PDA

View Full Version : A question on holy weapons



horngeek
2009-03-23, 02:43 AM
On the Wizards website here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a), there is an article about a succubus who became a paladin. She has two weapons that are stated to be holy. According to the guys who did the write-up, this means that she gets negative levels when weilding them.
At this point, I'm thinking "so what're the rules on that?"
Look it up on the SRD, and it says that "It bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to wield it".

My question is this. Does it mean creature with the Evil subtype (what they seem to read it as) or creature with an evil alignment (actually makes more sense). Your thoughts?

Yuki Akuma
2009-03-23, 02:46 AM
Evil Subtype
A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).


Well that was easy.

Who_Da_Halfling
2009-03-23, 02:48 AM
My interpretation was that it applied to any Evil alignment creature.

...however.

My interpretation has also been that creatures with alignments in their descriptors (like Demons) are that alignment by default. The MM may say "usually x alignment" for many entries, but I have always thought that if you have [Evil] in your descriptor, you are ALWAYS evil. This is because you are an elemental force of evil. You could no more be a non-Evil [Evil] creature than you could be a Fire Elemental who had no [Fire] to him.

I could, of course, be totally wrong. But that's how I've always done it.

-JM

Yuki Akuma
2009-03-23, 02:50 AM
My interpretation was that it applied to any Evil alignment creature.

...however.

My interpretation has also been that creatures with alignments in their descriptors (like Demons) are that alignment by default. The MM may say "usually x alignment" for many entries, but I have always thought that if you have [Evil] in your descriptor, you are ALWAYS evil. This is because you are an elemental force of evil. You could no more be a non-Evil [Evil] creature than you could be a Fire Elemental who had no [Fire] to him.

I could, of course, be totally wrong. But that's how I've always done it.

-JM

You can be a non-Evil [Evil] creature. Always X does not mean every creature of that creature type is x. It means 90% are x and the other 10% are the other eight alignments.

But if you have the [Evil] subtype you're treated as being Evil even if you're Good. That's what the subtype is for.

Frosty
2009-03-23, 02:51 AM
It's near impossible, but it happes once a millenia or so. this also means that Blasphemy, Holy Word, Dictum, and whatever the chaos version of the spell is will all affect the Succubus paladin. Sucks to be her.

MeklorIlavator
2009-03-23, 03:25 AM
It's near impossible, but it happes once a millenia or so. this also means that Blasphemy, Holy Word, Dictum, and whatever the chaos version of the spell is will all affect the Succubus paladin. Sucks to be her.

Not necessarily. Those spells specifically say non-[alignment in question]. Thus, as the character is Evil/Good/Lawful/Chaoitic, the spell doesn't affect he/she.

BlueWizard
2009-03-23, 04:00 AM
The succubus would've had to change alignments right?

Dhavaer
2009-03-23, 04:17 AM
The succubus would've had to change alignments right?

Helm of Opposite Alignment, IIRC.

The Neoclassic
2009-03-23, 06:21 AM
You can be a non-Evil [Evil] creature. Always X does not mean every creature of that creature type is x. It means 90% are x and the other 10% are the other eight alignments.

More like 99%/1%, I think, or else orcs, goblins, or other such creatures might have the [Evil] descriptor. Also, I think the descriptor's more to do with the creature being from an outer plane and sort of imbued with that planar essence, be it evil or such. The evil of a succubus's home plane never will fully leave her body/material self even if she's mentally and morally cleansed herself of it; hence, she maintains that [Evil] descriptor. Just my interpretation though.

KillianHawkeye
2009-03-23, 06:25 AM
Actually, she fell in love with an angel and found redemption the hard way.

And yes, your alignment counts as being whatever alignment subtypes you have, as well as whatever your actual alignment is.

As for the effects of holy word, blasphemy, dictum, and word of chaos, I guess it depends on how your DM reads the words nongood, nonevil, nonlawful, and nonchaotic in regards to a creature that is all of the above, but I think I read somewhere that she is supposed to be affected by all of them because "them's the breaks". :smallwink:

EDIT:

Also, I think the descriptor's more to do with the creature being from an outer plane and sort of imbued with that planar essence, be it evil or such. The evil of a succubus's home plane never will fully leave her body/material self even if she's mentally and morally cleansed herself of it; hence, she maintains that [Evil] descriptor. Just my interpretation though.

Yeah, just because she managed to change her alignment doesn't change the fact that she is physically made up of pure Evil and Chaos.

The Neoclassic
2009-03-23, 06:27 AM
Actually, she fell in love with an angel and found redemption the hard way.

I'm not arguing that; I was explaining a possible example more like (since I'm not familiar with the actual BoED instance) to demonstrate why it makes sense that the [Evil] descriptor could still be stuck on an outsider despite them being of a nonevil alignment for whatever reason.

KillianHawkeye
2009-03-23, 06:29 AM
No, that was a response to Dhavaer. You just posted yours while I was typing and editing. :smalltongue::smallamused::smallwink:

The Neoclassic
2009-03-23, 06:31 AM
No, that was a response to Dhavaer. You just posted yours while I was typing. :smalltongue::smallamused::smallwink:

OH. K. My apologies. :smallbiggrin: I now see what you mean.

KillianHawkeye
2009-03-23, 06:33 AM
No problem! :smallcool: