Pelor himself for your audacity.
zae 09-18-06, 01:28 PM	Firstly, undead are not inherently Evil, they're inherently infused with Negative energy. Good is associated with, or at least prefers to use, Positive (lifeforce) energy (and it's positive energy that turns undead and cures people, not the alignment power. Heck, killing a human by filling them with positive energy til they explode, as per the plane, is just as Evil as killing them with a sword. In a vital-centric society, people onsider Positive good because it heals them. "If it's good for me, obviously it's truly Good. This is why cheese and crackers are Good aligned.") Evil is associated with, or prefers to use, Negative energy - a part of nature that causes things to die. Which is an important part of nature. Now, fill something with too much negative energy and it becomes undead, true. But remember, the negative energy here is not actually evil. It's just something that evil deities/outsiders prefer to use. Because it's associated with death, and living things view death itself as evil. Because it's something that will inevitably happen to them, and will stop them from being able to act normally (ie live). So the logic of te living is "Negative energy kills me, and I don't want that, therefore it's Evil. If it's bad for me, it's Evil. Fire and, due to my allergies, tomatoes, are very evil." Before someone says "Core rules say Undead/Negative energy is evil!", they don't specifically state that, they don't even outright say that casting (Alignment) spells is an (Alignment) act and changes your alignment. They have not made up their mind on undead. On the one hand, "Animate Dead" is evil. On the other, it creates mindles undead, and mindless things cannot have an alignment other than Neutral (see: plants, constructs, vermin), and there is a specific "Good Lich" variant that can cast Animate Dead as a spell-like ability. One might even go as far as thinking that a developed culture of undead would see Negative as being associated with Good, and Positive with Evil (note that this will not change the way their clerics work, because at the end of the day it depends on how their god views it. However for arcane casters who receive absolutely no effect from casting (Alignment) spells, Animate Dead might become (Good) or at least lose (Evil).) Back on track. You don't posess the [Evil] subtype. Your alignment is not Evil, and you are not actually evil (as in, haven't done evil things - it's all very well to write "Chaotic Good" on the sheet and hope the DM doesn'tnotice when you commit genocide). This means that despite bing undead, you are not evil. The cleric is using personal hatred, which is just as valid as me saying "I hate midgets*, therefore as a special exception it's not Evil if I kill midgets." That alignment sounds like Neutral Jerk *I don't, for the record. But I can't, off the top of my head, think of any blanket group of people I hate. So we'll pretend I do for the purpose of this debate.
OravennasBrother 09-18-06, 01:29 PM	Or the cleric could say "I know you're not evil, but the corrupting influence of negative energy will turn you evil over time and istead of see you lose you eternal rewards in the fields of elysium I will suffer the loss of a friend by destroying the undead shell you are forced to inhabit." OR if she is high enough level, she could GIVE you a ressurection. If you refuse it is a clear sign that the negative neergy is changing your thoughts and she needs to destroy the horrid abomination NOW before worse happens to you.
Sulaco 09-18-06, 02:02 PM	I am playing a CG Vampire Spawn 5 (Libris Mortus rules) in a 5th level game. One of the other PC's is a cleric going into Radiant Servant of Pelor, a fairly fanatical anti-undead class. She is making the argument that killing my charachter for being undead even when she knows him not to be evil isn't an evil act, because he is undead, which is just as bad as having the [Evil] subtype, since not evil-undead are Deathless. What is the best way to refute this argument? Furthermore, even if she dosn't slay me so long as I'm good, IC, she watches me like a hawk, waiting for me to slip up and do something that justifies a holy mace to the face. What alignment is this action, and what should I do to try and diffuse the situation? The alignment is Chaotic Stupid and it is held by the DM. Some conflicts within the party can be interesting, but allowing an undead PC and a undead-hunter PC in the same party is just folly, as evinced by the existence of this thread.
JadeFox 09-18-06, 02:04 PM	Or the cleric could say "I know you're not evil, but the corrupting influence of negative energy will turn you evil over time and istead of see you lose you eternal rewards in the fields of elysium I will suffer the loss of a friend by destroying the undead shell you are forced to inhabit." OR if she is high enough level, she could GIVE you a ressurection. If you refuse it is a clear sign that the negative neergy is changing your thoughts and she needs to destroy the horrid abomination NOW before worse happens to you. She's offered to convince a higher level cleric at her temple to restore me to life, I have refused on the basis that since I'm not hurting anyone, it's my choice to stay this way rather then go back to being a commoner.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-18-06, 02:07 PM	Or the cleric could say "I know you're not evil, but the corrupting influence of negative energy will turn you evil over time and istead of see you lose you eternal rewards in the fields of elysium I will suffer the loss of a friend by destroying the undead shell you are forced to inhabit." OR if she is high enough level, she could GIVE you a ressurection. If you refuse it is a clear sign that the negative neergy is changing your thoughts and she needs to destroy the horrid abomination NOW before worse happens to you. If the cleric stupidly plays this card, you counter and pull the self-fulfilling prophecy card. You use your unnatural stamina to outlast the cleric, then KILL HER IN HER SLEEP.
JadeFox 09-18-06, 02:11 PM	If the cleric stupidly plays this card, you counter and pull the self-fulfilling prophecy card. You use your unnatural stamina to outlast the cleric, then KILL HER IN HER SLEEP. This plan has potential. :plotting: :ayyyy!: TBH, this probably will be my plan if things don't go well, but I'm going to mantain my good alignment and not strike first. If she tries to turn/smite me, I'll retreat and return later, but she would have to make the first move.
Bruunwald 09-18-06, 02:12 PM	She should do exactly that. She's a Radiant Servant of Pelor, a VERY fanatical anti-undead PrC of a very anti-undead Faith. She isn;t just a cleric- She's a special undead-killing tool of a special undead hating diety. Undead must be destroyed. Again, the question goes to the DM- why allow such antis characters int eh same group? Would you allow a Blackguard and a Paladin?:confused: This steps a bit too far into the realm of free will. I understand what you're saying, but I fear you may be interpreting class description as an unbending, definite rule dictating personality. It isn't. With few exceptions, it's a flavor-guide as to what that sort of character is usually (but not always) about. But that's neither here nor there. Because though I understand what you're saying about the type of character the player is trying to portray, I still get the feeling that the OP is really complaining more about how the player is treating him through their characters, than how the PCs are interacting. Read between the lines. If it were simple character interaction, he'd probably not be posting here. He's being bothered by this. That indicates a player-on-player problem. And anyway, our notion of good roleplaying doesn't have to so encompass every tiny detail of every situation as to make others uncomfortable. Player #2 could just as easily roleplay her cleric as getting "used to" or "over" the situation, or at least tone it down enough that the other guy isn't squirming in real life everytime they game.
ShadowDragon8685 09-18-06, 02:23 PM	Killing me in my sleep isen't a good idea. The other two members of the party are living. They compromise a Half-Orc, Half-Giant (template) Barbarian with a ludicrous power attack, and a Warmage (or whatever that armored wizard from the Complete Arcane is.) Both of them very, very much like Positive Energy when they get hurt. Also, I would like to note that JadeFox was originally batting around ideas including a werewolf and a wizard, and only chose to go with a vampire spawn once I had told him of my finalized idea to make a Cleric going for the Radient Servant of Pelor. In my opinion, this is an out-of-game disruption, and in-character it makes no sense for my character to allow his to continue to exist, since he ain't alive. And the offer of ressurection was made. The warmage at least also brought up the idea of being restored to life, and was refused. Frankly, I see JadeFox as stirring the **** here. He's playing an antagonistic character with the passive-agressive defense of "But I'm Chaotic Good! So I suck things for my meals, so what?" It's akin, as was said, to playing a Blackguard in a party with a Paladin. Oh, and for the record? We play online. I've known JadeFox for ages, as any long-timer on this board who's seen our 'debates' can attest. He's anything but 'squirming' about this. He's looking for a fight, but he wants to goad me into making the first move.
JadeFox 09-18-06, 02:27 PM	Oh, and for the record? We play online. I've known JadeFox for ages, as any long-timer on this board who's seen our 'debates' can attest. He's anything but 'squirming' about this. He's looking for a fight, but he wants to goad me into making the first move. Oh, yeah, because I'm totally threatened to kill your charachter every 10min or so. No, wait, wrong. That was you. And the offer of ressurection was made. The warmage at least also brought up the idea of being restored to life, and was refused. Allready addressed this above.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-18-06, 02:32 PM	Bah, killing bigot characters in their sleep is always a good idea, whether they be racist, ageist, alignmentist, lifeist, or anything else I forgot to mention. :P
Shinryouga 09-18-06, 02:51 PM	Really, my following advice only works if this is an completely in-game dillema. If the player's are a looking for an excuse to throw down, it wont do any good, but if the PCs are where the sparks are flying, here we go. A very recent dragon magazine did a large article on the beleifs of the Pelor worshippers. One part of it is very relevant to this argument. Its one of the "fables" of the Pelorian dogma. Pelor doesn't hate the undead. He pities them. Because they turned away from goodness and light, and because they turned away from it for so long, now it harms them. But his forgivness is total, and he would welcome them back if they turn against their dark ways. He is not angry at the undead, only at the evil they do. Remember, most undead were once living people at one time, people Pelor protects and loves. Pelor is concerned with helping other people first, and then opposing evil. A mortally wounded blackguard would receive healing, even as he bragged about the champions he has slain. The church would still watch him and oppose his evil plots as long as he was in their area of influence. Pelor is a god of healing, light, health, joy, forgiveness, and overall unfathomable, unlimited good. Granted, this is all from a Dragon Magazine article. But it could easily fix the problem if your group adopted its ideas. You're good, you've turned away from your evil, maybe one day Pelor himself will welcome you back and the sun won't hurt you anymore. Tie yourself to Pelor more (he is the Sun, Good, and Healing diety, who else could possibly have more potential positive influence in your character's life?) and prove that you're one of the good guys, and that killing one of the good guys helps no one, and lets evil grows stronger in good's absence. Just me two coppers.
Optimator 09-18-06, 02:52 PM	**** Undead.
ShadowDragon8685 09-18-06, 02:57 PM	You make a good point, Shinryoga. *erases Pelor, writes-in Lathander.* Problem solved. :) Seriously, I'm just hacked off because Jade made an undead character to screw me over. I've basically wasted two feats and a Domain, because I can't perform a Turning in the vicinity of him without him having some justification to claim he was attacked, and then murder my character in her Trance. (Elf.) So basically, my ability to Turn Undead, my Sun domain power, and my Extra and Empowered Turning feats are useless because of him.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-18-06, 03:02 PM	So you tell him to get out of the way, give him exactly 1 round to do so, and then bust out the turning and undead exploding. If he's concerned about survival, he'll get out of the way. If he's just looking for a fight, he won't, and if he doesn't turn you get a bit more serious about offense. Either way this can only end in one or both of your deaths. Preferably both. Er, your characters, I mean.
JadeFox 09-18-06, 03:05 PM	So you tell him to get out of the way, give him exactly 1 round to do so, and then bust out the turning and undead exploding. If he's concerned about survival, he'll get out of the way. If he's just looking for a fight, he won't, and if he doesn't turn you get a bit more serious about offense. Either way this can only end in one or both of your deaths. Preferably both. Er, your characters, I mean. I have no problem with "I'm about to turn! Get out of the way!" That's not different then a wizard saying "Fireball incoming! Move your ass!" But what I expect more is *KA-BLAM!* "Oh....yeah. I'm about to turn. Just a heads up."
ShadowDragon8685 09-18-06, 03:08 PM	Except that a Cleric should not have to forewarn because of a Turning attempt, because a Vampire Spawn was never meant to be a PC. Especially one in the party of a Cleric. You're just starting trouble, stirring the ****, and looking to throw down and prove your 1337 superiority over my character.
JadeFox 09-18-06, 03:10 PM	Except that a Cleric should not have to forewarn because of a Turning attempt, because a Vampire Spawn was never meant to be a PC. Especially one in the party of a Cleric. You're just starting trouble, stirring the ****, and looking to throw down and prove your 1337 superiority over my character. Translated out of whiny :censored: : "Waaa! Having to occasonaly hold an action for one round is so hard. I want you to abandon a PC you like so that I don't have too."
KirkBb 09-18-06, 03:14 PM	Shadow Dragon, that is too bad, you should not have to cater to the whims of this character, inform him during his tunr that you are going to turn undead (it is a free action to talk, if you don't want your DM to use this to an enemies advantage, talk in a different language) if he doesn't use this oppurtunity to leave, its his own damn fault.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-18-06, 03:15 PM	:yuck: In a fair world, your party would include a frenzied berserker that can outrun both of you, and has an affinity for pre-emptively smashing caskets.
ShadowDragon8685 09-18-06, 03:23 PM	Translated out of whiny :censored: : "Waaa! Having to occasonaly hold an action for one round is so hard. I want you to abandon a PC you like so that I don't have too." You only like your PC because it gives you an excuse to :censored: with me!
JadeFox 09-18-06, 03:31 PM	You only like your PC because it gives you an excuse to :censored: with me! No, I like him because he's whimsical and funny, while having a come-back-to-life ability that means he can get away with rolling nat 1's on his saving throws from time to time, as I'm known to do.
TheChilliGod 09-18-06, 03:42 PM	*pops in late* :eek: Woah! I didn't know you two (Jadefox & Shadowdragon) still played together! I thought by now you would have just blocked each other and switched to different groups. Lets face it, though. You two can't resist playing together. Aww. :love: Okay, looniness aside, we have a situation unfolding right before our eyes. Part of the problem is that Shadowdragon claims Jadefox made his vampire spawn immediately after Shadowdragon declared his intent on a Radiant Servant, to specifically spite him and screw over his cleric. The other part is that both of you claim that Shadowdragon doesn't want to have his servant adapt to the vamp spawn's... condition, during battle, on account that he shouldn't have to. It's most likely not that it is difficult to say "4!", rather a matter of principle. In either case, both of you would prefer the other's character dead. Now, I've forgotten what your DM's like. Is he that sort of guy that would allow any party combination regardless of the consequences, or does he like overseeing these inter-PC conflicts? Does he have anything at all to say on this situation (and by now, when players are flaming each other on public boards, it has probably gotten to that stage where he needs to)? We have four solutions to this mess. Shadowdragon's is to kill the spawn of undead, Jadefox's is to kill the cleric in his sleep, and Shaggy_Shaggs' is to simply for the cleric to give fair enough warning. Mine own is for the vampire spawn to simply not be in the same room as the cleric when undead are lurking. Maybe when it gets to this kind of situation, the vampire spawn could perhaps scout ahead in gaseous form, or sneak behind enemy lines and position himself to be at least 65 ft away from the cleric, so he can shoot dominations or arrows or something. Alternatively, if neither of you can tolerate the other's PC's presence in the campaign at all, then I suppose the only fair way to go about it is to either retire both characters, or for one to kill the other. "Have at ye!" kinda thing. Good luck, eh. ;)
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-18-06, 03:45 PM	Actually, I'm currently of the opinion that they should both be destroyed by a third party, or that one should destroy the other and then a third party destroy the survivor.
JadeFox 09-18-06, 03:52 PM	Lets face it, though. You two can't resist playing together. Aww. .....nah :noway: :shifty: Now, I've forgotten what your DM's like. Is he that sort of guy that would allow any party combination regardless of the consequences, or does he like overseeing these inter-PC conflicts? Does he have anything at all to say on this situation (and by now, when players are flaming each other on public boards, it has probably gotten to that stage where he needs to)? "Your all intellegent people. You should be able to solve it on your own." No intervention what-so-ever. Good luck, eh. Thanks! :clap:
kelvinaw273 09-18-06, 05:00 PM	The person is perfectly in character to be suspicious of you ... at any time you might crack and succumb to your undead nature, in her view, so she WILL watch you. On the other hand if she knows you are not evil, she has no excuse to kill you, and should suffer the consequences if she tries even by 'accident'. As long as you use your powers for the good of all she cannot complain. If you are actively trying to find a way to return to humanity, good for you (I tried that in a game of Vampire ... made for an epic story), and she cannot fault you. But you enjoy the power of being a vampire spawn, beware, for power corrupts ....
Aeromus 09-18-06, 05:08 PM	Personlly I think Jadefox is being a prick. I'd have already used my sun domain to destroy you if I was the cleric of Pelor. And, using the Ghost of her grandfather, maybe when confronted with someone she loved she might hesitate to destroy the undead. But, against an undead, she doesn't know, causing her agnst, yeah you'd have been turned hard and fast.
Grod_The_Giant 09-18-06, 05:11 PM	You should convert to worship of Pelor. That should confuse the bejezus out of her, especially when you don't get struck down by Pelor himself for your audacity. best idea on this thread.:P Or, perhaps, since a big issue seems to be turning undead, ask the DM if you can be immune to this since you're good-aligned (remember the reformed vampires from diskworld? ).
Reversefigure4 09-18-06, 05:12 PM	I'm of the opinion first come, first served - you're obligated to make PCs that fit into the group. It's considered extremely poor manners to dump a Paladin into an evil party and demand the group just deal with it. Likewise, putting an undead party member in with an undead hunter (or vice versa) is poor form. Now your fun is intruding onto other players. I will point out that if ShadowDragon's cleric is the group's only source of healing, I'd expect the undead to be screwed sooner or later. Any healing spells will only hurt him, and clerics of Pelor won't be casting Inflict spells to help heal undead. Since neither of you seems willing to back down and play a different character, why don't you both compromise? Make two entirely new characters, ones that can actually work together in a party and don't needlessly antagonise each other.
bave 09-18-06, 05:18 PM	This is not a terribly hard problem. One player chose a very normal character, a cleric of pelor. Another player chose a whacky character, which generally exemplifies an unnatural emobiment of evil, hense the spells used to make undead have the evil descriptor. That said, most good clerics (if not all), will simply destroy undead on sight as they see it as an abomination and completely against everything they stand for, particularly for pelor and lathander. If someone here is whining, its mr.vampirespawn. Get a grip, grow up and play a normal character that has a *chance* of interacting with the group. No wonder this is an online game, no one would have the balls to roll this one across a table.
OravennasBrother 09-18-06, 05:35 PM	She's offered to convince a higher level cleric at her temple to restore me to life, I have refused on the basis that since I'm not hurting anyone, it's my choice to stay this way rather then go back to being a commoner. But when the negative power DOES corrupt you, then your soul will be irrevocably lost to goodness and you will have managed at least some evil acts prior to being destroyed. Moreover, your insistence on staying in your more powerful form, despite the dangers, is itself a sign you need help to the right side of the grave. Thus when you are in the temple of her deity she can request the aid of her church in taking care of you. Finally all she needs do is put you in sunlight; or does that not destroy vampires anymore?
Chrono Nexus 09-18-06, 05:38 PM	Ask the Cleric's player if killing a 9-month pregnant homicidal woman would be allowable. Then tell her you're pregnant.:P
Count Arioch the 28th 09-18-06, 05:47 PM	Here's the real question: why isn't the PC in question constantly being turned anyhow? Turn undead does not differentiate between friend and foe. If the cleric uses turn undead and the PC is in the radius, the PC is affected. And to be honest, the racial drawback "Evil clerics can make you their personal slave without a save with a standard action" is enough for anyone to not want this PC in the party. I'm going to say that the DM doesn't know what he's doing.
DarkRhystar 09-18-06, 06:09 PM	I'm going to say that the DM doesn't know what he's doing. Looks to me like there's going to be PvP in the near future too... http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=704585
JadeFox 09-18-06, 08:45 PM	This is not a terribly hard problem. One player chose a very normal character, a cleric of pelor. Another player chose a whacky character, which generally exemplifies an unnatural emobiment of evil, hense the spells used to make undead have the evil descriptor. That said, most good clerics (if not all), will simply destroy undead on sight as they see it as an abomination and completely against everything they stand for, particularly for pelor and lathander. If someone here is whining, its mr.vampirespawn. Get a grip, grow up and play a normal character that has a *chance* of interacting with the group. No wonder this is an online game, no one would have the balls to roll this one across a table. ACtually, he gets along quite well with the rest of the group thanks.
Wuggadad 09-18-06, 10:43 PM	"She's offered to convince a higher level cleric at her temple to restore me to life, I have refused on the basis that since I'm not hurting anyone, it's my choice to stay this way rather then go back to being a commoner." Hmmm. Vampire Spawn is not Chaotic Good, at that point. At best Chaotic Neutral. I have issues with the angst-ridden undead who fight the temptations and instincts of their physical form in order to fight other undead and other evil, but they are at least valuing the living form. Once your Spawn makes the decision that the powers of the Spawn are more valuable than the prospect of returning to life, your character can not really be considered "Good". I have no problem with an undead on a redemption quest being Good. It is a bit clicheed and may get annoying, but it is still Good. Someone who plays a Spawn and their character stays a Spawn because they like the pluses would have to tread a narrow path to even stay Neutral in alignment. And killing the cleric would, in a good-aligned campaign, instantly turn your character into an NPC villain. So yes, you can have good-aligned Spawn. A spawn who seeks to kill all vampires, perhaps. A spawn who feels they have to make up for the damage they did before they gained control over their abilities. But to say, "I want to stay a spawn because I don't want to become a commoner" is not that. I say, provoke a confrontation that gets your Spawn turned into a pile of dust and come up with a good-aligned character next time.
Aeromus 09-18-06, 11:25 PM	Shadow stated he made his character first. If that statement s true. Then it is Jadefox who screwed the pooch.
JadeFox 09-18-06, 11:46 PM	Shadow stated he made his character first. If that statement s true. Then it is Jadefox who screwed the pooch. Your assuming one caused the other. Mine was unrelated. Vampire Spawn is not Chaotic Good, at that point. At best Chaotic Neutral. I have issues with the angst-ridden undead who fight the temptations and instincts of their physical form in order to fight other undead and other evil, but they are at least valuing the living form. Once your Spawn makes the decision that the powers of the Spawn are more valuable than the prospect of returning to life, your character can not really be considered "Good". Why? If he restores to life, he's a first level commoner again. He can't do any good as an adventurer, and how is his spawn form inherently evil? But to say, "I want to stay a spawn because I don't want to become a commoner" is not that. I say, provoke a confrontation that gets your Spawn turned into a pile of dust and come up with a good-aligned character next time. Is it wrong not to want to spend your entire existance farming for some lord who might or might not have one of his knights hack your head off?
Dragoncat 09-19-06, 12:41 AM	Personally, I think both of these people need to calm down and tolerate each other. Yes, one's undead, the other hates undead. Woohoo. Watch each other like hawks, make spiteful comments once in a while, but that's it. No slaying in the middle of the night, no smiting the CG creature because someone bit him way back when. Stop using the in-character conflict to cause tension outside the game. Instead, use it productively, to explore new avenues of roleplaying. Maybe the cleric questions temple dogma, maybe the spawn wonders about what life is like with a pulse. Maybe they actually find themselves getting along when the proverbial dung hits the fan and they have to save the village together. Or maybe they continue to hate each other. Whatever. Be frustrated in, not out, of character. You both obviously have had fun playing together in the past, or it was at least tolerable. So just work it out, forgive each other and go back to enjoying the game. That's what it's there for, after all. Once your Spawn makes the decision that the powers of the Spawn are more valuable than the prospect of returning to life, your character can not really be considered "Good". Er, no. It doesn't. Take that lovely lass, the succubus paladin who won the character competition. She could probably get her race changed via a wish, but she doesn't. Is that a problem? No. She's Lawful Good, smites evil, and looks mighty fine doing it. Her form is more evil than an undead, yet she uses it for only good deeds, ergo she is Good. A warlock could have been granted power because his ancestor made a deal with a demon, but he can still be Good. He doesn't have to give up his power, but he has to use it for good means. Insert Spider Man quote here.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-19-06, 01:19 AM	A succubus isn't physically required to feed on the blood and life-force of creatures to go on living normally, though. Vampires and vampire spawn are. Wanting to stay undead to enjoy the benefits you have fighting other nasties (particularly other undead!) is fine. Wanting to stay something that must permanently injure and/or kill to remain sane and functional, on the other hand, is certainly not Good. I wouldn't call it inherently Evil, he could legitimately buy livestock above board and keep himself fed that way. Still, voluntarily taking a risk that he might go on an insane uncontrolled rampage from hunger and start killing people whether he wants to or not, doesn't live up to the altruism that D&D's shade of Good implies. Being willing to take that level of risk, partly for personal reasons and partly to be more effective at destroying evil beasts more dangerous than himself, puts him at Neutral in my book, barring further information.
Aiaru 09-19-06, 01:21 AM	A warlock could have been granted power because his ancestor made a deal with a demon, but he can still be Good. He doesn't have to give up his power, but he has to use it for good means. Insert Spider Man quote here. I did something like that once - a Warlock who recieved his powers because a great-great-great-etc-grandparent traded the soul of one of his decendants (my PC) to a demon in exchange for power. Course, the taint of his evil action seeded into his line; the later generations were plagued by nightmares and such. My PC's soul was damned - no matter what he did, his soul was already the possession of a demon lord - but he himself was a good person...Chaotic Good, in fact. Sucks to be him. :-/ But...yeah. Back to the point of this thread. I think you guys need to stop hurling insults and accusations - that never works out well in gaming groups. Try using "I feel..." statements. :D
Always-Late 09-19-06, 01:32 AM	JadeFox, ShadowDragon, you fail at choosing games. Both of you. I remember a thread where JadeFox, you were DMing, and ShadowDragon, you were playing, and you voiced a boards complaint about how "My DM doesn't know how to make a balanced encounter, help!" because apparently you and your party got all the happy beaten out of you by a white dragon, was it, and then we had discussions about dragons and fire shields and adamantine barding and rays of frost and loaning mages and horribly unbalanced characters and time out and DM fiat and special preparation and unbalanced treasure charts and everything one side or the other had ever done to mess up the game and all sorts of stupid, stupid, STUPID stuff. I think the thread got locked because people started flaming left and right and people jumped in and essentially the whole thing disintegrated into a "Lets All Bash On JadeFox" thread. This isn't even a question about why a Vampire Spawn and a Radiant Servant of Pelor are in the same game. Why are you two players in the same game when you obviously can't stand each other's guts?
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-19-06, 01:43 AM	Why are you two players in the same game when you obviously can't stand each other's guts? Nah, it's not like that at all. Obviously, they're in love, and much like kindergarteners too immature to cope with those feelings, they express it by beating and bullying each other. :P
Jon of the North 09-19-06, 02:01 AM	OK, I'm very confused. Why are JadeFox and ShadowDragon having this argument/ backbiting fest/ whine session in front of strangers when they should just try to get the GM to get off his rear and referee? See, I'm a private person who understand the need to blow off steam but who values party unity. If I had a great idea for a NE Ranger with favored enemy: Human but someone else was playing a human Paladin, I'd be willing to shelf my ranger. Both of you are being paranoid, selfish, and self centered. JadeFox gets a small edge in compition since he had the chance to change his character. By the way, what does your vampire Spawn really add to the party? I'm sorry, but to quote SW: KOTOR "This can only end in blood."
ShadowDragon8685 09-19-06, 03:05 AM	JadeFox, ShadowDragon, you fail at choosing games. Both of you. I remember a thread where JadeFox, you were DMing, and ShadowDragon, you were playing, and you voiced a boards complaint about how "My DM doesn't know how to make a balanced encounter, help!" because apparently you and your party got all the happy beaten out of you by a white dragon, was it, and then we had discussions about dragons and fire shields and adamantine barding and rays of frost and loaning mages and horribly unbalanced characters and time out and DM fiat and special preparation and unbalanced treasure charts and everything one side or the other had ever done to mess up the game and all sorts of stupid, stupid, STUPID stuff. I think the thread got locked because people started flaming left and right and people jumped in and essentially the whole thing disintegrated into a "Lets All Bash On JadeFox" thread. This isn't even a question about why a Vampire Spawn and a Radiant Servant of Pelor are in the same game. Why are you two players in the same game when you obviously can't stand each other's guts? Actually, that one wound up in a "let's all bash ShadowDragon" thread. In his defense, now, Jade's not the one DMing this one. A guy who's fairly new to DMing is, and though I don't (yet) have his AIM, I can't contact him to talk to him. And Jade is basically being a prat by posting this, so I figured I'd be one right back. Hell, we're used to it by now. Mutual prattery, that is. As to why the fight is out here - because JadeFox started off playing to the crowd, and being the sucker I am, I coulden't resist presenting my side of things and trying to suck the thunder and wind from under his wings. That, and I'm hacked off that he's basically doing his best to create an undead character designed to flaunt my best efforts at building a Turningmaster Cleric.
dizfactor 09-19-06, 03:44 AM	This is why alignment is stupid. Both the vampire spawn and the undead hunter are acting exactly like they should. Each thinks the other one is morally wrong, and because they don't share a set of base assumptions about the nature of morality, their conflict is essentially unresolvable. --- Also, if they had each created their characters separately, I would have said that JadeFox had every much right to play his character as ShadowDragon has to play hers (both, of course, subject to DM approval). ShadowDragon's argument that "vampire spawn were never meant to be PCs" is quite frankly a crock. The trend over at least the past 15 years in the RPG industry as a whole and even in D&D has been towards maximum inclusion as far as playability of intelligent creatures goes, and that is exactly as it should be. There is only one reason an intelligent being should be considered "unplayable," and that's if it doesn't fit into the DMs specific campaign. That said, they did not create their characters separately. ShadowDragon already had an established undead-hunting fanatic as a character in play. JadeFox is not stupid, and he had to know this choice would be divisive. He has no right to play the victim, as any reasonable person would have seen this conflict coming a mile down the road. Moreover, ShadowDragon has every right to assume that JadeFox is playing this character just to spite her.* There are only three possible conclusions that we can draw from this about the DM: 1) He's totally OK with potentially lethal intraparty conflict. Maybe he wants to let his players have maximum choice as far as characters go, and is willing to let the chips fall where they may, or maybe he's a sadistic DM who likes seeing his players chew each other up. Whatever. 2) He's got something against ShadowDragon, and is secretly delighted at seeing JadeFox screw her over. Maybe he's hoping she'll leave the game, maybe he thinks it's funny poking at her like an animal in a cage. Maybe he's jealous of her because she gets all the attention from Jade Fox. Again, whatever. 3) He's totally incompetent. * As part of their bizarre little flirtation games. I guarantee you that they've had cybersex at least once.
allenchan 09-19-06, 03:58 AM	"Your all intellegent people. You should be able to solve it on your own." No intervention what-so-ever. Ignoring all the intraparty squabbling and OOC issues, my suggestion is to make the DM intervene. The cleric should use turn undead. Tell the DM you're calling to Pelor to judge your adventuring companion. If your companion is destroyed/turned/whatever, then clearly your Good diety saw it fit to remove the undead from the world. If your DM has your turn attempt work differently, then perhaps the non-evil undead is okay in this specific circumstance for the greater good or whathaveyou. Personally, I'd wager on it popping the vamp spawn, especially because LA really hurts him. But in any case, God's decisions = DM's opinion.
dizfactor 09-19-06, 04:00 AM	Ignoring all the intraparty squabbling and OOC issues, my suggestion is to make the DM intervene. The cleric should use turn undead. Tell the DM you're calling to Pelor to judge your adventuring companion. If your companion is destroyed/turned/whatever, then clearly your Good diety saw it fit to remove the undead from the world. If your DM has your turn attempt work differently, then perhaps the non-evil undead is okay in this specific circumstance for the greater good or whathaveyou. Personally, I'd wager on it popping the vamp spawn, especially because LA really hurts him. But in any case, God's decisions = DM's opinion. Me likey. Me likey a lot. I think one of the most interesting possible outcomes is ShadowDragon failing her turn attempt. She would probably think Pelor wants her to tolerate the vampire spawn, but actually it's just that he's too powerful or her faith is too weak or something.
Sapp 09-19-06, 04:03 AM	There are only three possible conclusions that we can draw from this about the DM: 1) He's totally OK with potentially lethal intraparty conflict. Maybe he wants to let his players have maximum choice as far as characters go, and is willing to let the chips fall where they may, or maybe he's a sadistic DM who likes seeing his players chew each other up. Whatever. 2) He's got something against ShadowDragon, and is secretly delighted at seeing JadeFox screw her over. Maybe he's hoping she'll leave the game, maybe he thinks it's funny poking at her like an animal in a cage. Maybe he's jealous of her because she gets all the attention from Jade Fox. Again, whatever. 3) He's totally incompetent. * As part of their bizarre little flirtation games. I guarantee you that they've had cybersex at least once. Hahaha. Hey, is ShadowDragon really female? I thought just his character was female.
Sphyre 09-19-06, 05:25 AM	This steps a bit too far into the realm of free will. I understand what you're saying, but I fear you may be interpreting class description as an unbending, definite rule dictating personality. It isn't. With few exceptions, it's a flavor-guide as to what that sort of character is usually (but not always) about. I don't think that's quite on the mark. It's more likely that a demon or devil will have been turned good through some of the obscure rituals than someone who chooses to serve and follow an undead loathing god. Perhaps that NG rogue who worships Pelor on the side might warily consider not killing an undead that proves itself. ... but a cleric who follows the teachings of the god? By simple virtue of the fact that she considers that it might actually have merit, means that the cleric is second guessing the teachings of his/her god, and might end up stop worshipping that god. If you want to play a divine caster that doesn't trust his/her god, that's great, but unlikely given the choices that the OP has explained of the cleric. In fact, I once actually played a druid who was losing his faith in his god. If I got to play that character more, who knows what mind have happened to him and his faith, perhaps, he might have been godless, trusting only in nature itself. In a way I think we're on the same page... but I wouldn't know unless you go into more detail :)
Varia 09-19-06, 06:27 AM	Except that a Cleric should not have to forewarn because of a Turning attempt, because a Vampire Spawn was never meant to be a PC. Especially one in the party of a Cleric. You're just starting trouble, stirring the ****, and looking to throw down and prove your 1337 superiority over my character. Is there such a thing as l337 superiority over the most wildly unbalanced class in the game? I have my doubts... :P And all this concern over who is more l337 than who, coupled with your class choice- you wouldnt have a thing about being the most uber, would you? Hmmm... *Hugs* Varia
ShadowDragon8685 09-19-06, 08:09 AM	No, if I were the most unbalanced class in the game, I'm be a Druid. :P A Vow of Poverty Druid. Yes, I am a guy. Ew, dude. All I wanted to do was make a Turninglord cleric. The kind who vaporizes the undead whenever found. I never tried to figure out what other combinations of buffs would let me do things like out-barbarian the barbarian, or out-nuke the warmage. I just wanted to freakin' Turn Undead! And now the ability that I've focused my character on is shackled because we have a freakin' undead in the party, who if I try to use Turn Undead in his vicinity, will a: fry, thus reducing the party by a member and soaking up all those Turning HD I needed for the real enemy, or b: take it as a personal attack and drain me in my sleep.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-19-06, 08:17 AM	So stop whining about it and either destroy him, get along with him, make a different character, or give him a one-round warning before letting 'er rip with Greater Turning and letting him decide if he gets destroyed or not. Seriously, this thread gets sadder with every post. :nonono:
Missing Minds 09-19-06, 08:27 AM	Final answer. The cleric is killed and as such won't return given his faith. The undead is raised back to being a commoner, hence, unplayable. Both loose and need to create new characters.
JadeFox 09-19-06, 10:30 AM	A succubus isn't physically required to feed on the blood and life-force of creatures to go on living normally, though. Vampires and vampire spawn are. Wanting to stay undead to enjoy the benefits you have fighting other nasties (particularly other undead!) is fine. Wanting to stay something that must permanently injure and/or kill to remain sane and functional, on the other hand, is certainly not Good. I wouldn't call it inherently Evil, he could legitimately buy livestock above board and keep himself fed that way. Still, voluntarily taking a risk that he might go on an insane uncontrolled rampage from hunger and start killing people whether he wants to or not, doesn't live up to the altruism that D&D's shade of Good implies. Being willing to take that level of risk, partly for personal reasons and partly to be more effective at destroying evil beasts more dangerous than himself, puts him at Neutral in my book, barring further information. Most of the other PC's eat meat to sustain themselves, that's killing other creatures to maintain their existance. The threat of going insane is granted, but any creature can play "What if" games tha tmight leads to them harming someone at some point in the future, someone cannot be expected to change their actions to prevent endless possible future threats. Nah, it's not like that at all. Obviously, they're in love, and much like kindergarteners too immature to cope with those feelings, they express it by beating and bullying each other. :P *stab*:fight!: Also, if they had each created their characters separately, I would have said that JadeFox had every much right to play his character as ShadowDragon has to play hers (both, of course, subject to DM approval). ShadowDragon's argument that "vampire spawn were never meant to be PCs" is quite frankly a crock. The trend over at least the past 15 years in the RPG industry as a whole and even in D&D has been towards maximum inclusion as far as playability of intelligent creatures goes, and that is exactly as it should be. There is only one reason an intelligent being should be considered "unplayable," and that's if it doesn't fit into the DMs specific campaign. That said, they did not create their characters separately. ShadowDragon already had an established undead-hunting fanatic as a character in play. JadeFox is not stupid, and he had to know this choice would be divisive. He has no right to play the victim, as any reasonable person would have seen this conflict coming a mile down the road. Moreover, ShadowDragon has every right to assume that JadeFox is playing this character just to spite her.* How does it follow that one must be because of the other? And now the ability that I've focused my character on is shackled because we have a freakin' undead in the party, who if I try to use Turn Undead in his vicinity, will a: fry, thus reducing the party by a member and soaking up all those Turning HD I needed for the real enemy, or b: take it as a personal attack and drain me in my sleep. Or you could say "move out of the way"... Seriously, this thread gets sadder with every post. Aggred.
Rhomphaia 09-19-06, 10:48 AM	There is an old saying in Shadowrun... "Any compromise where all parties feel screwed is a good one." As such, both need to flat out make new characters of dissimilar archetype (no dropping one cleric to play a different cleric and no dropping one undead to play a different undead).
ShadowDragon8685 09-19-06, 12:21 PM	There is an old saying in Shadowrun... "Any compromise where all parties feel screwed is a good one." As such, both need to flat out make new characters of dissimilar archetype (no dropping one cleric to play a different cleric and no dropping one undead to play a different undead). You forget the colliary to that saying, Rhomphaia. "When Mr. J makes a comrpomise that screws you, he dosen't walk out of the club alive." That's why the best places to meet Mr. J are Club Penumbrae, or other places like it in the barrens, with friends watching. Friends with sniper rifles who get Mr. J for screwing you. :)
Wuggadad 09-19-06, 03:39 PM	A point: The vampire spawn wishes to remain in that state for the power and because they would have to become a farmer/commoner if they returned to life. I stated that there was no way that the vampire spawn was Good. I did not say that he was Evil, but that it would be a balancing act to stay Neutral. Staying a vampire is _not_ like a wizard keeping their spellbook. It is the lust for power and immortality that can lead a wizard to become a lich. That lust detaches them from sympathy with mortals. The proper comparison is not between a vampire choosing to become human again, but a decision by a wizard not to become a lich. I will be among the first to argue that spells like Animate Dead are not inherently Evil. But they can very easily lead to Evil. First a necromancer might dig through an old cemetary for bones. Not too bad. Then he will kill some enemies and turn them into undead. Again, not too evil. Then he might deliberately seek out particular monsters in order to kill them and bring them back as undead servants. Pushing it. The necromancer might also push it by the means he uses to acquire these spells. Does he contribute to a death cult temple that maintains an arcane library? Does he have an arcane master that he gets the ingrediants for powerful spells like the binding of demons? It might not be the spells or even how they are used, but the decisions made to get and maintain those powers that leads to Evil. And saying, "I want to be a powerful Vampire Spawn instead of a living commoner" says that he values power over life. He values the ability to prey on others over the life of the living. A commoner is more valuable to him for the blood he contains than because the commoner is a valuable living individual. Take an example from the literature. Joel Rosenberg's _Guardians of the Flame_ series. A bunch of gamers get turned into their characters and transported into the campaign world, and try to get home. One of the gamers dies, and the Matriarch of the Healing Hand offers to raise him with certain conditions. One of them is that the wizard, or the civil engineer guy playing the wizard, has to give up his "wizardness". That is, give up real magical power in order to get a friend back to life. The Vampire Spawn is clearly someone who would _kill_ said friend rather than lose his powers. The character in the story was Good. The Vampire Spawn is, at best, Neutral.
OravennasBrother 09-19-06, 04:30 PM	You know if the BVampire Spawn is a PC then he must have PC XP - Right? So if he gets ressurected then he loses a level, again right? But the +ECL for Vampire Spawn plus whatever undead Hit Dice the Spawn has makes the spawn far more than first level, right? So now, after being rezzed, this Human has XP to be (lets call it 5th level) and as a Vampire Spawn he either had PC class levels or Vampire Racial HD, so as best I can understand it the Vamire spawn brought back from the dead is NOW a living hero capable of confronting undead monstrosities, perhaps even able to take levels as Paladin (since he's GOOD, which was allegedly the working reason for allowing the vampire spawn to live) and as a BIG beneift, he no longer has to worry that his undead nature will corrupt his ideals. One of the priests of Pelor might explain that, and then when the vampire refuses he gets blasted by the Temple Priest, not the PC priest. In a game with all monster characters who cannot peacefully contact a temple to get rexxed, then playing an undead might be logistically feasible. But in this case the Vampire Spawn should be rezzed and go from there.
Always-Late 09-19-06, 05:04 PM	Ugh. TARGETED TURNING [GENERAL] Prerequisite: Ability to turn or rebuke creatures. Benefit: You may exempt specific undead from being turned. Normal: Without this feat, a character must turn the nearest turnable undead. Happy?
On_the_wings_of_TPK 09-19-06, 05:16 PM	A point: The vampire spawn wishes to remain in that state for the power and because they would have to become a farmer/commoner if they returned to life. I stated that there was no way that the vampire spawn was Good. I did not say that he was Evil, but that it would be a balancing act to stay Neutral. Staying a vampire is _not_ like a wizard keeping their spellbook. It is the lust for power and immortality that can lead a wizard to become a lich. That lust detaches them from sympathy with mortals. The proper comparison is not between a vampire choosing to become human again, but a decision by a wizard not to become a lich. I will be among the first to argue that spells like Animate Dead are not inherently Evil. But they can very easily lead to Evil. First a necromancer might dig through an old cemetary for bones. Not too bad. Then he will kill some enemies and turn them into undead. Again, not too evil. Then he might deliberately seek out particular monsters in order to kill them and bring them back as undead servants. Pushing it. The necromancer might also push it by the means he uses to acquire these spells. Does he contribute to a death cult temple that maintains an arcane library? Does he have an arcane master that he gets the ingrediants for powerful spells like the binding of demons? It might not be the spells or even how they are used, but the decisions made to get and maintain those powers that leads to Evil. And saying, "I want to be a powerful Vampire Spawn instead of a living commoner" says that he values power over life. He values the ability to prey on others over the life of the living. A commoner is more valuable to him for the blood he contains than because the commoner is a valuable living individual. Take an example from the literature. Joel Rosenberg's _Guardians of the Flame_ series. A bunch of gamers get turned into their characters and transported into the campaign world, and try to get home. One of the gamers dies, and the Matriarch of the Healing Hand offers to raise him with certain conditions. One of them is that the wizard, or the civil engineer guy playing the wizard, has to give up his "wizardness". That is, give up real magical power in order to get a friend back to life. The Vampire Spawn is clearly someone who would _kill_ said friend rather than lose his powers. The character in the story was Good. The Vampire Spawn is, at best, Neutral. But this isn't, a give up your powers to save a friend situation. Heck it isn't even give up your powers to save a perfect stranger. This is a give up your powers, so I can turn like a mowfo. This, is the commoner saying, no thank-you, I'm happy the way i am, please don't change me. Becides I can do more good in this form.
ShadowDragon8685 09-19-06, 05:56 PM	Ugh. TARGETED TURNING [GENERAL] Prerequisite: Ability to turn or rebuke creatures. Benefit: You may exempt specific undead from being turned. Normal: Without this feat, a character must turn the nearest turnable undead. Happy? At first, my reaction was "What the :censored: ? Sod off! I'm not gonna blow one of my rare feats on my prat-wad friend." Then I realized just how powerful this ability is. Consider: The primary defense of major mojo undeaders is not Turning Resistance. Turning Resistance can be overcome by a powerful or specialized Cleric. It's surrounding themselves with lots of low-HD undead minions to act as an ablative corpse-meat shield, because you always turn the smallest HD monster first. This feat would let me bypass all of them, and channel a holy turning straight down on the lich/vampire whatever. :)
Chrono Nexus 09-19-06, 06:07 PM	This feat would let me bypass all of them, and channel a holy turning straight down on the lich/vampire whatever. :) :eek: Wow that really makes turning useful... for once.
OravennasBrother 09-19-06, 07:04 PM	This, is the commoner saying, no thank-you, I'm happy the way i am, please don't change me. Becides I can do more good in this form. As well as significantly more harm. And they will retain MOST of their XP when rezzed, so they can STILL do good when returned to life. And how does one distinguish between a self sacrificing undead willing to risk their soul and one who is already starting to turn evil? You can't but you can be sure, and the GOOD undead gets to return to life as a HERO, not a MONSTER.
JadeFox 09-19-06, 10:17 PM	As well as significantly more harm. And they will retain MOST of their XP when rezzed, so they can STILL do good when returned to life. And how does one distinguish between a self sacrificing undead willing to risk their soul and one who is already starting to turn evil? You can't but you can be sure, and the GOOD undead gets to return to life as a HERO, not a MONSTER. It sounds to me like what your saying is "Returning to life is voluentary, and voulenterring is mandatory." If I am good, I can stay undead safely, and ergo, dont' have to go back to life if I do not wish too. Therefore, the mere fact that I want to turn back to life, by your logic, means I don't have too.
Wuggadad 09-19-06, 10:49 PM	Oooh. That is a good Feat. It would be an amusing story, too. A cleric who learns that Feat to avoid dusting a vampire ally that he does not particularly like, and discovers that it can be really useful in turning those undead that rely on Turning Sponges, er, zombies or whatever, to protect themselves from clerics. Total lol! As for the Spawn, we now have a character resisting being raised as a character with a comparable level of power, but _still_ refusing to consider it. Maybe it would lose a little power, and more style by becoming mortal. So? By existing as undead he greatly reduces the power of another character. The Spawn weakens the group by staying Spawn, and the cleric existed as a cleric of Pelor before the Spawn joined. One wonders how exactly that cleric was forced to accept the new character. Frankly, the Spawn should have been _really_ humble about joining a campaign with a Cleric of Pelor even before he became a turning machine. The LA for Spawn and the Turn Resistance make it close, (+2 LA and +4 TR, right?) so the cleric would need only Caster Level +2 and the once a day Sun Domain thing to fry the Spawn if the Spawn started at equal level. Not a gimme, by the way. Once you add the +2 to turning check for 5 ranks of religion, the charisma bonus, maybe Divine Energy Focus or Improved Turning, you are talking better than 50-50 the cleric could instantly dust your Spawn whenever he was within 60'. Finally, being accepted by the GM does NOT mean that the GM will force the other players to accept the character. Nor should he. If you did not give a reason why the Cleric of Pelor should accept your Spawn, why did you come whining to us?
Wuggadad 09-19-06, 11:07 PM	Oh, my bad. d20srd says Spawn have no Turn Resistance. Oh my. 5th level cleric with Improved Turning would need a result below 6 to fail to turn. I see +2 from 5 ranks of KS Religion, +2 from Glory Domain? A charisma of 12 or greater and your 4 HD Spawn is dust even on a roll of '1'. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is. The Spawn willingly joined a group with a character who can auto-kill him with a Standard Action, no save, no SR. And now he is complaining because said character is pursuing a career path that would allow him to instant kill the Spawn more than once a day? Please explain why your Spawn, in roleplaying terms, _wanted_ to join a group with a character that could auto-kill him with a Standard action? Or did the Cleric take Quickened Turning, allow him to kill your Spawn with a Swift action? Look, if there were an Orc Frenzied Barbarian in the party, and you brought in a wizard who insisted on poking with a dagger everybody until you drew blood, why would anybody be surprised when the established character turned your character into a damp red spot on the ground? Just because the GM _permitted_ you to bring a character who went around poking at everybody with your dagger is no reason to protect your character from the consequences.
MadRaccoon 09-20-06, 02:31 AM	Turn the creep. Sleep during the day, outside. What is an undead hunter doing sleeping at night anyway? Better yet, turn him (to ashes) THEN raise him.
ShadowDragon8685 09-20-06, 06:21 AM	I forgot the bonus from Knowledge (Religion)... But yeah. Jade keeps going on and on about how his Turning Resistance is so uber. Now I'm starting to think he's full of it.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-20-06, 07:37 AM	He could have the Improved Turn Resistance feat (which doesn't actually require you have turn resistance to start with).
ShadowDragon8685 09-20-06, 07:42 AM	He says he took it three times.... Bleh. Does a human vampire retain it's bonus feats?... For that matter, why would a (presumably) 1st level Commoner use his feats for Turning Resistance?
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-20-06, 07:52 AM	A templated race does retain its racial features unless the template specifically strips them, and vampire spawn doesn't. He can't take Improved Turn Resistance 3 times though. By default you may not take the same feat more than once, and Improved Turn Resistance doesn't make a specific exception of itself. He can have that feat once for TR +4, and that's it.
JadeFox 09-20-06, 09:06 AM	Oh, my bad. d20srd says Spawn have no Turn Resistance. Oh my. 5th level cleric with Improved Turning would need a result below 6 to fail to turn. I see +2 from 5 ranks of KS Religion, +2 from Glory Domain? A charisma of 12 or greater and your 4 HD Spawn is dust even on a roll of '1'. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is. The Spawn willingly joined a group with a character who can auto-kill him with a Standard Action, no save, no SR. And now he is complaining because said character is pursuing a career path that would allow him to instant kill the Spawn more than once a day? Please explain why your Spawn, in roleplaying terms, _wanted_ to join a group with a character that could auto-kill him with a Standard action? Or did the Cleric take Quickened Turning, allow him to kill your Spawn with a Swift action? Look, if there were an Orc Frenzied Barbarian in the party, and you brought in a wizard who insisted on poking with a dagger everybody until you drew blood, why would anybody be surprised when the established character turned your character into a damp red spot on the ground? Just because the GM _permitted_ you to bring a character who went around poking at everybody with your dagger is no reason to protect your character from the consequences. Libris Mortus advancement gives spawn turn resistance, combined with Improved Turn Resistance and Lifebond gives me an effective HD of 12 vs turn undead. I'm not seriously concerned about a default cleric turning me, though a Turninglord certanly could. As for my RP reasons for joining the party, since I'm emancipated spawn, my master vapire was killed. I figured, as part of my background, a sun cleric slew him. Since the DM had us start as a group and said "You get along for some reason, figure it out", I just said that someone from Shadow's clerics church did it, so I hang out with sun clerics whenever possible, kind of by default. He can't take Improved Turn Resistance 3 times though. By default you may not take the same feat more than once, and Improved Turn Resistance doesn't make a specific exception of itself. He can have that feat once for TR +4, and that's it. Plus Lifebond, and if it really comes down to it, I can take necromantic presence next level for another +4 on top of that, though I would rather not waste the feat. But yeah. Jade keeps going on and on about how his Turning Resistance is so uber. Now I'm starting to think he's full of it. Reply With Quote Keep dreaming.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-20-06, 09:25 AM	Undead you are isn't the same as undead you control. (If they were the same thing, undead clerics would count against their own limit for undead minions.) Even if you did take Necromantic Presence it wouldn't help you. Who's your Lifebond target, anyway?
JadeFox 09-20-06, 09:34 AM	Undead you are isn't the same as undead you control. (If they were the same thing, undead clerics would count against their own limit for undead minions.) Even if you did take Necromantic Presence it wouldn't help you. Who's your Lifebond target, anyway? My mistake, what I have is still pretty good though. And the party battlemage, we get along.
OravennasBrother 09-20-06, 10:11 AM	Therefore, the mere fact that I want to turn back to life, Well since you WANT to return to the living realms, I belive that the Cleric offerred to arrange it with the Church of Pelor. See, Problem Solved.
JadeFox 09-20-06, 11:02 AM	Well since you WANT to return to the living realms, I belive that the Cleric offerred to arrange it with the Church of Pelor. See, Problem Solved. Hypothetical situations are lost on you it seems.
OravennasBrother 09-20-06, 01:36 PM	Hypothetical situations are lost on you it seems. So are you saying you don't want to return to the living as the power of undeath has already seduced you? Evil undead need to be destroyed for the safety of all. I thought this thread was looking for an amicable compromise for a good Undead. One which when rezzed can even claim under feudal law that he is no longer bound to any estate - it passed to his heirs upon his demise (without heirs it escheats to his lord and he is STILL free). And with the class levels he will have on returning from his undead state he will still be a potent force for good, one without the burden of constantly fighting a craving for sentient lives. The freedom from that overwhelming hunger should be incentive enough for any good aligned undead to jump at the chance. FWIW there is a huge difference between eating Beef and People. In most regions it is legal to eat beef, but consuming people is both illegal and has a pretty large eww facter.
JadeFox 09-20-06, 01:43 PM	So are you saying you don't want to return to the living as the power of undeath has already seduced you? Evil undead need to be destroyed for the safety of all. I thought this thread was looking for an amicable compromise for a good Undead. One which when rezzed can even claim under feudal law that he is no longer bound to any estate - it passed to his heirs upon his demise (without heirs it escheats to his lord and he is STILL free). And with the class levels he will have on returning from his undead state he will still be a potent force for good, one without the burden of constantly fighting a craving for sentient lives. The freedom from that overwhelming hunger should be incentive enough for any good aligned undead to jump at the chance. FWIW there is a huge difference between eating Beef and People. In most regions it is legal to eat beef, but consuming people is both illegal and has a pretty large eww facter. No......no. >_< If I want to return to life for the safety of others, it means I'm safe around others, so I don't have to return to life for that reason. Ergo, I don't. If I don't want to return to life because I'm unconcerned about the safety of others, I don't. Since I don't *either way*, failing to turn back dosn't say anything about my alignment.
humantoilet 09-20-06, 02:17 PM	This is why people need to be intellectual adults before doing any kind of roleplaying. Whoever is playing the vampire is an obvious powergaming stat***** that is looking to cause conflict. Just kill him and be done with it and when he makes his revenge character to kill you, kill that one too.
Monster_Jam 09-20-06, 03:13 PM	1) I'm glad that I don't play in their campaign (and I wouldn't) 2) I feel sorry for their gutless DM and other players in the group (if they even exist)
OravennasBrother 09-20-06, 03:55 PM	If I want to return to life for the safety of others, it means I'm safe around others, so I don't have to return to life for that reason. The question is not WHY one wants to return to life, but whether one wants to return to life. If the vampire desires to be alive, then it will take the chance to be rezzed. This isn't second edition where a failed Ressuraection roll leaves it permanently dead. If it don't desire to be alive then it is a threat and must be destroyed. The Vampire can't have it both ways "I want to be returned to life, but I refuse to be returned to life." The refusal in and of itself is indicative that the vampire, for whatever reasons, is becoming tainted by the power of negative energy and turning evil.
JadeFox 09-20-06, 04:03 PM	The question is not WHY one wants to return to life, but whether one wants to return to life. If the vampire desires to be alive, then it will take the chance to be rezzed. This isn't second edition where a failed Ressuraection roll leaves it permanently dead. If it don't desire to be alive then it is a threat and must be destroyed. The Vampire can't have it both ways "I want to be returned to life, but I refuse to be returned to life." The refusal in and of itself is indicative that the vampire, for whatever reasons, is becoming tainted by the power of negative energy and turning evil. Negative energy is not inherently evil.
Aeromus 09-20-06, 04:26 PM	Uhm, yes it is. Name a use for negative energy that isn't evil.
MaximumHavoc 09-20-06, 04:28 PM	The cleric should approach a superior cleric of his/her order and request that the superior cleric cast commune. This will let the DM make the final, explicit declaration.
JadeFox 09-20-06, 04:31 PM	Uhm, yes it is. Name a use for negative energy that isn't evil. Every necromancy spell but the "Create/Raise Undead" line. Good aligned litches. Good aligned ghosts.
Always-Late 09-20-06, 05:29 PM	Uhm, yes it is. Name a use for negative energy that isn't evil.Inflict Serious Wounds on an evil wizard.
Reversefigure4 09-20-06, 05:34 PM	Since neither of you seemed to be interested in any sort of compromise, and the DM doesn't want to sort it out himself, there really doesn't seem to be much the board can do for you. Both of you just play your characters as you want. JadeFox will probably end up getting injured or killed in a turning, then he'll either kill the cleric or roll up a 'revenge' character to do it for him. Then you'll have new characters. Both of you know this is coming, both of you don't seem to be willing to try and avoid it, so eventually the problem will solve itself.
OravennasBrother 09-20-06, 07:02 PM	Negative energy is not inherently evil. Perhaps not, but the uses to which a vampire puts negative energy ARE evil - as is the vampire feeding on people. of course by the SRDV ampires and Spawn have "Alignment: Always evil (any)." So it DOES get confusing having someone talk about a "Good" vampire. IF I was playing a cleric and some vampire tried to tell me they were good I would make my Knowledge Religion check to see If I had ever ehard of a non-evil vampire. Then I would destroy the vampire as they are clearly using powerful magic to try and confuse my detection (should the Vampire demand a Know Alignment spell) for the diabolical purpose of seducing me away from goodness and toward evil. Sorry but it really seems a new character is in line for the vampire.
SokenzanMarauder 09-20-06, 07:08 PM	This thread is like a soapopera... -Gene
JadeFox 09-20-06, 09:35 PM	Perhaps not, but the uses to which a vampire puts negative energy ARE evil - as is the vampire feeding on people. of course by the SRDV ampires and Spawn have "Alignment: Always evil (any)." So it DOES get confusing having someone talk about a "Good" vampire. IF I was playing a cleric and some vampire tried to tell me they were good I would make my Knowledge Religion check to see If I had ever ehard of a non-evil vampire. Then I would destroy the vampire as they are clearly using powerful magic to try and confuse my detection (should the Vampire demand a Know Alignment spell) for the diabolical purpose of seducing me away from goodness and toward evil. Sorry but it really seems a new character is in line for the vampire. Always isn't always. Remember the 1% rule (may not be 1%...some low figure like that). 1% of creatures who have "Always X" as their alignement have the potential to be some alignment other then X.
Alac Luin 09-20-06, 10:44 PM	Uhm, yes it is. Name a use for negative energy that isn't evil. Everything in the prime material plane contains negative energy at some level. Along with positive energy and the four elemental energies are the six basic building blocks of everything on the material plane. Negative energy is present in every living character's body. Without it, the food we eat would not digest to a level the body can gain protein or carbohydrates that the body could use. The body would die. Negative energy is also seen in action when leaves fall off of trees. The negative energy is also what decomposes those dead leaves in a manner that buts nutrients back into the soil for later generations of plants in the area...... Negative energy is not inherently evil, but lends itself for evil uses easily. As for the op, RP wise, the cleric being an "undead hater" and not liking the vampire spawn is correct. I'm not sure I would allow this in my games, it's not a great for building positive party dynamics. I hope a resolution comes for your group.
Always-Late 09-20-06, 11:25 PM	Without any Negative Energy, the Prime Material would pretty much be a Positive Energy plane, and we we all knows what happens to people who amass too many temporary hit points...
Aiaru 09-21-06, 01:19 AM	If I want to return to life for the safety of others, it means I'm safe around others, so I don't have to return to life for that reason. Ergo, I don't. Um...not necissarily. You can be a good person and still **** up horribly because of the hideous craving for blood and life energy that pulls at you every waking moment. I'm not saying a good-aligned vamp spawn PC isn't possible, but if you really think that trying to avoid all the nasty bits of your condition is easy, you may be deluding yourself. Just because you chose to fight your nature and be good does not mean that all the drawbacks of your current state go away or even become more convenient. That's why good, especially for "evil" creatures, is hard. If I don't want to return to life because I'm unconcerned about the safety of others, I don't. Since I don't *either way*, failing to turn back dosn't say anything about my alignment. Your logic is, as I read it: "If I agree to becoming human again it's because I'm a good person, and because I'm a good person I don't need to become human. However, if I was really a nasty person deep down, I still wouldn't go back to being human." Can we say "circular logic"? How about "Neutral to Chaotic Neutral Alignment"? :D
Rhomphaia 09-21-06, 05:18 AM	I think the DM needs a hammergun for this one, knowing there is such a huge argument between two of his players and not stepping in to help sort it out is simply not doing his job too well. A preventative measure to this would have been banning certain types of characters (namely those that do not mesh with outher PCs by archetype), but he did not do that. Also, he refuses to try and difuse the situation, which is going to lead to woe and a loss of players down the road, detracting from everyone's fun. Personally, I feel the DM really needs to reconsider stepping in on this one.
ShadowDragon8685 09-21-06, 09:08 AM	I think the DM needs a hammergun for this one, knowing there is such a huge argument between two of his players and not stepping in to help sort it out is simply not doing his job too well. A preventative measure to this would have been banning certain types of characters (namely those that do not mesh with outher PCs by archetype), but he did not do that. Also, he refuses to try and difuse the situation, which is going to lead to woe and a loss of players down the road, detracting from everyone's fun. Personally, I feel the DM really needs to reconsider stepping in on this one. In all fairness, I don't know how to contact the DM. I never got contact information for him. Neither did the party warmage, who I will add also told the vampire he ought to get ressurected. So really, the only one who has any information about the DM's stance at all is, well.... JadeFox.
tuffn00gies 09-21-06, 09:12 AM	She's offered to convince a higher level cleric at her temple to restore me to life, I have refused on the basis that since I'm not hurting anyone, it's my choice to stay this way rather then go back to being a commoner. Sorry, Jade. That sounds kinda weak. I have a hard time understanding how someone who's really "good" would turn down an offer to become alive again. How long do you really think you can keep preying on mortals before you lose that G in your alignment? Even if you're not draining them to the point of death, it's still not a "good" thing to feed on a sentient creature. What if you create more spawn? What if they're not good? Realistically, I think a good character would see undeath as a curse and be happy to be restored to the living.
tuffn00gies 09-21-06, 09:15 AM	You make a good point, Shinryoga. *erases Pelor, writes-in Lathander.* Problem solved. :) Seriously, I'm just hacked off because Jade made an undead character to screw me over. I've basically wasted two feats and a Domain, because I can't perform a Turning in the vicinity of him without him having some justification to claim he was attacked, and then murder my character in her Trance. (Elf.) So basically, my ability to Turn Undead, my Sun domain power, and my Extra and Empowered Turning feats are useless because of him. Use your abilities as Pelor sees fit. Trust your living teammates to watch your back during trance.
ShadowDragon8685 09-21-06, 09:17 AM	Why exactly should we have to post a guard to watch out for the other members of the party?
tuffn00gies 09-21-06, 09:32 AM	Your assuming one caused the other. Mine was unrelated. Why? If he restores to life, he's a first level commoner again. He can't do any good as an adventurer, and how is his spawn form inherently evil? Is it wrong not to want to spend your entire existance farming for some lord who might or might not have one of his knights hack your head off? It really doesn't matter whether one caused the other. It's more of a question of which came first. Part of your resposiblity as a player is to come up with a character that fits in with the other characters. Does being restored to life take him back down to 0xp? There's no reason he couldn't come back as a rogue or fighter. He doesn't forget all the things he learned while a spawn (like how to handle himself in a fight). No, it's not wrong. But the avenue of escape you've chosen isn't one that a "good" character would choose. Sorry, the more I hear from you the more it seems like you're really getting off on being a disruptive *****.
OravennasBrother 09-21-06, 09:47 AM	Always isn't always. Remember the 1% rule (may not be 1%...some low figure like that). 1% of creatures who have "Always X" as their alignement have the potential to be some alignment other then X. Well what I read in the Monster Manual states that the exceptions to "Always" alignments are either unique or 1 in a million, which is a LOT less than 1% - its at the start of the MM on how to read Monster entries under reading the alignment block. So I'm still a bit confused - you've taken the slot which the DM might have used (I doubt there are 1,000,000 Vampires in the campaign so the good vampire must then be unique) to have the party encounter a Good Aligned Vampire in order to play a unique character. I'll be the first to admit that among players the "good Vampire" routine is so much the opposite of Unique as to be cliche, but that does not change that a player by taking that 1 in a million Good from an always EVIL gruop has already got a rather phenomenal advantage on the odds. To compensate did you take 10's (average) in all your stats since what makes the character "Unique" is its alignment?
Judging Eagle 09-21-06, 10:03 AM	Day comes. You pull the Spawn's coffin out of the illegal carrying method that is the Heward's haversack/Bag of Holding. There is no bag of either kind wide enough to accomodate a person's width, let alone a coffin. You open up the Spawn's coffin, while presenting your holy symbol into it's chest. The Spawn dies since you are 'strongly presenting' a holy symbol, thus cannot move. You take the ashes to a temple of Pelor and have them ressurected. The Spawn returns as a 1st lvl commoner with 4 lvls in other classes. The former spawn, since he is good, appreciates this all since he is a character who was good and appreciates the work that clerics of the sun do (said so himself) and isn't a powergamer who will stick to his ridiculous character concept when a better one is presented in game. The Redeemed former vampire spawn, who knows, maybe he becomes a cleric/paladin/...Fist of the North? Ask the DM if you can re-do the commoner level and the undead related feats. Then get ready to join Pelor's Mage and Undead elite hunting school "School of Boundless Horizons" and start your chamelon/witchhunter training. Everyone get's to kick ass, and there's no silly tautological arguments such as "I'm good, so I don't need to be ressed; if I was Evil I'd stay like this anyway." Really, it's a bad argument JadeFox, since you're assuming that you and the other players have no imagination at all. I don't see how your character doesn't feel the least bit guilty about craving and desiring the life of others to feed himself. Look at the first Vampire: computer game. The main character wants to to stop being a vampire, but he doesn't have the option. If he had the option of being ressed, how much do you bet he would take it? An other example would be Nicholas Knight from the 90's TV series Forever Knight; he's a vampire who works as a detective. He's not really keen on being a vampire and sure the series revolves around him getting 'cured' of his vampirehood (with him taking a final, irreversible course of action in the end); it shows the mindset and actions of what a vampire who 'is' good would try to do; cure his condition any means possible and impossible. Really, JadeFox; you have to recognize that there is no logical in-game reason for a 'good' person to remain in a form that is dangerous to both friend and stranger alike, when a perfectly possible solution exists that will not lower your character's effectiveness exists. Ask the DM if this is a viable alternative, then play one of the most powerful gish builds possible. I'm sure that the church of Pelor has an elite commando school to train evil wizard and undead hunters. Being a formerly powerful undead, you're charcter will know exactly what sort of temptation great power can create. Sorry if I sounded heavy-handed JadeFox; hopefully your DM will let you rebuild the character from scratch so as to maintain the party's social interactions healthier.
tuffn00gies 09-21-06, 01:19 PM	Why exactly should we have to post a guard to watch out for the other members of the party? Because, for some reason, the undead hating cleric of Pelor has a blood-sucking undead for a teammate? The problem here isn't really JadeFox or you for that matter. The blame falls solely on the shoulders of the DM who should've told Jade to come up with another character concept after knowing what you were playing. *But* since he didn't, the best option for you is to play your character to the fullest. An undead hating cleric is going to whack a vampire spawn whether it's another PC or not or at least die in the attempt. Just because Jade likes to use double speak OOC to defend his choice of CG alignment doesn't mean your character is buying it. I'd imagine that your character doesn't even consider the possibility of good aligned undead.
Tharin G'tal 09-21-06, 01:21 PM	JadeFox. Been watching too many Blade movies? Even Blade who is a good vampire, albeit half vamp, hates being a vamp and wants a cure! Your acting like a muppet and a spoilt child. At least the cleric is acting in character and according to her beliefs and alignment, damn it i'd watch you like a hawk knowing your a vamp no matter what class i was! Time to grow up mate and either get ressed, start a new character or if you really want to play this one do it in another game :D
Kethka 09-21-06, 04:33 PM	This thread is the Jerry Springer of the D&D boards. That said, everyone is chanting "Jerry" and waiting for ShadowDragon to get up and start beating JadeFox with a chair because everyone (except Jade, apparently) sees how painfully wrong he is. P.S. I think in this case the DM would be analogous to Jerry Springer.
JediTyler 09-21-06, 04:46 PM	kill her in her sleep
feartheinvinceblehamster 09-21-06, 04:48 PM	Perhaps not, but the uses to which a vampire puts negative energy ARE evil - as is the vampire feeding on people. of course by the SRDV ampires and Spawn have "Alignment: Always evil (any)." So it DOES get confusing having someone talk about a "Good" vampire. IF I was playing a cleric and some vampire tried to tell me they were good I would make my Knowledge Religion check to see If I had ever ehard of a non-evil vampire. Then I would destroy the vampire as they are clearly using powerful magic to try and confuse my detection (should the Vampire demand a Know Alignment spell) for the diabolical purpose of seducing me away from goodness and toward evil. Sorry but it really seems a new character is in line for the vampire. ALWAYS as an alignment entry means "99% of the time", how do you think that Fallen Angels are created?
ShadowDragon8685 09-21-06, 05:26 PM	ALWAYS as an alignment entry means "99% of the time", how do you think that Fallen Angels are created? The BoVD spell that torments an angel for a year and a day until they're CE when they come out?
allenchan 09-21-06, 05:41 PM	ALWAYS as an alignment entry means "99% of the time", how do you think that Fallen Angels are created? Magical influence. There are spells, etc that can change people's alignment. No mundane means are known, AFAIK
Chrono Nexus 09-21-06, 05:43 PM	Find a helm of opposite alignment. Problem solved.
OravennasBrother 09-21-06, 05:55 PM	ALWAYS as an alignment entry means "99% of the time", how do you think that Fallen Angels are created? I'll repeat RAW an Always alignment means exceptions are Unique or 1 in a MILLION. 1% is 1 in only 1 100, so 1% is tons more likely than 1 in a million.
Always-Late 09-21-06, 06:53 PM	Sorry if I sounded heavy-handed JadeFox; hopefully your DM will let you rebuild the character from scratch so as to maintain the party's social interactions healthier.I've got an idea! You're a tiefling. Thats evil. We will kill you and reincarnate you as something else. Tiefling again? Damn. Sorry, man, but we got to tie you down and CDG you again. Again? What luck is this? We know you're level 7, but it's for the greater good. Luck of the draw. I think there's some kind of force conspiring against us. Yeah, I'm getting blood on my clothes. Oh, you're out of Reincarnate? We'd better wait another day. Dang. I know it's chipping into your Con now, but please, you'll turn evil any other way. Finally! Okay, you lost eight levels and four constitution, but hey! It was for the greater good! Yeah, sorry about the fact that your character's totally and utterly shafted. But it was bad for the party dynamic. Since when is the party killing off a player conducive to a freaking dynamic? Why not just kill tie down the cleric and turn him into vampire spawn, too? After all, it's "conducive to party cooperation." Hey, you! Rogue, you! When we made this party, I made it clear that I was a paladin and I was not going to tolerate your stealing from other people? I'll mutilate your hands. That way, you won't steal! Awesome party dynamics!" (Sure. 1. Reincarnate doesn't make Tieflings, and 2. that's really bad luck. But what if it was a spell called, "Binding Reincarnate," where the chance of staying the same race is 90%. But it seems like a whole lot of people are saying that this would be a correct course of action, given the situation and the ability to use the spell at hand.) Pretend it's Eberron. Eberron relaxes the "always evil" and "always good" schtick by a lot. Is the only reason he can't play Vampire Spawn, despite this Vampire Spawn not being evil, is because it's against the rules?
Templetroll 09-21-06, 07:00 PM	Always isn't always. Remember the 1% rule (may not be 1%...some low figure like that). 1% of creatures who have "Always X" as their alignement have the potential to be some alignment other then X. So 1% of the time the good cleric of Pelor, with the special vocation of destroying undead, might have to seek atonement for having released an undead from their undead state. It is better for the cleric to seek forgiveness later than to ask permission before. If Pelor wants the church can resurrect the now released undead back to life! Which would please Pelor, I'm sure and go far in the atonement stakes for the faithful cleric.
Always-Late 09-21-06, 09:22 PM	So 1% of the time the good cleric of Pelor, with the special vocation of destroying undead, might have to seek atonement for having released an undead from their undead state. It is better for the cleric to seek forgiveness later than to ask permission before. If Pelor wants the church can resurrect the now released undead back to life! Which would please Pelor, I'm sure and go far in the atonement stakes for the faithful cleric.Or, you could do nothing, and, uh, do nothing, uh, and have a 0% chance of requiring an atonement.
Rhomphaia 09-21-06, 10:12 PM	In all fairness, I don't know how to contact the DM. I never got contact information for him. Neither did the party warmage, who I will add also told the vampire he ought to get ressurected. So really, the only one who has any information about the DM's stance at all is, well.... JadeFox. So he made himself available to one player. A screw up at best, nepotism at worst. Still the DM's fault.
Juzzman 09-21-06, 11:18 PM	I cant believe i read this far hoping for the shadowdragon post ".. so i toasted his ass good, time to roll a new char..." :-) Seriously, why would the vampire spawn even be in the group? The propaganda from the cleric and the possability of waking up with it attached to your neck should be enough for most people. The prospect of an evil cleric taking control of it mid battle should close the deal. You dont even have to have a high noon showdown. Just kick him out. If he starts stalking you, then take him out. If the rest of the party side with him, then you die and you can bring in that half illithiad half dracolitch ninja monk uber character! :-) I have to admit i'm biased against people that feel the need to bring in the cheese. i'd have initiated anti-spawn combat immediately. Juz
pmurray@bigpond.com 09-22-06, 12:43 AM	IShe is making the argument that killing my charachter for being undead even when she knows him not to be evil isn't an evil act, because he is undead Damn right. The unholy power than animates your body is a vile offence against all that is good and right. Your character is a walking blasphemy, whose so-called good acts are enabled by an unending evil, an unrepentant - yea, gleeful - howl of defiance against the proper order of the world. Even your most righetous deeds are filthy rags - pitiful grains of sand in the balance against the horror that is your very existence. How dare you claim to be "good" while clinging to unlife? You very insistence on continuing to walk around on Pelor's green earth in such a state gives the lie to your words. If your character truly was good, then he/she would refuse to live a hollow, blasphemous mockery of "life", and instead willingly go immediately to judgement. Really - who TF decided that a group with these two characters could work? Unbelievable. (PS: yeah, I played a RSoP for a while, too).
Ogmug 09-22-06, 02:47 AM	So what are you saying? You want to start a help group to make undead not be discriminated against? Undead is not a race. It's a type. "HILL GIANT" is a race, of GIANT! Goblin is a race of Humanoid. Undead have all races. Undead Troll Skeleton. TROLL is the race. Not Undead, and not skeleton! Actually, if you want to be correct Undead is a type. Giant is a type Humanoid is a type. When a creature is turned into an undead, it loses its original type and assumes the "undead" type. It therefore ceases to be a troll, giant, fey or goblin or whatever. And since in reality, all races are parts of subtypes, or have no subtype listed, undead very well could be considered a race by some. Additionally, the Libris mortis introduces the half-vampire template. since templates can be used to create races (see half-dragon) this could be considered such a race. Now, onto the issue at hand, both parties are being unreasonable. The vampire for expecting that the cleric woudl welcome him open arms the cleric for not working with the vampire to develop an interesting story. Perhaps the cleric is torn, because the vampire is a friend and he wants to "cure" him, but first must convince him that a cure is a good thing, etc.
Chrono Nexus 09-22-06, 08:20 AM	The unholy power than animates your body is a vile offence against all that is good and right. Your character is a walking blasphemy, whose so-called good acts are enabled by an unending evil, an unrepentant - yea, gleeful - howl of defiance against the proper order of the world. Even your most righetous deeds are filthy rags - pitiful grains of sand in the balance against the horror that is your very existence. You very insistence on continuing to walk around on Pelor's green earth in such a state gives the lie to your words. If your character truly was good, then he/she would refuse to live a hollow, blasphemous mockery of "life", and instead willingly go immediately to judgement. What is this "Judgement"? And Since when did Pelor own the Earth? The last time I checked, DnD is not set in Earth. Along that note, Deathless who sack vilages, torture and rape innocents on whims, desecrate holy grounds, perform unspeakable acts upon the servants of good in rituals of the evil profane, turn the holiest and most pious clerics of the most noble gods into servants of despicable evil, kill off the PC's family members, despite all these evil acts - are empowered by a powerful, overwhelming force of good! These unspeakable acts are nothing next to the mere fact that holy energy suffuses and empowers him! Despite his horrendous deeds, for which anyone else would be condemned to the Nine Hells, his mere existence spreads happiness and joy. If he was truly evil, he would choose to turn to the undead path - but he does not. He bathes in positive energy. He is truly, good at heart. How is this different from what you said, Aeromus? According to your logic, all creatures aside from Outsiders, Undead, and deathless are neutral because they are composed of equal amounts of the negative and positive energies. Grow up, Always-Late is right, and you insulted him because you aren't skilled enough to challenge his points in an intelligent way.
tuffn00gies 09-22-06, 09:22 AM	What is this "Judgement"? And Since when did Pelor own the Earth? The last time I checked, DnD is not set in Earth. I think if you read the PS line of his post it becomes rather obvious that he was speaking IC. How is this different from what you said, Aeromus? According to your logic, all creatures aside from Outsiders, Undead, and deathless are neutral because they are composed of equal amounts of the negative and positive energies. Grow up, Always-Late is right, and you insulted him because you aren't skilled enough to challenge his points in an intelligent way. Always-Late was rude and condescending and IIRC stated the first swear words in this thread (or at least the initial of a swear word). The fact that he never actually came out and called anyone a name doesn't mean his post deserves an intelligent response.
OravennasBrother 09-22-06, 09:27 AM	So 1% of the time the good cleric of Pelor, with the special vocation of destroying undead, Again the exceptions to ALWAYS are uniqure or 1 in a million, NOT 1% Also the question of Evil undead or not This "not evil" undead gets in an argument, then a barroom brawl. Unfortunately the poor folks he strikes are such low level that they instantly become undead - EVIL undead. Negative levels are part of the Vampires existence. However if this GOOD vampire is Rezzed, then there will not be that problem; a tragic problem that can be avoided, sounds like something a GOOD individual might do. But an evil selfish individual might not care about the consequences of such a possibility.
Rhomphaia 09-22-06, 09:44 AM	A clarification on the race/type issue. A 'race' assumes a self-propogating (ie- reproducing) population. While not true for many undead (such as skeletons, zombies and liches), several key types of undead are self-propogating and can thus be considered undead races. Examples include vampires, ghouls and wights. Various attacks generated by these creatures transforms a subject into a like-kind creature. It is not the same manner of reproduction that say humanoids or animals have, but it is reproduction nonetheless. If for you culture (or lack of) defines a race, then there is that as well. Skeletons and zombies share a similar lack of culture and thus could be looked upon as a sort of race in that regard. Liches will have certain arcane, religious rituals they engage in and may communicate with each other from time to time. That constitutes a culture. Vampires probably have the most developed culture with clear lines of authority from one vampire to the next. Taking self-propogation and culture out of the equation and looking at it from a mechanical standpoint of similar 'racial' traits, the list of undead races gets longer (specifically, including every type of undead). No matter what way you cut it, undead do have races even though 'undead' in and of itself is just a creature type. However, if you were to tell me that constructs had no races (aside from warforged) I would have to agree.
Sereno 09-22-06, 11:07 AM	WTF? WHAT THE ****ING HELL? Are you sarcastic? How does being of a certain race and being able to choose another, but not, hurt anyone? How does it hurt anything? He doesn't pray to profane dieties, he doesn't empower demons, he doesn't kick puppies in the night. He merely is part of a certain race. Does this somehow make people die? Do peasants tremble and kittens die at his passing? Does, in some way, shape, or form, his mere existence empower some greater evil? What pmurray@bigpond.com posted, Always-Late, sounds (to my ears) exactly like the rhetoric and dogmo that you should expect from a *devoted* follower of the undead-hating Pelor. Why does anyone in a DnD game need to have a "tolerance" of something they believe is an abomination or nature? Something, mind you, that actually IS an abomination of nature! He isn't "merely part of a certain race" ... he's a VAMPIRE. A creature whose only existence is powered by the most malicious and malign force in the multiverse; pure negative energy. He MUST feed on people to survive; even if he doesn't kill them outright he's always hurting and weakening them when he feeds. According to most vampire descriptions and literature, he's always thirsting for the life of others which is denied him. How can anyone who travels with him ever know how close he is to giving in to his hunger for their life? Face it. JadeFox's idea to bring an undead PC into a party that already had an undead-hating cleric of Pelor was just JadeFox trying to wind-up his gaming buddies.
Kresalak 09-22-06, 11:32 AM	Damn right. The unholy power than animates your body is a vile offence against all that is good and right. Your character is a walking blasphemy, whose so-called good acts are enabled by an unending evil, an unrepentant - yea, gleeful - howl of defiance against the proper order of the world. Even your most righetous deeds are filthy rags - pitiful grains of sand in the balance against the horror that is your very existence. How dare you claim to be "good" while clinging to unlife? You very insistence on continuing to walk around on Pelor's green earth in such a state gives the lie to your words. If your character truly was good, then he/she would refuse to live a hollow, blasphemous mockery of "life", and instead willingly go immediately to judgement. Really - who TF decided that a group with these two characters could work? Unbelievable. (PS: yeah, I played a RSoP for a while, too). You do know that undead and negative energy aren't inherantly evil, right? Fancy words don't change facts.
JadeFox 09-22-06, 11:34 AM	Um...not necissarily. You can be a good person and still **** up horribly because of the hideous craving for blood and life energy that pulls at you every waking moment. I'm not saying a good-aligned vamp spawn PC isn't possible, but if you really think that trying to avoid all the nasty bits of your condition is easy, you may be deluding yourself. Just because you chose to fight your nature and be good does not mean that all the drawbacks of your current state go away or even become more convenient. That's why good, especially for "evil" creatures, is hard. By that logic, all PC's must turn themselves into always-good aligned creatures as soon as they gain acess to that level of magic. After all, evil lurks in the hearts of men, and they can't possibly take the chance that they might turn evil at some point in the future. Dosn't work, sorry. "I might be evil at some point in the future" is not valid logic anymore then "Sure, I shot him first, but it's okay, because he might have shot me in the future." Sorry, Jade. That sounds kinda weak. I have a hard time understanding how someone who's really "good" would turn down an offer to become alive again. How long do you really think you can keep preying on mortals before you lose that G in your alignment? Even if you're not draining them to the point of death, it's still not a "good" thing to feed on a sentient creature. What if you create more spawn? What if they're not good? Realistically, I think a good character would see undeath as a curse and be happy to be restored to the living. It's likely, yes, but not required. It really doesn't matter whether one caused the other. It's more of a question of which came first. Part of your resposiblity as a player is to come up with a character that fits in with the other characters. Does being restored to life take him back down to 0xp? There's no reason he couldn't come back as a rogue or fighter. He doesn't forget all the things he learned while a spawn (like how to handle himself in a fight). No, it's not wrong. But the avenue of escape you've chosen isn't one that a "good" character would choose. Sorry, the more I hear from you the more it seems like you're really getting off on being a disruptive *****. That's my IC reason. My OOC reason is "Because if I wanted to play a human rogue I would have*rolled up a human rogue*. The former spawn, since he is good, appreciates this all since he is a character who was good and appreciates the work that clerics of the sun do (said so himself) and isn't a powergamer who will stick to his ridiculous character concept when a better one is presented in game. The Redeemed former vampire spawn, who knows, maybe he becomes a cleric/paladin/...Fist of the North? No, since I am good, I apprecreate that he thinks he was doing the right thing. And then I *stab him in the face* for putting me through an agonizing experiance because he decided he knew what was best for me. ALIVE DOES NOT AUTOMATICLY EQUATE TO GOOD! JadeFox. Been watching too many Blade movies? Even Blade who is a good vampire, albeit half vamp, hates being a vamp and wants a cure! He has to drain *humans*. D&D has no such requirement. Animals are fine, thank you.
OravennasBrother 09-22-06, 11:55 AM	My OOC reason is "Because if I wanted to play a human rogue I would have*rolled up a human rogue*. So you wanted to play an Evil undead. Fine, but why would any DM allow such a monstrosity as a 1 in a MILLION/Unique creature without SERIOUSLY restricing it (like giving it all 10's for base attributes - the creature is unique by virtue of being a Good aligned Vampire, it needs nothing else)? No, since I am good, I apprecreate that he thinks he was doing the right thing. And then I *stab him in the face* for putting me through an agonizing experiance because he decided he knew what was best for me. ALIVE DOES NOT AUTOMATICLY EQUATE TO GOOD! OK so the character was Evil while alive and SOMEHOW became good when changed into an undead abomination? I don't follow. Stabbing soemone who returns you to life seems, well, EVIL to me. SO if the undead monstrosity IS evil then the cleric should try to destroy it. If not then the cleric should try to help it to return to life so it won't accidentally create a self perpetuating line of EVIL undead. That sort of accident could haqppen raher easily even if a player in my campaign said "NO I'll be REALLY REALLY careful" I would still think ti too much of a chance. Particularly since returning the character to life IS NOT Harming the character.
Sereno 09-22-06, 12:12 PM	You do know that undead and negative energy aren't inherantly evil, right? Fancy words don't change facts. Bringing negative energy into the world means that you are bringing a greater amount of something that's only purpose is to destroy. That's all negative energy is for, it's ONLY purpose. Not that you were the one who posted it, but I've never read anything in any sourcebook that describes living things as having equal parts positive and negative energy, either. Most books, if they refer to it at all, merely mention that positive is the energy of creation (and, therefore, life) and negative is the energy of destruction. Even in Eberron, where blurred alignments are a hallmark, "A cleric can cast spells with any alignment descriptor. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, and a good cleric’s alignment may begin to change if she repeatedly casts such spells, but the deities of Eberron do not prevent their clerics from casting spells opposed to their alignments." AFAIK, all of the spells that create negatively powered undead have the [Evil] descriptor ... someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong.
Arkan_Shadesfire 09-22-06, 01:08 PM	I don't know what's more hillarous: The classic comedy of a Cleric/Vampire team up, or seeing people argue the dogma of a fictional D&D religion with the same conviction and vitriol as real world televangelists. Seriously, pmurray@bigpond.com's post sounds just like a christian fundamentalist ranting about gays being an abomination. :rollyes: It's a fargin' game people, and an awesome roleplaying opportunity. The best comedies and dramas are ones where two polar opposites are forced to work together--especially if one has a homocidal hatred for the other.
Kresalak 09-22-06, 01:21 PM	Bringing negative energy into the world means that you are bringing a greater amount of something that's only purpose is to destroy. That's all negative energy is for, it's ONLY purpose. Not that you were the one who posted it, but I've never read anything in any sourcebook that describes living things as having equal parts positive and negative energy, either. Most books, if they refer to it at all, merely mention that positive is the energy of creation (and, therefore, life) and negative is the energy of destruction. Even in Eberron, where blurred alignments are a hallmark, "A cleric can cast spells with any alignment descriptor. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, and a good cleric’s alignment may begin to change if she repeatedly casts such spells, but the deities of Eberron do not prevent their clerics from casting spells opposed to their alignments." AFAIK, all of the spells that create negatively powered undead have the [Evil] descriptor ... someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong. Honestly, I'm tired of arguing this point. It's been done to death on these forums, but it seems no one ever takes notice of it. So I'm going to back out of this.
Sereno 09-22-06, 01:44 PM	Honestly, I'm tired of arguing this point. It's been done to death on these forums, but it seems no one ever takes notice of it. So I'm going to back out of this. It's not that we don't notice it ... we just don't agree. :)
JadeFox 09-22-06, 01:56 PM	So you wanted to play an Evil undead. Fine, but why would any DM allow such a monstrosity as a 1 in a MILLION/Unique creature without SERIOUSLY restricing it (like giving it all 10's for base attributes - the creature is unique by virtue of being a Good aligned Vampire, it needs nothing else)? Because nerfing a players stats to punish him for playing a balenced, if unique race, is utterly retarded? OK so the character was Evil while alive and SOMEHOW became good when changed into an undead abomination? Good while alive, good while dead. It's a fargin' game people, and an awesome roleplaying opportunity. The best comedies and dramas are ones where two polar opposites are forced to work together--especially if one has a homocidal hatred for the other. Yeah! Yeesh, the only reason I started this thread was I honestly wanted to know how to make sure my charachter didn't die mid game. I didn't want to stir up all this trouble.
Sereno 09-22-06, 02:07 PM	Yeah! Yeesh, the only reason I started this thread was I honestly wanted to know how to make sure my charachter didn't die mid game. I didn't want to stir up all this trouble. Sorry, but I think you stirred up all this trouble by bringing a character that's diametrically opposed to a different member of the party and thought it wouldn't cause any problems! Seriously, how would you feel if you'd created your character *first* and then ShadowDragon brought in a uber-undead-hunter? Just like being a good citizen, being a good DnD player requires respecting the other players. As has been mentioned many time this *IS* "just a game" ... but, why should only you have fun? Or, why should your fun come at the expense of another player? Sure, a good vampire is a fun character and "redeemed" vampires are all over literature. I like them myself. But, fitting into a party is part of playing the game effectively. Some groups really enjoy the whole PvP aspect, most don't. Most see it as disruption and not "fun roleplaying." That's what's bugging me about your posts ... from your "tone" (which is difficult to read in text, I'll admit) you seem to have no concept of why this might have been a bad idea from the get-go....
OravennasBrother 09-22-06, 02:23 PM	Yeah! Yeesh, the only reason I started this thread was I honestly wanted to know how to make sure my charachter didn't die mid game. I didn't want to stir up all this trouble. OH that's an easy one o answer - your character, as described, CANNOT DIE midgame as it is already dead. In fact to avoid that (character death) all you need do is remain undead; then the worst that can happen is you are destroyed mid-campaign. Sorry it took so long to give you a helpful answer.
JadeFox 09-22-06, 02:27 PM	Sorry, but I think you stirred up all this trouble by bringing a character that's diametrically opposed to a different member of the party and thought it wouldn't cause any problems! Seriously, how would you feel if you'd created your character *first* and then ShadowDragon brought in a uber-undead-hunter? Just like being a good citizen, being a good DnD player requires respecting the other players. As has been mentioned many time this *IS* "just a game" ... but, why should only you have fun? Or, why should your fun come at the expense of another player? Sure, a good vampire is a fun character and "redeemed" vampires are all over literature. I like them myself. But, fitting into a party is part of playing the game effectively. Some groups really enjoy the whole PvP aspect, most don't. Most see it as disruption and not "fun roleplaying." That's what's bugging me about your posts ... from your "tone" (which is difficult to read in text, I'll admit) you seem to have no concept of why this might have been a bad idea from the get-go.... As long as he didn't slay me, I woudln't really mind if he brought in a radical anti-undead PC second. Tension is fun RP'ing. :teach: And of course, fun shouldn't come at the expense of other players, but I don't see why it has too in this case. But, stir up trouble you did. Congratulations. Yay! I'm special! :rolleye2:
Sereno 09-22-06, 02:50 PM	And of course, fun shouldn't come at the expense of other players, but I don't see why it has too in this case. That ... right there ... is your problem! Your character will completely interfere in what another player had already decided that their character would be. In order for the other player to use his character effectively, he's always got to hesitate and WAIT FOR YOU to get out of his way. Missing a round or two of EVERY combat is not going to be fun. If he just reacts the way a cleric of Pelor should, "Arrgh! We're being overrun by undead ... TURN! In the Name of Pelor, BEGONE!!" You'll die. Then, you'll be back here on the boards whining about how your "innocent" vampire PC got snuffed. It's not just that his PC is highly motivated to hate you on sight because you are everything he's been taught to hate and how to fight and destroy since joining the Church of Pelor, but you're ALSO going to be impacting on his RP and his combat effectiveness. Does that make any sense at all to you? It'd be one thing to play a dwarf in a party with a character that's decided to be predjudiced against dwarfs, just for the tension and RP ... but you wouldn't be impacting that dwarf-hater's effectiveness as a character....
Cold Napalm 09-22-06, 03:18 PM	Okay so I found the soap opera amusing to read, but after all the back and forth, I'm sorry jade, but your one selfish git in this case. You have no problem with your character concept, you have no problem that it nerfs the cleric for a round in combat, YOU have no problem with teh high party tenstion...it's you you you even when somebody else in the game said it sucks for them, it's still all about you you you. I'd have greater turned your ass a long time ago, and any other undead pc you brought in (look an undead...die...again.).
Judging Eagle 09-22-06, 04:29 PM	Okay so I found the soap opera amusing to read, but after all the back and forth, I'm sorry jade, but your one selfish git in this case. You have no problem with your character concept, you have no problem that it nerfs the cleric for a round in combat, YOU have no problem with teh high party tenstion...it's you you you even when somebody else in the game said it sucks for them, it's still all about you you you. I'd have greater turned your ass a long time ago, and any other undead pc you brought in (look an undead...die...again.). I think, this is why this whole thread has been rubbing me wrong the whole way. Sure, it's an interesting concept, however it is directly impinging on the key feature of an other character. Sort of like giving everyone d12 hit dice b/c you don't want characters dying too easily. The casters will love it, the Barbarians will hate it. And other option (aside from being True Ressed by the church of Pelor (which should keep your ECL at whatever it is now, unless the DM is a fool and doesn't want to resolve this issue at all) would be to have the DM make a judgement call: "Does the 'good' vamprie spawn get affected by turning?" If yes, then he obviously doesn't think that your character is redeemed or redeemable in any way shape or form. Plus he wants to hamper both your and Shadow's characters. If no, then it's a non-issue. Sure, you could still be controlled by magic or evil clerics without a save, but turning no longer affects you, so that you are no longer nerfing Shadow's cleric. Finally, it should be noted that the Undead Races out of Libris Mortis were intended for an "Undead Campaign" where everyone plays undead characters or undead related characters. Libris Mortis was not really meant for mixed type groups. Your DM should have known better and realized that certain issues could arise. Last time I've had to deal with a fellow PC wanting to be a Vampire. The last time the DM allowed someone to 'become' a vampire (in an evil campaign, where most of the PCs were mostly press-ganged into working for this shadowy group), the groups assigned (by the organization) squad leader had the legendary raccoon druid to infest the corpse with maggots before it became a vampire. The fact that my char killed the half-dragon monk in his sleep and the led the animal druid against the Blue Slaadi was purely the 'orders' my char had recived (via the DM). Mostly b/c the players for those characters were no longer there and 8+ PCs gets to be a hassle and we needed a believable reason as to why the excess PCs/NPCs 'left'. Last time the party dealt with a Vampire Eberron, Whispers of the Vampire blade. We essentially broke up the adventure flow by offering the former king's agent the fact that he could be raised from the dead to be cured. Really, it was the best option. Killing him was wrong, he hated being a vampire, but he didn't know he could be cured. Of course none of us were willing to actually kill him, we wanted to bring him back and be destroyed and ressed in a temple of the Sovereign Host. The DM made his sister stake him though. Which, while making things easier, made them less interesting, b/c almost everyone wanted to know what he did before he got changed and where the vampire crime lord that changed him lived. Sad thing is, none of us play paladins, but the group tends to act like them. Avoid combat whenever possible, never kill monsters if you have to (negotiations first), and try not to scare people (the DM loves having enemy grunts pee their pants in terror of us...while we're going for subdual damage whenever possible). We save killing for self-defense or when we have no other choice. Like oozes, vermin and constructs, or unintelligent undead (intelligent Undead we're not even that willing to destroy; even the Turning Lord cleric asks them to surrender, after powdering a few the rest usually do so though).
JadeFox 09-22-06, 05:18 PM	Your character will completely interfere in what another player had already decided that their character would be. In order for the other player to use his character effectively, he's always got to hesitate and WAIT FOR YOU to get out of his way. Missing a round or two of EVERY combat is not going to be fun. If he just reacts the way a cleric of Pelor should, "Arrgh! We're being overrun by undead ... TURN! In the Name of Pelor, BEGONE!!" You'll die. Then, you'll be back here on the boards whining about how your "innocent" vampire PC got snuffed. It's not just that his PC is highly motivated to hate you on sight because you are everything he's been taught to hate and how to fight and destroy since joining the Church of Pelor, but you're ALSO going to be impacting on his RP and his combat effectiveness. Does that make any sense at all to you? Not really. Between HD and my anti-turning feats, the only time I would ever be targeted over the bad guy is if we were fighting an undead rediculously above us in level. What's the problem? you have no problem that it nerfs the cleric for a round in combat But it dosn't! See above. :nonono:
tuffn00gies 09-22-06, 05:30 PM	It's likely, yes, but not required. Actually, yeah. I'd say it is required if you want to keep calling yourself "good." That was my point. You do whatever you want, but you're jerking yourself off if you think you are "good" while refusing *for whatever reason* to remain a blood-sucking vampire spawn when you've got a free ride to living town. That's my IC reason. My OOC reason is "Because if I wanted to play a human rogue I would have*rolled up a human rogue*. No, I'd be willing to bet, but never be able to prove, your OOC reason was to be a disruptive jerk. No, since I am good, I apprecreate that he thinks he was doing the right thing. And then I *stab him in the face* for putting me through an agonizing experiance because he decided he knew what was best for me. Again, GOOD characters don't react violently when someone tries to help them, even if it is painful. I hope I'm getting the point across that you're not playing a GOOD character and therefore you entire argument comes crashing down around your ears and the cleric should call down the glory of Pelor and blast your character into the next world. You're hiding behind the fact that your character has CG written down for an alignment, but you're not playing a CG character at all. You're CN at best. See? You're already being tainted by the negative energy that empowers you. :)
terrainmonkey 09-22-06, 05:36 PM	alright, i'll admit that first off i didn't read 5 pages of posts so if i have reiterated something that has been said, i apologize. second. doesn't one become chaotic evil after turning into a vampire? and why did your DM allow this nonsense after all? PCs that become vampires become NPCs. period. end of sentence. also, why on earth would you want to play a vampire spawn when another PC in the party was playing a radiant servant of pelor? hello? are you friggin nuts!!?!!?!! as a DM first and foremost, i would not have let you play something like that. second, even if you moaned and cried to be allowed to play it, i would definitely allow the cleric of the party to smite you hard in the head and burn your body and spread the ashes so you wouldn't come back. i really hate to say your arguments are rather lame and stupid, but if the shoe fits.... pick a normal character that fits more in line with party dynamics. try core and leave the sourcebooks alone. libris mortis classes and monster classes are for NPCs only. oh, and your DM should have been taken out and shot by the cleric player just on general principle for letting you play an abomination like that. both you and your DM should be ashamed of yourselves for disrupting party harmony. it's disgusting to think a DM would allow this kind of nonsense!
tuffn00gies 09-22-06, 05:38 PM	Sure, a good vampire is a fun character and "redeemed" vampires are all over literature. I like them myself. But, fitting into a party is part of playing the game effectively. Some groups really enjoy the whole PvP aspect, most don't. Most see it as disruption and not "fun roleplaying." Jade, I'd like to concur with this point. There's no problem with your character. The probelm is you made the character *after* knowing what ShadowDragon's character concept was. If you'd made your character first, I'd be telling SD he made a mistake bringing his character into the game.
tuffn00gies 09-22-06, 05:44 PM	Not really. Between HD and my anti-turning feats, the only time I would ever be targeted over the bad guy is if we were fighting an undead rediculously above us in level. What's the problem? But it dosn't! See above. :nonono: Then why all the posts whining about what'll happen if he turns you? C'mon - admit it. You're really enjoying all this crap you're stirring up aren't you?
JadeFox 09-22-06, 06:49 PM	Then why all the posts whining about what'll happen if he turns you? C'mon - admit it. You're really enjoying all this crap you're stirring up aren't you? No, I'm not. And all the whining is because he said he's going into Turninglord and would turn me *just because*. That and the DM let me swap out some of my old feats for improved turn resistance feats after this thread started, seemed like a good move. Jade, I'd like to concur with this point. There's no problem with your character. The probelm is you made the character *after* knowing what ShadowDragon's character concept was. If you'd made your character first, I'd be telling SD he made a mistake bringing his character into the game. He said "I'm playing a cleric!" I said "Cool, I'm thinking some kind of immortal undead." He said "Cool." 4 hours later, just before the game started, he thows a hissy fit about my charachter. If he objected, don't you think he should have mentioned it earlier? Again, GOOD characters don't react violently when someone tries to help them, even if it is painful. (gamequote) "All life is nothing but pain and suffering. I'm letting you free from your motal coil. Don't worry, you'll thank me in the next life." *stab* (/gamequote) I've had mass-murderer badguys in my games before who use that logic. They honestly think their helping you. Dosn't change the fact your going to terminate them with extreme prejiduce. I hope I'm getting the point across that you're not playing a GOOD character and therefore you entire argument comes crashing down around your ears and the cleric should call down the glory of Pelor and blast your character into the next world. You're hiding behind the fact that your character has CG written down for an alignment, but you're not playing a CG character at all. You're CN at best. See? You're already being tainted by the negative energy that empowers you. Nice try.
Ogmug 09-22-06, 07:06 PM	If you reread my post you'll see that indeed I did call undead a type. I also didn't modify my message. So I'm not sure why you're correcting me for something I did. Because I don't agree that a hill giant is a race unto itself. All type (to me) equals race. A hill giant is type: giant and this pertains to your ascertation that undead cannot be considered a race. However things like half-vampires can be created from living beings, thus creating essentiall a new "race". All things that have the same type, share the same qualities. With regard to sentient creatures, it is possible for them to breed (a hll giant CAN breed with Ogres, trolls, or even cloud giants). Undead are a completely new creatures in essence. They no longer are a troll, but a completely new creature. You claim that undead is not a race, but a hill giant IS a race. I feel this is wrong. A hill giant is a type of giant, not a race of its own.
Always-Late 09-22-06, 07:12 PM	Okay, answer this (general question): What's the difference between forcing someone to become a level 1 commoner, and forcing someone to become a level 1 Petioner of the Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia? [[EDIT]] Yeah, I know, one of them involves being dead. But why does not wanting to "ascend to a higher form" constitute "even though your actions are CG, and your speech is CG, and your movitations are CG, you are undead, and therefore you are really a CN jerk who wishes to destabilize the party."
Ogmug 09-22-06, 07:14 PM	Okay, answer this (general question): What's the difference between forcing someone to become a level 1 commoner, and forcing someone to become a level 1 Petioner of the Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia? *don't hit me* umm.. about 7 words? :P
JadeFox 09-22-06, 07:17 PM	*don't hit me* umm.. about 7 words? :P And the Petitoner can't get class advancement. :P
Aeromus 09-22-06, 07:18 PM	Because I don't agree that a hill giant is a race unto itself. All type (to me) equals race. A hill giant is type: giant and this pertains to your ascertation that undead cannot be considered a race. However things like half-vampires can be created from living beings, thus creating essentiall a new "race". All things that have the same type, share the same qualities. With regard to sentient creatures, it is possible for them to breed (a hll giant CAN breed with Ogres, trolls, or even cloud giants). Undead are a completely new creatures in essence. They no longer are a troll, but a completely new creature. You claim that undead is not a race, but a hill giant IS a race. I feel this is wrong. A hill giant is a type of giant, not a race of its own. Templates aren't races though. Each template requires you have a RACE already. I'm sorry if you can't see that in this case you're wrong. But you are. Lycanthrope is not a race. It's a template. The race of the creature before adding the template is it's true race. That's like saying Fighter is a race, or that construct is a race. They aren't races. Because Humanoid is not a race. Human is. Goblin is. Elf is. But all of those are Humanoids. So the players race is "whatever he was before being turned" in this case I think human.
Ogmug 09-22-06, 07:40 PM	Templates aren't races though. Each template requires you have a RACE already. I'm sorry if you can't see that in this case you're wrong. But you are. Lycanthrope is not a race. It's a template. The race of the creature before adding the template is it's true race. That's like saying Fighter is a race, or that construct is a race. They aren't races. Because Humanoid is not a race. Human is. Goblin is. Elf is. But all of those are Humanoids. So the players race is "whatever he was before being turned" in this case I think human. I can see your point, however your lycanthrope example doesn't hold water (not well at least). Natural lycanthropes are not truly, nor were they ever, humans. They are born that way and are called natural lycanthropes. (per the MM). <i>But that is not to say that I don't see your point (and a further investigation seems to indicate that the SRD has subtypes as the race (see the entry for angels).---end of edit</i> Undead is not a template. Skeleton is a template Zombie is a template, ghost, etc. Undead isn't. It is a type. If you are going to correct someone, at least be accurate. And with the advent of Eberon by the way, a Construct is a race (actually it is called "living construct"). Classes are not races and it was silly of you to even imply. It is a well defined game term. The monster manual however gives the impression that every monster (including humans) is a seperate race: "Monsters As Races While every monster has the statistics that a player would need to play the creature as a character, most monsters are not suitable as PCs. Creatures who have an Intelligence score of 2 or lower, who have no way to communicate, or who are so different from other PCs that they disrupt the campaign should not be used. Some creatures have strange innate abilities or great physical power, and thus are questionable at best as characters (except in high-level campaigns). " It is right there, black and white in the SRD under the heading "Monsters as Races". Shrug. It is really nothing more than semantics. Race is not defined however. It is implied, but a quick look in the glossary turns up no such definition. (this is assumed because most people know what a race is, except in some areas). Next you will say that Humanoid (elf) has even more races. the actual term should be subspecies. A dark elf is still Humanoid (elf) just as a high elf is. By your logic, they should be further divided.
Ogmug 09-22-06, 07:47 PM	man, was that ever disjointed? oh well, enough derailing. If you wish to continue this discussion elsewhere, I would be willing to explore it further.
Wuggadad 09-22-06, 08:50 PM	"That and the DM let me swap out some of my old feats for improved turn resistance feats after this thread started, seemed like a good move." Holy Cow. The GM allowed retroactive changes to the character to improve its effectiveness in Player vs Player confrontations? I think we have a confirmation about who is most at fault in this one, and it isn't either of the players. Maybe both of the players are incredible boors, but it sounds like the GM is deliberately aggravating things. What is worse, the cleric was optimzed for a useful role in helping the party. The vampire spawn chose to be more effective in PvP than in creating a character that would strengthen the party, and GM went along with that! My opinion of Monstrous PCs is that they _can_ work. However, not if the other PCs can't handle said Monster in combat. If Monstrous PC acts monstrous, there has to be the assurance that the other PCs could fairly easily handle it, because otherwise, why would they risk traveling with the Monster? They also need to be able to vouch for the Monster, which means being able to discipline it, or hunt it down and destroy it, if necessary.
JadeFox 09-22-06, 08:59 PM	"That and the DM let me swap out some of my old feats for improved turn resistance feats after this thread started, seemed like a good move." Holy Cow. The GM allowed retroactive changes to the character to improve its effectiveness in Player vs Player confrontations? I think we have a confirmation about who is most at fault in this one, and it isn't either of the players. Maybe both of the players are incredible boors, but it sounds like the GM is deliberately aggravating things. What is worse, the cleric was optimzed for a useful role in helping the party. The vampire spawn chose to be more effective in PvP than in creating a character that would strengthen the party, and GM went along with that! My opinion of Monstrous PCs is that they _can_ work. However, not if the other PCs can't handle said Monster in combat. If Monstrous PC acts monstrous, there has to be the assurance that the other PCs could fairly easily handle it, because otherwise, why would they risk traveling with the Monster? They also need to be able to vouch for the Monster, which means being able to discipline it, or hunt it down and destroy it, if necessary. No, the DM allowed changes so I woudln't be targeted by the clerics turning, and thus, woudln't trip him up in battle.
pmurray@bigpond.com 09-22-06, 09:19 PM	Are you sarcastic? How does being of a certain race and being able to choose another, but not, hurt anyone? We are talking about the undead, are we not? If intelligent undead are so inoffensive, how come they quail in fear from the righteous radiance of pelor? If a cleric tried to turn a normal human, it would have no effect. Unlike the undead, normal lifing things are not inherently inimical to the goodness of Pelor.
ShadowDragon8685 09-22-06, 11:00 PM	And the best part? JadeFox keeps @%^@%ing me out over AIM, saying things like how just becausae MY god (and every other good/neutral God/dess in existance, as well as every God of nature, whether Good or Evil) deems the undead to be an offense against nature, it's still an Evil act to Turn him? ??? Oi. And he still won't give the DM's AIM to me.
Always-Late 09-22-06, 11:48 PM	We are talking about the undead, are we not? If intelligent undead are so inoffensive, how come they quail in fear from the righteous radiance of pelor? If a cleric tried to turn a normal human, it would have no effect. Unlike the undead, normal lifing things are not inherently inimical to the goodness of Pelor.The spells that banish demons can be used to banish solars as well. The gift of turning which Pelor has granted you is not a manifestation of Pelor's divine will, it is merely a tool which he grants his followers - a divine tool, no doubt, granted to help stop evil - but an evil human will go unfazed as well. The ability to turn that Pelor grants are akin to the lessons of orc-hunting which Corellon gives to her children. Whether the orc is as savage as most of it's kind, or one of the few who turn from their ancestor's bloodthirsty ways, the arrow flies true all the same.
JadeFox 09-23-06, 12:05 AM	And the best part? JadeFox keeps @%^@%ing me out over AIM, saying things like how just becausae MY god (and every other good/neutral God/dess in existance, as well as every God of nature, whether Good or Evil) deems the undead to be an offense against nature, it's still an Evil act to Turn him? ??? Oi. And he still won't give the DM's AIM to me. Because the DM specificly request I not hand out his AIM without his permission, ask him yourself, sheesh.
ShadowDragon8685 09-23-06, 01:00 AM	Ah. "I won't tell you how to get his AIM. You want his AIM? Ask him yourself." Except how am I bloody supposed to ask him, if you won't put me in contact with him!
Arin 09-23-06, 01:06 AM	In the 3.0 monster manual they said that exceptions were "1 in a million". This was clearly a figure of speech and not a literal rule, but apparently most people (as evidenced by this thread) didn't get that, and so in the 3.5 monster manual they changed the text to say that exceptions were "rare". I really wish people would stop quoting on out dated rule that was never meant to be a rule in the first place as a basis for their arguments.
Moosh Nailo 09-23-06, 01:09 AM	I'm surprised nobody has made a reference to Blade yet, with all the arguing over whether a blood-sucking vampire is inherently evil*. Blade is a strapping example of a vampire (and no arguments about being hybrid, please, as he still has the "hunger" for blood) and yet works for the better good. I have to say that from what I've read and understand, I'm leaning towards shadowdragon's POV. But, at the same time, I understand where Jadefox is coming from, asking to get at least a 1 round warning before getting nuked. And, because shadowdragon is being quite the jerk about everything, I am not liking seeing from his POV (this is a peeve of mine, people who can't keep their cool in an argument). A wise man (or internet quote, can't remember which) once told me that the best way to blow things up in your face is to make it personal. This went from vampire vs. cleric to Shadow vs Jade real fast. And this went from vampire vs. cleric to Shadow vs. Jade real fast. Hope you guys figure this out, and luck to the both of you (whether good or bad) *And if someone has made a reference to Blade, and I missed it, my apologies.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-23-06, 01:41 AM	I'd just like to take the opportunity to point out that having a high effective amount of HD for turning purposes (due to turn resistance) doesn't actually make you any less a target. Range is the important thing.Range You turn the closest turnable undead first, and you can’t turn undead that are more than 60 feet away or that have total cover relative to you. You don’t need line of sight to a target, but you do need line of effect. If you're actually all that concerned about order of targetting, just stay the hell away from the cleric. Pumping up your turn resistance doesn't change your order in the turning queue, it's just PvP unlife insurance, and you know it. Probably knew it before I pointed this out, but I'm pointing it out anyway so you can't call ignorance. :smirk:
Bandolar Goldcrest 09-23-06, 03:11 AM	You know, I can't help but wonder if Jadefox isn't actually the DM in this whole thing. Strange how he would be the only one with the DM's AIM contact information. Strange how the DM is allowing Jade's character to retroactively change feats to buff him up against SD's character's turning abilities. Strange how the DM allowed Jade's character in the first place. Jade strikes me as a shyte stirrer on this thread. Would it be too great a leap to think he might be a shyte stirring DM that introduced a (DM)PC under a different username in an online game to stir up trouble and cause problems?:confused:
Aeromus 09-23-06, 05:38 AM	You know, I can't help but wonder if Jadefox isn't actually the DM in this whole thing. Strange how he would be the only one with the DM's AIM contact information. Strange how the DM is allowing Jade's character to retroactively change feats to buff him up against SD's character's turning abilities. Strange how the DM allowed Jade's character in the first place. Jade strikes me as a shyte stirrer on this thread. Would it be too great a leap to think he might be a shyte stirring DM that introduced a (DM)PC under a different username in an online game to stir up trouble and cause problems?:confused: Winner. Thread over.
Chrono Nexus 09-23-06, 09:44 AM	... Shadow vs. Jade = reference to Rojugan? Dragon vs. Fox = Biju? I think ShadowDragon and JadeFox might possible be the same player, the names are too similar.... the OP really is trying to stir **** here.:noway:
JadeFox 09-23-06, 11:12 AM	Ah. "I won't tell you how to get his AIM. You want his AIM? Ask him yourself." Except how am I bloody supposed to ask him, if you won't put me in contact with him! Ask him for it next game? A wise man (or internet quote, can't remember which) once told me that the best way to blow things up in your face is to make it personal. This went from vampire vs. cleric to Shadow vs Jade real fast. And this went from vampire vs. cleric to Shadow vs. Jade real fast. Hope you guys figure this out, and luck to the both of you (whether good or bad) Yeah.....any potential gain from this thread is gone, I think. If you're actually all that concerned about order of targetting, just stay the hell away from the cleric. Pumping up your turn resistance doesn't change your order in the turning queue, it's just PvP unlife insurance, and you know it. Probably knew it before I pointed this out, but I'm pointing it out anyway so you can't call ignorance. Really? Sweet, I can get Power Attack back. You know, I can't help but wonder if Jadefox isn't actually the DM in this whole thing. Strange how he would be the only one with the DM's AIM contact information. Strange how the DM is allowing Jade's character to retroactively change feats to buff him up against SD's character's turning abilities. Strange how the DM allowed Jade's character in the first place. Jade strikes me as a shyte stirrer on this thread. Would it be too great a leap to think he might be a shyte stirring DM that introduced a (DM)PC under a different username in an online game to stir up trouble and cause problems? Given that me and the DM have two significantly different IP addresses, yeah, yeah it is. Paranoid much? *gives you a tinfoil hat* Shadow vs. Jade = reference to Rojugan? I don't watch anime.
JadeFox 09-23-06, 11:13 AM	let This Thread Die People
Kethka 09-23-06, 12:20 PM	You know, I can't help but wonder if Jadefox isn't actually the DM in this whole thing. Strange how he would be the only one with the DM's AIM contact information. Strange how the DM is allowing Jade's character to retroactively change feats to buff him up against SD's character's turning abilities. Strange how the DM allowed Jade's character in the first place. Jade strikes me as a shyte stirrer on this thread. Would it be too great a leap to think he might be a shyte stirring DM that introduced a (DM)PC under a different username in an online game to stir up trouble and cause problems? let This Thread Die People Sounds like a cover-up to me... :eek: Also: I'm surprised nobody has made a reference to Blade yet, with all the arguing over whether a blood-sucking vampire is inherently evil*. Blade is a strapping example of a vampire (and no arguments about being hybrid, please, as he still has the "hunger" for blood) and yet works for the better good. Blade hated being a vampire and devoted his life to destroying them (IIRC). I'd bet money that if he was offered a return to true life, he would take it without a second thought. Anyway, this sounds like a case of a supremely crappy DM (allowing these players to be in a group together? Only giving out contact info to one favored player?) and a supremely self-centered player (JadeFox). I'm finding it hard to believe that the other players could possibly be good enough to redeem this situation so I can only wonder why ShadowDragon hasn't just ditched this game a long time ago.
WizO_Cat 09-23-06, 01:35 PM	OK, I'm going to close this thread at this time because there is more discussion concerning other guests than there is on the subject matter of the thread. Please keep in mind that this is considered baiting as well which is against the Code of Conduct.