My PCs are horrible people, but at least they work together.

[Darth Stabber]

Okay, so I am GMing a campaign, and all of the characters are neutral, but that hovering the line with evil kind of neutral. One of them is a TN elan psion who is surly and unpleasant, but tolerates the action of the others. The CN human Unarmed swordsage is pretty much an assassin, and enjoys killing entirely too much, and has recently taken up combat taxidermy. But the CN Tibbit Dread Necromancer takes the cake. She is quite sweet, mostly good natured, but crazy.


The following content is not for the faint of heart, and makes me mildly sick to think about. DO NOT READ if you have delicate sensibilities.
The DN decides she want a slaymate. So she researches how to make one. I make up some stuff about necromancers in the past reanimating stillborn children. So she hires an Orc prostitute, the Swordsage hires some male prostitutes to get the orc pregnant and in about 6 months they are going to punch her in the stomach and cast animate dead on her dead baby bump. I tell the DN that this will make her alignment shift evil, this causes a long winded complaint so i offer 2 permanent wis drain instead (since she is obviously getting crazier). This she accepts, under protest.
Am I alone in thinking that this idea is beyond normal bounds for player evil. They already have a demilich paymaster and the ire of the church of pelor, but I am having a hard time impressing on these players just how evil they are stooping. My only consolation is that at least they work together, just that it is very scary when they put their minds together.

[Cartigan]

Your player's are all Evil but remember - this is your fault.

[sengmeng]

I'd be worried about these people real life alignments, honestly.

[TheCountAlucard]

PCs performing morally-repugnant acts but refusing to change alignments? :smalleek:

This is unprecedented. :smalltongue:

On a more serious bent, I believe every group either had or has players like this. It's rather-annoying traits sometimes. :smallsigh:

[jiriku]

If it makes you uncomfortable, why not simply use your DM powers to avoid the situation? For example, the hired NPCs in question can simply refuse to cooperate and skip town (which is an entirely reasonable response to being drafted into some kind of bizarre evil scheme by a bunch of powerful psychos). When players look for other NPCs to help them with their... project, word of their nefarious deeds has spread in advance and no one wants to help them. Then you can insert a plot-related NPC of choice with a quest to drive them back towards something more like a traditional game. Something that you're more comfortable with.

[sengmeng]

Also, you are the DM. Remind them that your status as DM means that for this particular game, your moral compass is the one used to referee alignment-altering actions. Then have some paladins smite them.

[HalfDragonCube]

An unarmed assassin?

So... they beat people to death quietly?

[Darth Stabber]

If it makes you uncomfortable, why not simply use your DM powers to avoid the situation? Then you can insert a plot-related NPC of choice with a quest to drive them back towards something more like a traditional game. Something that you're more comfortable with.

I am not uncomfortable with this course of action per say, more uncomfortable that the players are so comfortable with it. If they want to go ahead with this I'll let them, since this only slightly worse than my previous starwars campaign.

Also, as an addendum to the above post.
She is only hiring the Orc so she doesn't have to get pregnant and be unable to change into a cat. She could do it on her own, but doesn't want to give anything up. To be fair she is compensating the orc very well for her contributions.

[Metahuman1]

Tell them "DM ruling. You are now Evil. Your Law vs. Chaos stays the same, but your freaking evil, deal with it!"

Further.

If you want to get them too stop, give them a taste of the real world. There Evil, make them hunted, hated, fear, and generally have the world at large want too kill them. Even other evil people should at very best be indifferent too them, and should often want them dead for a reason or another.

"You KILLED MY FRIEND!" (Lawful Evil.)

"There's enough bounty on you too let me buy a damn EMPIRE!" (Any.)

"Your a threat to MY plans." (Lawful/Neutral maybe Chaotic evil.)

"Nothing personal but I kill anything I cross paths with anyway." (Chaotic evil.)

These are just off the top of my head.

The Churh of Pelor should be going banana's sending battle clerics and Paladin's and anything else they can get there hands on, (And that should be a lot for the VERY large and wealthy Church of a greater god, more so since they can hit up there many parishioners for help wipe out the necromancer and her allies. )


Honestly, if it was me and after all this they didn't dial it down, I'd start killing characters. I'd start with the Swordsage so that Pelor's Church can still have an ax to grind with them. Have them Ambushed by a bunch of already Buffed battle Clerics that are as broken as you can make them, and a Pally Super charger in an environment where his mount will be at it's best.

Kill the swordsage in one or two rounds, then let the rest of them bale out unless they insist on holding there ground, then TPK them if they don't change there mind in round or two. That way they should get that they need to ease off or they will all die.

If they don't get it, repeat, maybe have a wandering pair of VOP Druids show up and waste the Necromancer.

[Kaeso]

How is this girl still neutral? She should be hardcore evil... like Xykon evil.
I'm not saying that's bad per se, sometimes playing a campaign where you commit horrible atrocities 'for the lulz' can be fun (think of a party full of Xykon's), but she should most def' be very, very evil by now. Even insanity doesn't justify this.

[Hazzardevil]

Oorcs can't be that different to humans genetically, so it'll take a while for this to work won't it?

Anyway, I'm surprised they don't want to be evil with all the benefits they get.

[TheCountAlucard]

Even insanity doesn't justify this.This is a poor statement. To clarify: Insanity should not justify this. :smallannoyed:

Stuff like this is often a result of players not understanding insanity, and as a result, is often extremely annoying. :smallmad:

[woodenbandman]

honestly the only acceptable response to this is probably to kill the character. Because if you send a paladin or whatever after them and pally dies, no lesson is learned.

[Kaeso]

This is a poor statement. To clarify: Insanity should not justify this. :smallannoyed:

Stuff like this is often a result of players not understanding insanity, and as a result, is often extremely annoying. :smallmad:

Yes, that. Point taken. However, playing an insanely evil person can be fun, but he/she should certainly be classified as evil.


honestly the only acceptable response to this is probably to kill the character. Because if you send a paladin or whatever after them and pally dies, no lesson is learned.

Why? Just because the GM wants them to play a certain way? If the entire party wants to play an evil centered game, it'd be easier for the GM to twist it into an evil-centered campaign. Sure, the Church of Pelor would send some paladins and clerics after them but they shouldn't be TPK's just to punish the players for playing a certain way. The OP even said they're playing as a team and sticking together so I don't see a problem with that.

[Oracle_Hunter]

So... sounds like your Players want to be in an Evil Campaign. And you're letting them.

Unless you have a problem with running an Evil Campaign, roll with it. Some people just like RPing Evil people. No, I don't understand it myself, but given the chance half my Players will roll up Evil characters.

EDIT: BTW, your two "CN" characters are CE. I'm not sure what "combat taxidermy" involves but if it involves vivisection, the Superior Monk is Evil. Your Dread Necromancer is obviously Evil - I don't think I need to explain that one.

Out of curiosity, why did she object to the Evil Alignment? Was it because of the XP penalty? If so, you may want to just offer her a "free" Alignment Shift instead of the WIS drain since "crazy" isn't an excuse under the Nine Alignment System.

[Yukitsu]

Alignment only matters if you make it matter. The only reason it comes up is that the mechanics somehow try to make you constantly aware of it as a tangible thing. Just let it happen and don't bother with alignment, the players obviously don't want to consider moral ramifications about their actions anyway.

[Kaeso]

So... sounds like your Players want to be in an Evil Campaign. And you're letting them.

Unless you have a problem with running an Evil Campaign, roll with it. Some people just like RPing Evil people. No, I don't understand it myself, but given the chance half my Players will roll up Evil characters.

Why do you think all big actors would rather play the villain in a movie than the hero? They're often more interesting, and they have something sinister and 'naughty' about them. The reason why you can enjoy playing them is because you can cross all the moral/ethical/sensible lines and just have fun. I'm not saying Good centered campaigns are boring, but Evil centered campaigns are interesting because they're so unorthodox.

[Solaris]

Also, you are the DM. Remind them that your status as DM means that for this particular game, your moral compass is the one used to referee alignment-altering actions. Then have some paladins smite them.

I told my players that they could play evil characters, but I was not going to run an evil campaign. In other words, they could play the Captain Jack Sparrow chaotic evil, the Machiavellian lawful evil, but not the Belkar chaotic evil, not quite the level of evil where they confuse creating a slaymate by murdering a fetus to be something they can do. I wouldn't simply play it and then send paladins after them, I would outright refuse to allow them to do it.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Why do you think all big actors would rather play the villain in a movie than the hero? They're often more interesting, and they have something sinister and 'naughty' about them. The reason why you can enjoy playing them is because you can cross all the moral/ethical/sensible lines and just have fun. I'm not saying Good centered campaigns are boring, but Evil centered campaigns are interesting because they're so unorthodox.
There's a difference between acting an Evil role, and choosing to play a character who is Evil. In one, you are following a script; in the other you are using your intellect to do Evil things all session, every session.

RANT
When I DM, I RP villains because that's their role in the story - their villainy is designed to garner responses from the Players and make for an interesting story. Evil PCs are the protagonists, they shape the story. Why would anyone want to read a story about Evil people doing Evil things for the Evilulz? :smallconfused:

There is a great deal of difference between playing a morally gray individual and playing an Evil one. Evil in D&D means something very specific - "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." I wouldn't want to create a story about such an individual, much less play in a party of them for any length of time.
Of course, that's just me :smallsmile:

[Gensuru]

Interesting place that. I´m assuming the orc is aware of the plan? Perhaps your entire setting is too evil for them to really feel the distinction. A weak justification, true.


What i don´t get is her problem with shifting to an evil alignment. Is she afraid of some in-game repercussions or why would she rather lose any kind of points than shift her bloody alignment? Honestly i have neither a problem with evil characters nor evil groups. As long as your players aren´t that morally twisted in real society the only problem is that that player doesn´t seem to want you messing with his/her character´s internal workings (in this case altering her alignment, thereby suggestiong a different playing style from what the player might think is "cool" or the characters image the player has in mind)

Frankly Necromancers tend to be borderline people anyways when it comes to alignment. Messing with the dead is shady at best and good natured, sweet nutcase or not i´d like her explanation for how paying someone to get pregnant only so you can murder the unborn child and turn it into an undead abomination...on a WHIM i might add...is in any way NOT an incredibly twisted and horrible evil act. If your player can actually argue that point sufficiently, go with the wisdom crap if you must. My personal expectation is that the player will utterly fail at the attempt. And a nasty fellow be anyone who suggests i expect such failure only because i will not accept "well it´s only an Orc and Orcs are evil creatures that deserve anything we do to them" as a viable arguement. That she doesn´t just kidnap a pregnant female that happens to be nearby does not make the action and more importantly the ritual and her reason for it (she simply wants a "slaymate" no idea what that is, sry) any less evil.

Perhaps her problem is that if her alignment is actually Evil (chaotic evil in her case i believe?) she´ll feel obligated to act like her image of that. Most people don´t tend to believe that evil characters can feel so much as friendship, let alone love. Or loyalty. Or act sweet simply because they feel happy. No player logic evil is the mad, cackling, unfeeling, flat villain they tend to strike down. Nonsense in my opinion but hey that player of yours seems to have a few lose screws to go with his/her character anyways oô

[hamishspence]

There's a difference between acting an Evil role, and choosing to play a character who is Evil. In one, you are following a script; in the other you are using your intellect to do Evil things all session, every session.

Not necessarily. Certainly not in Eberron campaigns- an Evil character certainly doesn't have to do "Evil things all session, every session"


There is a great deal of difference between playing a morally gray individual and playing an Evil one. Evil in D&D means something very specific - "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." I wouldn't want to create a story about such an individual, much less play in a party of them for any length of time.

There's plenty of room for Evil characters who confine their Evil acts to "non-innocent characters"- a serial murderer who only murders and tortures "the deserving" can be evil without ever actually harming an innocent victim.

I've said a few times that Dexter from the novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter is, for me, much closer to Evil than Neutral, despite having "compunctions against harming the innocent".

[Kuulvheysoon]

You know who would approve of this plan?

Derro (MMI). :smalleek:

They're CE andinsane, and they're full blown insane (-6 to Wisdom).

[Oracle_Hunter]

There's plenty of room for Evil characters who confine their Evil acts to "non-innocent characters"- a serial murderer who only murders and tortures "the deserving" can be evil without ever actually harming an innocent victim.
Yeah, that sort of Most Definitely Not Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MostDefinitelyNotAVillain) character is as fun for me to play as a regular Evil character.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Honestly, it may just help to chat one on one with all of the players. Proposition them to maybe just accept being an evil party and go from there. If they decline, depending on their infamy, you could maybe send some sort of angel against them since they are certainly a non-good party, but that may be a little heavy handed.


Another idea is to have the orc woman used quickly step out of the plan and then have them deal with the consequences. Although not factual for our world, you could have the orc pull some surrogate mommy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogate_mom) issues for one reason or another, especially considering how they plan on going about just whamming her to get the job done.

[true_shinken]

You should remember your players that you are the judge on alignment decisions, not them. When you say 'your alignment is now evil' that is law.

[Ozymandias]

Wouldn't it be easier to just rob a grave or something?

[Solaris]

Not necessarily. Certainly not in Eberron functional campaigns- an Evil character certainly doesn't have to do "Evil things all session, every session"

Fixed it for you. I don't care what campaign setting you're in, you don't need to be 100% Evil to have the alignment.

[Kaeso]

Fixed it for you. I don't care what campaign setting you're in, you don't need to be 100% Evil to have the alignment.

+1.
IMHO even a corrupt merchant that uses his fortune to buy a large percentage of the city's grain and sells his bread at an outrageous price would be a blip on the Paladins evil-o-meter, but he's nowhere as evil as, say, a twisted elf general that commits genocide on entire orc tribes "just because they're orcs", or a necromancer that reanimates entire graveyards for the lulz.

[Darth Stabber]

Strangely if we forgive the necromancy related bit, the DN is the most good character in the party, and also crazy. She was exiled from her home country (a land ruled by necromancers, that had an industrial revolution on the backs of zombies) for leading a zombie rights movement. She loves and cares for her undead minions more than most druids for their animal companions. She would do anything to help anyone, and helps people with no thought of reward, she really tries hard at the using evil for good type of neutrality, but the evil she tries to use is just aweful. I started out with a no evil rule but dropped it 2 sessions in since everyone seemed to want to be terrible. The psion has really only been evil tolerant, but the other two...

Also, this party can fight! The bulk of their encounters are cr of ecl+4, and with little sign of slowing. And they are below wbl for equipment. The only thing that might hamper them is the psion is starting the uncarnate prc (weak), but with practiced manifester, overchannel, and a focus on astral construct, the prc won't weaken him much.

For the unfamiliar a slaymate is a reanimated child who died due to parental neglect. They are very weak in combat, but they reduce metamagic lvl increases by 1 for necromancy spells. Their bite also carries a nasty disease, but the save is low enough (14), that the parties enemies needn't really fear it.

For those who are curious, this is the same dn that just nabbed a huge zombie dragon with the rediculous command undead spell, in the other thread I started yesterday titled "holy crap".

[The Boz]

She was exiled from her home country (a land ruled by necromancers, that had an industrial revolution on the backs of zombies) for leading a zombie rights movement.

WTF!?
Oh, right, Chaotic Neutral. Did she start with a positive Wisdom modifier?

[Darth Stabber]

And they aren't using an orc because "orcs are evil". Infact their favorite merchant is an orc, and in setting orcs are primarily cn not ce. They read BoEF and compared gestation times and orcs came in the shortest of the races they had easy access to. Orcs are civilizedish, goblins would be shorter, but they weren't going to go and kidnap someone.

[Solaris]

Strangely if we forgive the necromancy related bit, the DN is the most good character in the party, and also crazy. She was exiled from her home country (a land ruled by necromancers, that had an industrial revolution on the backs of zombies) for leading a zombie rights movement. She loves and cares for her undead minions more than most druids for their animal companions. She would do anything to help anyone, and helps people with no thought of reward, she really tries hard at the using evil for good type of neutrality, but the evil she tries to use is just aweful. I started out with a no evil rule but dropped it 2 sessions in since everyone seemed to want to be terrible. The psion has really only been evil tolerant, but the other two...

Also, this party can fight! The bulk of their encounters are cr of ecl+4, and with little sign of slowing. And they are below wbl for equipment. The only thing that might hamper them is the psion is starting the uncarnate prc (weak), but with practiced manifester, overchannel, and a focus on astral construct, the prc won't weaken him much.

For the unfamiliar a slaymate is a reanimated child who died due to parental neglect. They are very weak in combat, but they reduce metamagic lvl increases by 1 for necromancy spells. Their bite also carries a nasty disease, but the save is low enough (14), that the parties enemies needn't really fear it.

For those who are curious, this is the same dn that just nabbed a huge zombie dragon with the rediculous command undead spell, in the other thread I started yesterday titled "holy crap".

Yes, but one horrific act like what she did - murdering someone, a child, for personal gain is definitely evil. The fact that she likes undead and people in general doesn't really change anything. I'm sure Genghis Khan was a great dude to party with, but that doesn't stop him from being a genocidal maniac. That's not to say she couldn't meander her way back up to CN eventually, but for now at least she's CE.

Is the XP penalty for changing alignment one of those stupid rules I forgot shortly after reading? I know it used to exist in AD&D, but I don't recall reading it in 3.5E.

[Darth Stabber]

WTF!?
Oh, right, Chaotic Neutral. Did she start with a positive Wisdom modifier?

No, she has a 10 wis, and I think that's way too high.

[Darth Stabber]

Is the XP penalty for changing alignment one of those stupid rules I forgot shortly after reading? I know it used to exist in AD&D, but I don't recall reading it in 3.5E.

I don't recall it in 3.5, and even if it did I would never enforce it. I don't even enforce the one for multiclassing.

Also I've got to say that is very nice to see a party that gets along, no infighting, and works well as a team. Between wights and an astral construct they don't miss having a 4th party member, and they all have tomb tainted soul making the DN a rediculous healer. I don't know which is worse, the repugnancy of their actions, or the fact that I am happy enough that they are all getting along to let them at least try this (odds of success and alignment shifts aside).

[Etrivar]

but they weren't going to go and kidnap someone.

I love how you make it sound as if it's morally unconscionable for them to kidnap someone, after what they have plotted to do :smalltongue:


Animate a dead baby's corpse for the lulz? Sure! :smallbiggrin:

Kidnap someone? Oh, we could never do that! :smalleek:

[The Glyphstone]

Has no one pointed out to her that a Slaymate is made from the body of a child, not a fetus? They're 'the height and weight of an eight-year old human child', and have some fairly specific guidelines for how they spawn. All her plan is going to get is a zombified fetus....which if you're feeling nasty, could get prematurely possessed by a fiend prior to the birth and become an Unholy Scion from Heroes of Horror.:smallbiggrin:

[The Boz]

Oh, do that! Do that! Oh god yes, please do that!

[Darth Stabber]

Has no one pointed out to her that a Slaymate is made from the body of a child, not a fetus? They're 'the height and weight of an eight-year old human child', and have some fairly specific guidelines for how they spawn. All her plan is going to get is a zombified fetus....which if you're feeling nasty, could get prematurely possessed by a fiend prior to the birth and become an Unholy Scion from Heroes of Horror.:smallbiggrin:

I think at this point the unholy scion would only encourage them (and confuse them since there would be a psion and a scion).

But I already gave them a ritual to do this (in my OP I simplified the explanation), and in out of character discussion I told them it would work (can't really go back on that now).

[The Glyphstone]

I think at this point the unholy scion would only encourage them (and confuse them since there would be a psion and a scion).

But I already gave them a ritual to do this (in my OP I simplified the explanation), and in out of character discussion I told them it would work (can't really go back on that now).

Ah - if there's houserules involved, that changes things. Sad.

[Firechanter]

I told them it would work (can't really go back on that now).

Yes you can. Nothing happened yet, did it? It never killed anyone to admit a mistake and fix it. Just be up front with your players about it and say "Girls, I made a mistake there. That zombie fetus plan cannot work, and I am bailing out."
And maybe add "Besides, I'm uncomfortable with it".
Tell your DN that she's welcome to go find a child that actually died out of parental neglect. If you don't make that overly difficult, your players won't feel the need to resort to horrible plans like that.

That said, do be more consequential with actions and alignments. When a player announces an action that you consider undeniably Evil, say so. Warn them that this action would shift their alignment to Evil, and give them the chance to reconsider. Do _not_ get involved in discussions about why it wouldn't really be evil! It's take it or leave it.

Alternatively, you might want to introduce a "Three Strikes" rule for alignment shifts, but judging from what you say, most of your players are already deeply in the red anyway.

I find it funny how some players (I also know this type) want to do evil stuff but fight tooth and nails so they don't have to actually write it on their character sheets. Being officially of Evil alignment is not the end of the world. But I guess they just don't want to be confronted with unpleasant truths.

FWIW, one of my co-players is also prone to this. In one game, he played a NG Cleric of Selune, but kept wanting to do things that everyone considered worthy of NE. So he refrained from doing them - but he always complained that it really wouldn't be Evil, only "pragmatic".

[MammonAzrael]

Yes, the plan is Evil. It is planned murder for purely personal gain. Not only is it murder, but a reanimation of a dead baby, which is also clearly defined as Evil. The dread necromancer, and her party members that support this plan, are all decidedly Evil. You are the DM, and there should be no question about this, simply tell them they have changed alignments. Period.

On an out-of-character note, if they don't think the plan is Evil, find out why. Find out what they would consider Evil. Point out the fact that DnD morality is literally back/white, and reanimation of corpses and murder are both unquestionably Evil.

[Infernalbargain]

This reminds me of a tip my old GM gave me before I started GMing.
"The only difference between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil is that the Chaotic Neutrals are smart enough to be immune to smite evil." This appears to be exactly what your necro is trying to pull.

[Darth Stabber]

Yes, the plan is Evil. It is planned murder for purely personal gain. Not only is it murder, but a reanimation of a dead baby, which is also clearly defined as Evil. The dread necromancer, and her party members that support this plan, are all decidedly Evil. You are the DM, and there should be no question about this, simply tell them they have changed alignments. Period.

On an out-of-character note, if they don't think the plan is Evil, find out why. Find out what they would consider Evil. Point out the fact that DnD morality is literally back/white, and reanimation of corpses and murder are both unquestionably Evil.

The argument wasn't over whether or not it was evil, the question was over whether or not insanity is a valid defense. The DN in question was crazy enough to be commited long before this discussion ever came up. She did not become crazy to avoid alignment troubles, but because it was legitimately part of her character concept. However now she is using crazy as a defense against the alignment shift that she does not want.

She has some legal protection in the city she lives in. The city is the primary trade hub with the necromancer empire to the north, and to accomadate their business partners the law tends to be very lax so long as you don't kill citizens and leave the city graveyard alone. There is a church of Pelor in the city that is trying very hard to reform the laws, but the lord mayor is significantly more concerned with trade than religion. The lord mayor's job is pretty secure since his city is one of the most prosperous in the nation. There are 4 major temples in town, pelor, we jas, baccob, and farlagn, along with small temples to oilidimara and st. cuthbert (this is not greyhawk, but I did crib a bunch of deities), so while the party does run afoul of pelor, most of the churches don't care (the DN is a baccob follower and the rest are whatever the equivilent of agnostic is). So without major political upheaval, or a new sort of evil out of the party, the pelorites can't do much to them. They are under the scrutiny of a paladin at the moment, but his hands are bound by the law at the moment (which is a legitimate if misguided authority in the eyes of the paladin, he's no miko), until such time as they violate the law (which is unlikely), or step out of the province (thus out of the lord mayor's protection).

Long term I don't really know what the party is after, although if they keep working for the demilich, they will likely be involved in a coups for control of the necromancer empire (which happens every few years in that country anyway). They recently seem to have developed a flair for monster hunting, so it could go that direction.

[Bovine Colonel]

I'm pretty sure that the killing of a fetus is a criminal offense in a medieval setting.

As is conspiracy to commit a crime.

[MammonAzrael]

No, insanity is not a defense. It may be in a legal system, but the alignment system is not a legal system. The actions are Evil. The DN is Evil and insane. One does not excuse or dismiss the other. Whether or not she'd be prosecuted is a different matter entirely. The law has absolutely nothing to do with the alignment on her character sheet.

Tell her "Tough. You're now Evil and insane. DnD morality is not real world morality. Your actions are consistently Evil, to extremely Evil. Your character is Evil. Her mental state has no bearing or relevance on her alignment; it is not a defense or something to hide behind to excuse your actions. The alignment system doesn't care. This does not mean you will be automatically found guilt of breaking the law or something, as the law very well may care and take that into account. The alignment system does not."

[Darth Stabber]

I'm pretty sure that the killing of a fetus is a criminal offense in a medieval setting.

As is conspiracy to commit a crime.

Given only citizens and documented foreigners have most legal protections, I doubt it is a crime. I've bound my own hands by fleshing out the legal system before hand. The party has visas, the Orc is not a citizen (indeed most prostitutes are not). Infact citizen, for the nation they are in, is defined by one of a few criteria. Land ownership (the party can qualify on that if they didn't have visas), membership in a government chartered guild(merchant, longshoreman, mages, ect.), noble status (rare since most nobles qualify under land owner), farmers (including landless agricultural workers since a major revolt) or government (military, town guard, tax collecter, ect). I curse my completist planning.

Prostitutes do not have a chartered guild. Children legally are the property of their parents, thus fall under their parents status. The legality was never a question, though if exposed to the govenment the loophole would soon be closed. The govenment is fair enough to not pass ex post facto laws. Seriously, I have notes on most of this, I don't build campaign settings a little bit. I know the full legal and political situation of the entire continent (6 countries), and have them fleshed out. This plan would be illegal in 4 of them, and in most of the country they are in, but given the highly autonomousness of the individual provinces and the nation wide definition of citizenship, they sit preparing to do the most horrible thing ever allowed by law.

[Bovine Colonel]

How's this:

If it dun conflict with anything your players have seen so far, it dun need to happen.

Have your players already had a full explanation of the legalities involved?

[Darth Stabber]

They have now (I know for a fact that the dn is reading this thread, and she is probably amused). The SS is a frequent lurker on these forums, and I bet they have already showed it to the psion.

[Bobikus]

Yeah, they're all evil. Insanity isn't a defense when it comes to alignment.

[Metahuman1]

Look, You CAN do something about this. Your players might not be terribly happy about it, but this is every bit as abusive as trying too build a character that always, with out fail, Win's initiative in every encounter AND can kill no limit of opponents in one uninterpretable action with out fail.

You screwed up becuase like any person who ISN'T a total Sociopath you didn't for see ANYONE who would WANT too think about a character doing something like this UNLESS THEY WERE THE VILLAIN WHO YOU WERE GETTING READY TO KILL!

This is, rules as written an EVIL party, end of story. DM fiat is the only thing holding that up, stop giving them DM fiat and don't debate this one with them, dictate it too them! If they get to do this, it is entirely your fault for NOT putting your foot down. And Honestly it would serve them all right if in some convoluted fashion they pissed off an epic level wizard with this action that killed the whole party like swatting a fly. Further, that would require FAR LESS DM Fiat then what there getting ready too do with out having to be listed as Evil.

And "They work together" is not an excuse. Any DM I've ever had would have hit me square between the eyes with there entire Source book collection if I offered that as an excuse for anything a quarter this bad.

Edit: And they ABOSULTY deserve SEVER Punishment up too and including TPK if they use anything you put on these forums about this game that you did not reveil too them as characters at the gaming table for there benefit.

[Bovine Colonel]

What level are the PCs? If they're well enough known (depends on universe, level 8ish on in mine) throw Chaotic Good paladin variants at them.

[Kuulvheysoon]

What level are the PCs? If they're well enough known (depends on universe, level 8ish on in mine) throw Chaotic Good paladin variants at them.

Now, are we talking Paladins of Freedom (UA) or the Holy Liberator PrC? Both are valid, and the Holy Lib. come with the additional benefit of having a base class to draw of off (tracking, rage, etc...)

[Darth Stabber]

And "They work together" is not an excuse. Any DM I've ever had would have hit me square between the eyes with there entire Source book collection if I offered that as an excuse for anything a quarter this bad.

I never said that made their actions not evil, it just means that the party is really good at working together and thses characters got over their issues very quickly. There is no drama and they fight like a well oiled machine. If not for the increadibly evil part they would be a perfect party. I have no compunctions against an evil campaign, infact that let's me use all sorts fun monsters as enemies. Good parties have little to fear from good outsiders and dragons, but evil parties fight them, and they still have to deal with evil outsiders and dragons (since evil is not one big happy family). Evil parties are also are easier to motivate, just say hey if you kill all these guys you get stuff and boom adventure.

[slaydemons]

All I can say is that DN needs to be killed by a paladin not because she is a DN but she is reanimating a stillborn child they created. I would just be like *rubs temples* what the heck are you doing this is twisted.

[The Glyphstone]

I still say you make them fight an Unholy Scion-fetus. Just because they have a ritual that works normally doesn't guarantee its success...the existence of a Unholy Scion in the first place is predicated on interference - in this case, a fiend possessing an unborn child. I'm willing to bet this slaymate ritual doesn't take into account the presence of a demonic entity that's already occupying the intended body.

And for players reading this - nyeh nyeh blargh!:smalltongue:


(this is also why I've stopped allowing Evil characters - I DM to tell the story of a group of...if not heroes, at least decent people. Everyone I know, though, wants to be Evil so they can live out their vicarious sociopathic fantasies...I envy people with groups who are capable of something other than Stupid Evil.

[Darth Stabber]

Edit: And they ABOSULTY deserve SEVER Punishment up too and including TPK if they use anything you put on these forums about this game that you did not reveil too them as characters at the gaming table for there benefit.

While that IS COMPLETELY TRUE AND I HAVE NO ISSUES WHAT SO EVER WITH DOING IT (emphasis for my player's benefit), they have a reasonable expectation to know the laws of the country they are in, so I can't in good conscience do that IN THIS ONE SPECIFIC INSTANCE (again player's benefit).

If you are in my game and reading this: take special note of what is written in caps, your character may live longer.

[CrazedBanana]

If you're absolutely sick or evil characters, (the party I'm DMing had 3) do what I did. Kill em dead with angels! I even gave them warning, like "As you stab the shopkeeper through the gut, you feel as though the very gods curse your name" or, "As you strike down the Viscount's champion, chosen by Bahamut, you begin to feel impending doom swirl around your head. Then II'd kill their characters. Then, they tried to murder our good cleric of Pelor in cold blood. Luckily she escaped, but I decided enough was enough, and sent 4 golden dragons after them. Their new characters are all good, or lawful good.

[Kuulvheysoon]

If you're absolutely sick or evil characters, (the party I'm DMing had 3) do what I did. Kill em dead with angels! I even gave them warning, like "As you stab the shopkeeper through the gut, you feel as though the very gods curse your name" or, "As you strike down the Viscount's champion, chosen by Bahamut, you begin to feel impending doom swirl around your head. Then II'd kill their characters. Then, they tried to murder our good cleric of Pelor in cold blood. Luckily she escaped, but I decided enough was enough, and sent 4 golden dragons after them. Their new characters are all good, or lawful good.

As much as that is railroading and DM fiat... they had it coming. And you were definitely generous with the warnings - I probably wouldn't have given them as many.

But seriously? Try to murder your CLERIC in cold blood? Seriously? These people weren't playing CE - They were clearly playing SE (Stupid Evil)

[Darth Stabber]

(this is also why I've stopped allowing Evil characters - I DM to tell the story of a group of...if not heroes, at least decent people. Everyone I know, though, wants to be Evil so they can live out their vicarious sociopathic fantasies...I envy people with groups who are capable of something other than Stupid Evil.

Convieniently, they seem to avoid a lot of the stupid evil trope (though the dn has an amusing take on chaotic crazy), they are competant, mostly controlled, and value some level of planning, or at least make it seem like they do. The psion is neutral without qualm, he isn't good by any stretch, but his only evil mark is tolerating evil. The SS is hovering on the line between, and has admitted to being evil, and it will probably be on his sheet next session. The DN keeps trying to justify evil acts with insanity, claims that since the mother is willing it should be no different than raising a zombie, and insisting that being an inherantly sweet and good natured individual neutralizes (literally) her other wise unconscienable acts. If the DN would get over it, we could go on and have a wonderful evil time (I going to start running it that way whether she does or doesn't).

[Kuulvheysoon]

Convieniently, they seem to avoid a lot of the stupid evil trope (though the dn has an amusing take on chaotic crazy), they are competant, mostly controlled, and value some level of planning, or at least make it seem like they do. The psion is neutral without qualm, he isn't good by any stretch, but his only evil mark is tolerating evil. The SS is hovering on the line between, and has admitted to being evil, and it will probably be on his sheet next session. The DN keeps trying to justify evil acts with insanity, claims that since the mother is willing it should be no different than raising a zombie, and insisting that being an inherantly sweet and good natured individual neutralizes (literally) her other wise unconscienable acts. If the DN would get over it, we could go on and have a wonderful evil time (I going to start running it that way whether she does or doesn't).

...No. Just.... no. Just because the mother is willing does NOT make it different than raising a zombie. It means that the mother may very well have absolutely no moral compass of her own/be a complete sociopath. It could also mean that she's so desperate that she'll do anythng for the coin, though I'd like to think that she'd draw the line at letting them kill her unborn child.

I'm agreeing with pretty much everybody else on this thread- take the DN's character sheet, and change her alignment yourself (she sounds like she's straddling the line on NE/CE to me). She's already firmly in Evil territory. No question about it. Insanity does NOT pardon creating a slaymate in any way, shape or form.

[Darth Stabber]

But seriously? Try to murder your CLERIC in cold blood? Seriously? These people weren't playing CE - They were clearly playing SE (Stupid Evil)

They probably would never kill a cleric in cold blood, the paladin on their butts is another story (though he is trying really hard to goad them into a fight, or rather was until the church demanded that he hire them for a mission to catch a binder, while hoping they would fail at the task). They know that they have peeved the church of pelor, and they know that it is the biggest good religion (actually biggest religion on the continent). We'll see how easily their white dragon zombie flies in foreign skies!

[Solaris]

this is also why I've stopped allowing Evil characters - I DM to tell the story of a group of...if not heroes, at least decent people. Everyone I know, though, wants to be Evil so they can live out their vicarious sociopathic fantasies...I envy people with groups who are capable of something other than Stupid Evil.

I'm beginning to learn that these are the minority, and that I was spoiled rotten with my last group.

[Kuulvheysoon]

They probably would never kill a cleric in cold blood, the paladin on their butts is another story (though he is trying really hard to goad them into a fight, or rather was until the church demanded that he hire them for a mission to catch a binder, while hoping they would fail at the task). They know that they have peeved the church of pelor, and they know that it is the biggest good religion (actually biggest religion on the continent). We'll see how easily their white dragon zombie flies in foreign skies!

Two words: Command undead.

I'm pretty sure that the church wouldn't be opposed to hiring a wizard with this spell in his books. There's no save, nor a HD cap for mindless undead (like their dragon). There IS, however, an SR check.

Worth looking into, to say the least.

And I wonder if that zombie dragon had any family... I bet his parents wouldn't be too happy to see their child killed...

[Darth Stabber]

Two words: Command undead.

I'm pretty sure that the church wouldn't be opposed to hiring a wizard with this spell in his books. There's no save, nor a HD cap for mindless undead (like their dragon). There IS, however, an SR check.

Worth looking into, to say the least.

And I wonder if that zombie dragon had any family... I bet his parents wouldn't be too happy to see their child killed...

They did not kill the dragon (and probably could not have taken down a mature adult white dragon), nor did they zombify it (and infact couldn't have). They found a loose zombie dragon and command undeaded it. Yes I forgot about the power of command undead.

Actually, the more I think about it the more I like this party as evil. They aren't going the whole "act out my frustrations with life" type of evil, more of a two "extremely pragmatic" characters, and one nut case.

[Racoras]

A few thoughts on this thread and the issue at hand.

1. Its pretty obvious a lot of the people in this thread are inherently opposed towards any kind of "evil" campaign and very fond of the idea that D&D is purely about shining paragons of good and at worst minor antiheroes. Considering your seeming interest in letting them play evil, might be best to gloss over a lot of the "omfg TPK them!"

2. Wisdom penalty actually seems problematic as a way to represent insanity, and you might be better off with a custom "penalty feat" sort of thing like -sense motive, -diplomacy, etc. Otherwise how do clerics of deities of madness work?

3. Killing the unborn child for the purposes of making an undead factory is probably quite evil, and D&D alignment where evil is a discernable detectable thing doesn't really influence the matter, as many others have said. While arguably problematic it ties too much into the system to really change well.

4. Sounds like your explanation of how to create a slaymate may have nudged them at least a little towards this. As a compromise i think your DN would jump at eagerly, from the sound of her, you might go for a more morally gray approach (likely still evil by a lot of standards) of essentially assisted suicide. Namely, they find an ill/abused/near death/crippled child currently suffering from parental neglect, and free her from that life by means of painless death and opportunity for revenge on the clearly evil parents, by making them into a slaymate. Thus, using evil to do good ("saving" her from that life and getting justice/revenge on abusive parents) and not quite so clearly "fiends don't need to bother with making pacts anymore" evil.



Also, any chance this is online and your looking for new players, since you have 3 by your description? ^__^ Detailed world sounds hard to pass up, and group seems pretty nice.

[Darth Stabber]

So just some notes for reference
1) I am not going TPK, or even purposefully kill any player. I ry to run somewhat sandbox style games, and let the players make the adventures if they will.

2) I really have no problem with evil pcs, even in an otherwise good campaign, just so long as the party can get along.

3) the slaymate is not likely to unbalance the game, it's just an evil act that a player is trying to dodge the moral repercussions of.

[Kuulvheysoon]

So just some notes for reference
1) I am not going TPK, or even purposefully kill any player. I ry to run somewhat sandbox style games, and let the players make the adventures if they will.

2) I really have no problem with evil pcs, even in an otherwise good campaign, just so long as the party can get along.

3) the slaymate is not likely to unbalance the game, it's just an evil act that a player is trying to dodge the moral repercussions of.

Number three is my real issue with this entire thing. You do the deed, you pay the repercussions. Simple as that. Blaming insanity (in the game, I mean) is NOT a valid excuse as to why you should remain CN.

[sengmeng]

I think that when I said "smite them" I was misunderstood... I meant, you decide what is evil in YOUR campaign, and show them that they are now evil. Throw solars at them, have paladins hunt them by using Detect Evil, and show them that smite evil now works on them. Not TPK, just show them that killing them is now a quest for good NPCs and they are PC villains. Really, just officially make this into the kind of campaign that it already seems to be turning into.

[Arbitrarious]

You see the problem is that you tell them their alignment. Unless a player takes a vested interest I don't. A paladin frets over his acts and code, the swordsage doesn't care. When it is relevant you'll find out (holy smite).

If the complain I'll tell my players alignment isn't how you see yourself, it's how the world sees you. If you murder babies for the sole purpose of gaining power that's pretty evil. If you actually make a child for that purpose that's really evil. If that have an issue with it you can pull out the Book of Vile Darkness and gloss over a few of the vile acts that are actually not as evil as that.

As for insanity being a defense... If you are too crazy to know better then you are too crazy to care what your alignment actually is. If you want to do evil things, be evil and make no apologies. Evil can work fine in a party. "It's in my best interest to work with you, so I do."

[Kaeso]

So just some notes for reference
1) I am not going TPK, or even purposefully kill any player. I ry to run somewhat sandbox style games, and let the players make the adventures if they will.

2) I really have no problem with evil pcs, even in an otherwise good campaign, just so long as the party can get along.

3) the slaymate is not likely to unbalance the game, it's just an evil act that a player is trying to dodge the moral repercussions of.

I just believe this needs to be said:
Sir, I applaud you. You don't force your story or campaign upon your players, you just create a world in which they can be who they want to be. That said, I think that the solution to point 3 is just giving your players the repercussions of their act. Send a few (level appropriate, of course) paladins after them and see how they like that.

[Rimeheart]

I love playing evil.
My favorite was an aristocrat I made. Turned him into an intimi-odancer. I think the most entertaining thing he did was punch a gnome childs head in with his spiked gauntlet to scare the rest of the town into staying still so his henchmen could tie them all up and turn them into slaves.

I think she should get alignment shifted to evil for using people in such callous ways.
However I also think you should just let them be evil and have a good time.

She should infact suffer the alignment shift and the wisdom change! Just because she is crazy does not mean people with forgive evil acts. After all in the real world psychopaths are generally seen as evil when they commit their attrocities on "innocent" humans. Despite having the defense that they are pyschopaths.(typically viewed as some one crazy by most folks.)

If she is reading this I hope she is a good enough roleplayer to understand that this is what should happen as her character progresses. Honestly her character is more focused on how undead see her. So being seen as evil by the greater society should not even be a problem for that character.

The TL;DR version: Alignment shifted to evil yes, wisdom change yes. Because being crazy is fun! Also give them a few good guys to kill too. Those damn good doers deserve a good death to such creative and fun villians.

[hamishspence]

Yeah, that sort of Most Definitely Not Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MostDefinitelyNotAVillain) character is as fun for me to play as a regular Evil character.

Actually the trope is closer to Pay Evil Unto Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PayEvilUntoEvil), or Evil Versus Evil - some acts are so evil (like destroying souls, in BoVD), that the character will change to Evil-aligned if they weren't already so, regardless of how "deserving" their victims are, or how "unwilling to harm the innocent" they might be.

When the DM follows the DMG's recommendations of changing PC alignments- they don't have to ask the player "is your character now willing to harm the innocent"-

they assess them based on their past evil acts and the likeliness of committing future evil acts.

[Frozen_Feet]

Just tell the DN "Deal with it. You're now evil, insane or not. If you want to get back to neutral, do something good for a change."

There isn't any more magic to it. I'm not even properly understanding why she's so adamantly against the alignment change. It has little to no mechanical impact on the character.

After that, just continue the game.

[hamishspence]

Has no one pointed out to her that a Slaymate is made from the body of a child, not a fetus? They're 'the height and weight of an eight-year old human child', and have some fairly specific guidelines for how they spawn. All her plan is going to get is a zombified fetus....which if you're feeling nasty, could get prematurely possessed by a fiend prior to the birth and become an Unholy Scion from Heroes of Horror.:smallbiggrin:

If the other parent was a deity in disguise, you could get an Atropal.

On insanity- while Heroes of Horror does have a paragraph (in the discussion on Detect Evil) suggesting that "it can be argued that if a villain is completely insane, they're not evil, in the strictest sense of the term"

"it can be argued that" is not the same as "it is always the case that".

And "completely insane" might be exceedingly rare.

In BoVD, the Dread Emperor is described as "insane" "psychotic" and "delusional"- but he's still evil aligned.

[Gnaeus]

No, insanity is not a defense. It may be in a legal system, but the alignment system is not a legal system. The actions are Evil. The DN is Evil and insane. One does not excuse or dismiss the other. Whether or not she'd be prosecuted is a different matter entirely. The law has absolutely nothing to do with the alignment on her character sheet.

I think it could be a defense, but not in this case.

If the insanity in question was that she was delusional, and the insanity made her believe (for example) that the child was a demon that had to be destroyed, it wouldn't be an evil act any more than killing an innocent that was covered by an illusion to make it look like a demon. Compare with the poor mothers who kill their children to "save" them every so often. More tragic than evil.

If the player understands that she is murdering and reanimating an innocent life, and that this action is something that would be generally recognized as evil (by the authorities, by the universe, etc) she is evil. Her particular form of insanity (sociopathy, megalomania, etc.) may be driving her to commit evil acts, or even to disregard the moral compass of the universe. But as long as she understands the nature of her actions and voluntarily chooses to do them anyway, she is morally (and legally, at least in the US) responsible.

[Cartigan]

And I wonder if that zombie dragon had any family... I bet his parents wouldn't be too happy to see their child killed...
Why would any chromatic dragon care, especially the most bestial of them?

And are we off the subject of his evil PCs from the OP? Because I want to remind everyone that the ridiculous situation was the DM's idea.

[hamishspence]

Because dragons are very, very proud- even white dragons- and they may view zombification of their corpses as an outrage.

In the FR novel Prince of Lies, when a zombiefied white dragon (which has had many parts removed for spell components and the like) returns to its home- the dragons see what's been done, group together, and devastate Zhentil Keep, where the dragon came from.

[Darth Stabber]

If the player understands that she is murdering and reanimating an innocent life, and that this action is something that would be generally recognized as evil (by the authorities, by the universe, etc) she is evil. Her particular form of insanity (sociopathy, megalomania, etc.) may be driving her to commit evil acts, or even to disregard the moral compass of the universe. But as long as she understands the nature of her actions and voluntarily chooses to do them anyway, she is morally (and legally, at least in the US) responsible.

I think the player gets that this is evil (I really hope), but the character's particular mental illness is neither sociopathy nor megalomania, but seriously believes that undead are just like people, and probably doesn't see why making the baby undead is wrong. The player maintans that the crazy makes her non-evil, and alledges an evil alignment would ruin her character.

[hamishspence]

That seems to be the issue.

But alignment is not restrictive- an evil character is not unable to be kind, or compassionate, or altruistic- it's just that (at this point in time) their evil acts have outweighed their good ones- and until they have a genuine change of heart and repent those acts- they are evil.

Playing an evil character can be exactly like playing a non-evil character- they can be heroic if they choose.

Unless the player has a plan to take a PRC that has "Any non-evil" as a requirement- it shouldn't be too much of a problem- to focus entirely on "what would this character do"

rather than "what would most characters of this alignment do".

[Cartigan]

Because dragons are very, very proud- even white dragons- and they may view zombification of their corpses as an outrage.
Chromatic dragons are also very greedy and ambitious. A dead dragon, zombified or not, is a dragon that is out of the way.


In the FR novel Prince of Lies, when a zombiefied white dragon (which has had many parts removed for spell components and the like) returns to its home- the dragons see what's been done, group together, and devastate Zhentil Keep, where the dragon came from.
Why would a zombified white dragon "return" anywhere?
And why are there a bunch of dragons in one place?

[The Glyphstone]

So far, her "character" seems to hinge on doing Evil things without the moral consequences.

[hamishspence]

Chromatic dragons are also very greedy and ambitious. A dead dragon, zombified or not, is a dragon that is out of the way.


Why would a zombified white dragon "return" anywhere?
And why are there a bunch of dragons in one place?

It may have actually come to unlife itself- "spontaneously created undead"- so might be more Corpse Dragon than Zombie dragon.

It flew north, stopped at the caves of a dozen fully grown dragons- they saw the Cyric and Zhentil Keep symbols on the body- and knew where to place the blame.

[ooknabah]

Here's a fun DM cheat- Say "every time you do an action that is evil, you get evil points, and those increase a DC towards shifting your alignment when you're not trying to be that alignment. If you ask, I'll tell you if what you're doing is evil, so understand the consequences."

They do something evil, have them roll a save. If you think they're really evil, they fail that save.

[Cartigan]

It may have actually come to unlife itself- "spontaneously created undead"- so might be more Corpse Dragon than Zombie dragon.

It flew north, stopped at the caves of a dozen fully grown dragons- they saw the Cyric and Zhentil Keep symbols on the body- and knew where to place the blame.
Still doesn't make any sense. Sounds like power word: plot device to me.

[hamishspence]

Could be. The point being- while it's a very loose one, chromatic dragons still have a society.

Hence, if ticked off enough, they will group together to wipe out an offender.

[Coidzor]

She was exiled from her home country (a land ruled by necromancers, that had an industrial revolution on the backs of zombies) for leading a zombie rights movement.

:smallconfused:

That's not good. That's I wanna mess around and always have an excuse for doing something stupid, malicious, or maliciously stupid when I get bored with the DM's talky bits. :smallyuk:

[Cartigan]

Could be. The point being- while it's a very loose one, chromatic dragons still have a society.

Hence, if ticked off enough, they will group together to wipe out an offender.

Chromatic dragons are always ticked off and always want to wipe out or subjugate other races.
And they especially don't like the bestial Whites.

If we want to go by plot device, one of Paizo's adventures had young black dragons contracting adventurers to kill their mother. Or thanking them for doing it, I forget (then trying to eat them because they are chromatic dragons).

EDIT: And am I still the only one who has noticed re-animating aborted fetuses was the DM/OP's off-the-cuff idea. The players are just an amoral necromancer and an assassin. I mean, what do you want?

[TheArsenal]

Your friends are just ignorant then. Im sorry but your situation is unfix-able.

Send them to prison
Have them be slaughtered by Good heroes


It wont matter.

Your friends will kick up a fuss of how unfair you are, and demand a re-do.

The characters are BLATANTLY evil and CE at that. Your just stuck with a party of horrible people.

Thier just Using EVIL as an excuse to do horrible things.

And the Necromancer MUST be insane to believe such BS about undead babies. Its just an excuse.

Your Campaign will be about them creating an evil empire and causing harm to others. Sorry.


Edit:

To Explain the insanity bit:

She believes something that isn't true. It doesn't take a genuis to understand that Zombies are wrong. So as a result, even if she TRULY believes that Zombies a teh-good, it doesn't realy change it from any other kind of insanity (If I kill my Family a Meteor of Gold will fall from the Sky and bring them back).

So Lower the Wisdom.

[HalfDragonCube]

I play in a campaign where most of us are evil, but smart evil, not stupid evil.

It can be great fun if it is done right, although the druid's puppy got killed in a spectacular fashion and one member of the party sliced it up and shared out the parts among the group.

I got the entrails, as they might be useful as some kind of spell component one day.

[Lord Vampyre]

I think the player gets that this is evil (I really hope), but the character's particular mental illness is neither sociopathy nor megalomania, but seriously believes that undead are just like people, and probably doesn't see why making the baby undead is wrong. The player maintans that the crazy makes her non-evil, and alledges an evil alignment would ruin her character.

Here is the problem Alignment and sanity are considered mutually exclusive in their evaluations. D&D defines alignment using a character's actions, not the mental state at the time the actions were committed. So, yes the characters are clearly evil. In this particular instance they can not even claim that the end justifies the means, since there is no particular good deed they are trying to achieve by using these methods.

I will grant that the reanimation of the corpse is possibly morally ambiguous. However, the killing of the fetus for the specific purpose of the reanimation is clearly evil. Have the character change her alignment, until:

1. She atones for the evil deed. Or,

2. She commits an equivalent act of good.

Now, I sure neither will ever happen. One she doesn't view the act as evil, and two requires a major sacrifice on her part.

Have fun with your "evil" campaign. :smallwink:

[MammonAzrael]

I think the player gets that this is evil (I really hope), but the character's particular mental illness is neither sociopathy nor megalomania, but seriously believes that undead are just like people, and probably doesn't see why making the baby undead is wrong. The player maintans that the crazy makes her non-evil, and alledges an evil alignment would ruin her character.

Does. Not. Matter.

She is Evil. If she is ever relieved of her insanity, she may wish to atone. She is still Evil. DnD is quite clear on matters of murder and necromancy.

@ Gnaeus - No, I firmly believe that insanity is never a defense for if your alignment is Evil. I do not believe a single Evil action will change you to Evil, but insanity or deception does not change the nature of the act. If a paladin kills an innocent child, fully believing the child to be a devil, the paladin still falls, the act is still Evil. A mother murdering her children is both tragic and Evil. The real world may not have absolutes, but DnD most certainly does. What insanity does is potentially let your character not care or realize they're Evil.

[Frozen_Feet]

The player maintans that the crazy makes her non-evil, and alledges an evil alignment would ruin her character.

Remind her that the alignment doesn't change her character, her character changes her alignment. Her shift to Evil is just a cosmological notation of what her character actually is, it doesn't necessarily have any impact on her.

[Gnaeus]

@ Gnaeus - No, I firmly believe that insanity is never a defense for if your alignment is Evil. I do not believe a single Evil action will change you to Evil, but insanity or deception does not change the nature of the act. If a paladin kills an innocent child, fully believing the child to be a devil, the paladin still falls, the act is still Evil. A mother murdering her children is both tragic and Evil. The real world may not have absolutes, but DnD most certainly does. What insanity does is potentially let your character not care or realize they're Evil.

I firmly believe that you are wrong. The previously mentioned book of vile darkness quote demonstrates that you are wrong. But more importantly, if you remove motivation (free will) and comprehension (the understanding of what is evil and why) from actions, the system becomes bizarre and completely unrelated to even D&D morality.

Why are predators neutral? Predators might eat innocent babies. if a tiger eats a child, does it become an EVIL tiger? No. Because it is incapable of understanding the moral ramifications of its actions.

Your paladin walks into a store, keeping a shopkeeper from leaving (it is late at night). After he is done, shopkeeper leaves, and is run over by a runaway land sloth. The paladins actions lead to the death, but it wasn't evil, because the paladin had no way to know that his mercantile interaction would lead to the shopkeeper's death. If the same thing was done by an epic level wizard who could see the future, and he KNEW that buying his spell components leads to the shopkeepers death, it would be evil.

Evil REQUIRES some degree of free will and understanding of morality, or it isn't Evil.

[Metahuman1]

Chromatic dragons are always ticked off and always want to wipe out or subjugate other races.
And they especially don't like the bestial Whites.

If we want to go by plot device, one of Paizo's adventures had young black dragons contracting adventurers to kill their mother. Or thanking them for doing it, I forget (then trying to eat them because they are chromatic dragons).

EDIT: And am I still the only one who has noticed re-animating aborted fetuses was the DM/OP's off-the-cuff idea. The players are just an amoral necromancer and an assassin. I mean, what do you want?

Hey, here's a good reason. "If it did this too one of us it MIGHT be able too do it to another of us. And NONE of us want to end up this way, so will just wipe out everything that was involved in this in order too be certain it won't be happening again. "

[Metahuman1]

As much as that is railroading and DM fiat... they had it coming. And you were definitely generous with the warnings - I probably wouldn't have given them as many.

But seriously? Try to murder your CLERIC in cold blood? Seriously? These people weren't playing CE - They were clearly playing SE (Stupid Evil)

My first session, I WAS the cleric, and the Necromancer did murder me and get away with it unscathed. They also murdered my next six or seven characters in that game before I gave up that group and almost gave up the gaming in general.

Between that and a hero complex, I don't like Evil characters one bit.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Yes. Kill your characters. That's a good way to keep them coming back. The OP has clearly stated, that besides this one incident, that he doesn't mind.

[TheArsenal]

Why the Necromancer Evil:

He is making a conscious choice of killing Somebody he doesn't like for something that he does. Thats Evil.

He Likes the Zombez. Unless he is SO completely brain dead (Wiz 4) then its pretty knowing that you do NOT kill others.

Its a simple piece of Moral Knowledge: Do Not Kill others.

[*.*.*.*]

honestly the only acceptable response to this is probably to kill the character

ITT: Kill the character for being played well Hurr Durr Durr:smallannoyed:


If you're uncomfortable with evil stuff, tell your players that you aren't willing to DM an evil party. Don't go all paladin on them and immediately punish them

[TheArsenal]

ITT: Kill the character for being played well Hurr Durr Durr:smallannoyed:


No. Its Called being a jerk. Its Metagaming at its worst.

Doing some pretty ****ed up **** for an metamagic bonus. And Refusing to accept evil.

[*.*.*.*]

No. Its Called being a jerk. Its Metagaming at its worst.

Doing some pretty ****ed up **** for an metamagic bonus. And Refusing to accept evil.

Playing you're character is being a jerk? If I'm playing a necromancer, I don't give two flying f#*ks about morality or life. I'm a big scary master of the undead, if I want an undead to make myself more powerful, I'll do anything to get it. Being a monster for power is tied pretty deep to the necromancer trope.

[TheArsenal]

Playing you're character is being a jerk? If I'm playing a necromancer, I don't give two flying f#*ks about morality or life. I'm a big scary master of the undead, if I want an undead to make myself more powerful, I'll do anything to get it. Being a monster for power is tied pretty deep to the necromancer trope.

But also refusing to accept that your evil? Thats the part I have been arguing about. Either lower your score to show insanity or Become CE.

[The Boz]

As we have said before, insanity doesn't matter. Willingly getting a woman impregnated and then murdering the fetus is EVIL. Doesn't matter how insane you are.

[TheArsenal]

As we have said before, insanity doesn't matter. Willingly getting a woman impregnated and then murdering the fetus is EVIL. Doesn't matter how insane you are.

Unless its Bat **** insanity. At which point in time the character is unplayable.

[*.*.*.*]

But also refusing to accept that your evil? Thats the part I have been arguing about. Either lower your score to show insanity or Become CE.

I'll agree with you there, I was never arguing that. I was arguing that a few posters have wanted to punish the character solely for her evil deed.

[Cartigan]

He is making a conscious choice of killing Somebody he doesn't like for something that he does.

That's adventuring.
Every killed a dragon? Evil bastard.


Its a simple piece of Moral Knowledge: Do Not Kill others.
Unless they are evil, then you kill HUNDREDS of them.

[The Boz]

If it deserves death, it does so for playing an explicitly evil character immune to Smite Evil and the like.

[TheArsenal]

I'll agree with you there, I was never arguing that. I was arguing that a few posters have wanted to punish the character solely for her evil deed.

I find the Raging Barbarian Party (Party composed of evil SOB that do nothing but murder and loot) boring. But killing them all is overkill.

Having them Hunted is another story.

[TheArsenal]

That's adventuring.
Every killed a dragon? Evil bastard.


It was burning down a village.

I never harmed a Dragon that DIDNT hurt people.

And I made peace with a Kobold tribe, asking them to stop harrasing villagers.

But Killing a Baby (Cause I do not like it) and replacing it with a Zombie (Need the Bonus) is evil.

[MammonAzrael]

I firmly believe that you are wrong. The previously mentioned book of vile darkness quote demonstrates that you are wrong. But more importantly, if you remove motivation (free will) and comprehension (the understanding of what is evil and why) from actions, the system becomes bizarre and completely unrelated to even D&D morality.

Why are predators neutral? Predators might eat innocent babies. if a tiger eats a child, does it become an EVIL tiger? No. Because it is incapable of understanding the moral ramifications of its actions.

Your paladin walks into a store, keeping a shopkeeper from leaving (it is late at night). After he is done, shopkeeper leaves, and is run over by a runaway land sloth. The paladins actions lead to the death, but it wasn't evil, because the paladin had no way to know that his mercantile interaction would lead to the shopkeeper's death. If the same thing was done by an epic level wizard who could see the future, and he KNEW that buying his spell components leads to the shopkeepers death, it would be evil.

Evil REQUIRES some degree of free will and understanding of morality, or it isn't Evil.

What quote? I didn't see any quote. If you want a quote:


THE OBJECTIVE APPROACH

This is the straightforward approach taken in the D&D game, and it is the one stressed in this book as well. From this frame of reference, evil can be judged objectively. The evil nature of a creature, act, or item isn't relative to the person observing it; it just is evil or it isn't.

The system is bizarre, as it is a completely objective view of good and evil. The BoVD section goes on to say you can safely ignore philosophy, as you can just summon up a celestial creature and ask "Is this evil?" Evil does not require a degree of free will or moral understanding in D&D, it simply is or is not.

The BoVD follows with "The Relative Approach" which is a far more real-world equivalent view of what is or is not evil. That, however, is specifically called out as a variant.

In fact, BoVD provides a perfect example for us:


A maniac puts poison in a town's water supply, believing (wrongly) that all of the people in the town are demons. Is that evil? Yes. A glabrezu convinces a good character that the townsfolk are all fiends that must be destroyed, so the character pours poison into the town's water supply. Is that evil? Probably not - at least, not in the context of the rest of the character's actions and the circumstances involved. Still, good characters shouldn't commit even remotely questionable acts on a large scale unless they're absolutely sure there's no other way to succeed. It's rarely a good idea to destroy a town of evil people, because there might be at least a few good people in the town as well.

So insanity is clearly not a valid defense against Evil deeds, which is what is relevant to the thread.

The rest with the paladin and such isn't actually relevant to the thread. I had a response, but I don't want to derail.

[The Boz]

Best way you could deal with this situation is to spawn a minor/major sidequest, as has been mentioned. My old DM from a few years ago used to do that a lot. We once had a mini-campaign that spanned over two months just because I gated in a demon in the middle of a fight, and it got loose.
So make that baby spawn as something... evil. And with aspirations. And with power.

[*.*.*.*]

So make that baby spawn as something... evil. And with aspirations. And with power.

Maybe a water-downed Atropal(ELH)? It'd be interesting

[The Boz]

Yeah, I don't think a 66HD creature is an appropriate challenge for these guys...
Make it something that screams "FREE ATLAST!" with a deep, booming voice from the body of a child, and then have the child disappear in a puff of sulfur and a BAMF sound.
And then send them on a long quest to go find that thing and kill it before it reaches full power.

[*.*.*.*]

Yeah, I don't think a 66HD creature is an appropriate challenge for these guys...

Thus why I said "Water-downed", decrease it's HD by like 20 or so and call it a BBEG

[Darth Stabber]

In all fairness to the player and character, this is not being done for powergaming purposes. Infact she currently has no metamagic feats. The character wants a slaymate because she loved them in necromancy school (in a high necromancy nation, why not), and wants one of her own. She doesn't just like zombies, she likes people and considers the undead to be people just like the living, only with less pulse (the character doesn't realize zombies are mindless but the player does). She does have redeeming qualities, just not redeeming enough. She is clearly a special kind of evil, not the normal evil adventurer kind. The swordsage while likely evil could go in a good or evil party with no qualms since he is mostly the pragmatic evil, and the psion is firmly neither good nor evil. I actually am highly amuzed by a number of the DN's antics, and was going to let the alignment issue slide until this most recent turn of events. She can have the slaymate but it is going to cost her her smite immunity. She already has wights, and hasn't started abusing chains, so I doubt that the slaymate is going to cause issues. What is my concern is what I can make available for the other two players that is even close to that cool. The DN's screen time is a little high, and I need to bring it up for the other two.

[Cartigan]

It was burning down a village.

I never harmed a Dragon that DIDNT hurt people.

And I made peace with a Kobold tribe, asking them to stop harrasing villagers.

But Killing a Baby (Cause I do not like it) and replacing it with a Zombie (Need the Bonus) is evil.

But that wasn't what you were saying. You were saying killing somebody was evil. And that killing some one to get something is evil. Then EVERY adventurer is evil, or at best neutral.

[TheArsenal]

But that wasn't what you were saying. You were saying killing somebody was evil. And that killing some one to get something is evil. Then EVERY adventurer is evil, or at best neutral.

Hurting somebody ONLY to further personal gain (Whilst knowing your causing pain) is Evil.

[TheArsenal]

She doesn't just like zombies, she likes people and considers the undead to be people just like the living, only with less pulse (the character doesn't realize zombies are mindless but the player does).

Well thats insanity. Its truly believing something that is clearly a lie.

[FatJose]

But that wasn't what you were saying. You were saying killing somebody was evil. And that killing some one to get something is evil. Then EVERY adventurer is evil, or at best neutral.

If your a bad/unimaginative DM/Player, maybe. What good adventurer in any story only does what they do to get things from creatures they killed? The loot is supposed to just be there. It's not supposed to be the reason your characters do it. And if it is, they're either neutral or evil or just bad characters.
-You save a village from invading Kobolds and in the process get their super secret loot that they didn't think of using for themselves for some reason...
-You go into the haunted tombs to stop the evil necromancer from reviving an ancient evil and after being victorious you notice he had amassed a significant amount of currency and magic doodads...
- Dragons love to horde gold and are evil. This makes them fair game for anyone. You can slay them to save future lives, self-preservation or because you want the riches the dragon had probably gotten through evil means.

I have to say, though. Seen many players with characters who were so meta..

Anyway, what does it matter if she's insane? Going by classic/traditional/current tropes insanity is still evil. Insane people are never good. Good crazies are "eccentric" but whenever an evil guy pops up, no one says, "You Are Evil!" They say, "You're mad!" "You're insane!" "Madman!"

[AtlanteanTroll]

Well thats insanity. Its truly believing something that is clearly a lie.

You can't actually know that. Not ALL undead are un-intelligent. Just like animals.

[TheArsenal]

You can't actually know that. Not ALL undead are un-intelligent. Just like animals.

Zombies, not liches. Its insanity treating them like Humans.

[Cartigan]

Hurting somebody ONLY to further personal gain (Whilst knowing your causing pain) is Evil.

Is Chaotic.

[The Glyphstone]

Is Chaotic.

No, causing pain or suffering to another for personal benefit is absolutely Evil. If it goes against the established legal code and/or you do it at random or without forethought and premediation, then it also becomes Chaotic.

The abusive, greedy slumlord is an archtypical Lawful Evil.
The psychopathic serial killer is an archtypical Chaotic Evil.

[Gnaeus]

What quote? I didn't see any quote. If you want a quote:


My bad. I miscited Hamishspense's quote. Heroes of Horror p77. "A psychotic killer doesn't have it in him to care if anyone knows him for what he is. (And in fact, if he's truly crazy, one could make an argument that he's not evil at all, in the strictest sense of the term)."



In fact, BoVD provides a perfect example for us:

Nice quote. Shame the way you (deliberately?)missed the previous five paragraphs, which make it clear that the same action could be non-evil, mildly evil, or clearly evil, based on whether it is performed accidentaly, recklessly, or knowingly, and finishes with "Sometimes, however, those categories are insufficient to judge evil intent. You are free to judge an act in the context of other actions"


So insanity is clearly not a valid defense against Evil deeds, which is what is relevant to the thread.

It does say that. Of course, it ALSO says in the very next sentence that if a demon convinces a good character that townsfolk are fiends, and he kills them in error, that it probably ISN'T an evil act, directly contradicting your earlier statement:
If a paladin kills an innocent child, fully believing the child to be a devil, the paladin still falls, the act is still Evil So, apparently, if I use glibness or an illusion to make someone think that a child is a demon, and they kill it, that is ok, but if I drive them crazy, and their magically induced delusion makes them think that a child is a demon and they kill it, thats Evil. This example makes no sense whatsoever.


The rest with the paladin and such isn't actually relevant to the thread. I had a response, but I don't want to derail.

Have fun with your evil wolves and tigers. Murderous beasties.

[true_shinken]

Good parties have little to fear from good outsiders and dragons, but evil parties fight them, and they still have to deal with evil outsiders and dragons (since evil is not one big happy family). Evil parties are also are easier to motivate, just say hey if you kill all these guys you get stuff and boom adventure.
I just have to point out that good is not a big happy family at all.
I have my players fighting celestials, paladins and the like every now and then. And I don't DM evil parties.

[MammonAzrael]

My bad. I miscited Hamishspense's quote. Heroes of Horror p77. "A psychotic killer doesn't have it in him to care if anyone knows him for what he is. (And in fact, if he's truly crazy, one could make an argument that he's not evil at all, in the strictest sense of the term)."

True. One could make an argument. Which, unfortunately, is not the same thing as how the rules actually work. Unless there is more support than a single parenthetical note that you could argue that he might not be evil, in the strictest sense of the term, he is still evil under the standard rules.


Nice quote. Shame the way you (deliberately?)missed the previous five paragraphs, which make it clear that the same action could be non-evil, mildly evil, or clearly evil, based on whether it is performed accidentaly, recklessly, or knowingly, and finishes with "Sometimes, however, those categories are insufficient to judge evil intent. You are free to judge an act in the context of other actions"

I did not miss the previous five paragraphs, they simple don't relate to the point. The act of killing in both our discussion with the dread necromancer and the paladin have never had a question of accidentally, recklessly, or knowingly. Our theoretical paladin is killing the innocent in question intentionally. He is not swinging his sword and accidentally killing the innocent. He is not recklessly swinging his sword and killing the innocent. He is knowingly swinging his sword with the intent to kill the innocent, whom he believes to be Evil. Additionally, the example has no mention of insanity making it irrelevant to the dread necromancer topic.


It does say that. Of course, it ALSO says in the very next sentence that if a demon convinces a good character that townsfolk are fiends, and he kills them in error, that it probably ISN'T an evil act, directly contradicting your earlier statement: So, apparently, if I use glibness or an illusion to make someone think that a child is a demon, and they kill it, that is ok, but if I drive them crazy, and their magically induced delusion makes them think that a child is a demon and they kill it, thats Evil. This example makes no sense whatsoever.

My previous post was, as I said, discussing the dread necromancer, and her claim of not-Evil-through-insanity. I did not want to derail the thread with continued discussion of a theoretical paladin. The second sentence does not apply to her, as she is not being deceived by an outside influence.

It also does not contradict my previous statement, as in my previous statement there was no outside influence. There was no evil being working to fool the paladin into murder. In my statement, the paladin did that fully of his own accord, making him solely responsible. If another being, such as a devil, or actively working to deceive the paladin, then the paladin is no longer a free agent, but rather the tool the devil used to commit a murder themselves.

If you use an illusion or some other method to fool someone into believing an innocent is a demon, then you are the murderer, using the tricked person as your murder weapon. Still an Evil act, but one you bear the burden of. If, however, you decide the innocent is a demon on your own, with no outside influence, then the murder is all yours.


Have fun with your evil wolves and tigers. Murderous beasties.

As I said previously, the alignment system is bizarre, and has it's issues. I do not know if there is a specific place where it is mentioned that a creature must be self-aware to have an alignment or not, but I'm not going to go diving for it. If you have any relevant rules on the matter, I'd love to see them.

[Larpus]

All the described players are evil, no buts or ifs.

The DN in particular, she can be as insane as she wants all day, not only that doesn't give her a white card to be randomly evil (insanity is just absence of mind, an insane Good character still leans towards good, and etc).

But even if it did, Necromancy itself is evil, to the point that the only way I can think of a Necromancer (the kind that raises deads and all that) of any sort being anything other than Evil is if they only do it for good and in the best way possible, in which case they end up Neutral, perhaps with Good tendencies, but still only Neutral since they do things that are just wrong, and those are the nice Necromancers!

IMHO, shift all their alignments to Evil, they can't really complain if they act like that without being forced to and feeling disgusted by it.

[OrganicGolem]

I think as horrible as this act is, its just one act of evil. If they were good aligned this would be a different story altogether, but a neutral character can perform evil acts so long as they're balanced with good acts as well. In fact from what you are describing the DN needed to do something this horrible not to gain the good alignment.

[TheArsenal]

I think as horrible as this act is, its just one act of evil. If they were good aligned this would be a different story altogether, but a neutral character can perform evil acts so long as they're balanced with good acts as well. In fact from what you are describing the DN needed to do something this horrible not to gain the good alignment.

Bull****! By that logic a good cleric may molest children just a little bit, but as long as they do good things their great people

[OrganicGolem]

Bull****! By that logic a good cleric may molest children just a little bit, but as long as they do good things their great people

As I said, its a completely different story with the good alignment.

[TheArsenal]

As I said, its a completely different story with the good alignment.

No it isn't. Unless your playing some weird surreal version of the game alignment acts just as in real life. I know we can't just shove people into two symbols but its close. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Good people is the G alignment.

Its simple morals: Good People (And good aligned people) do NOT impregnate Orc hookers with the intent of turning the fetus into a undead creature fueled by neglect and suffering.

[OrganicGolem]

No it isn't. Unless your playing some weird surreal version of the game alignment acts just as in real life. I know we can't just shove people into two symbols but its close. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Good people is the G alignment.

Its simple morals: Good People (And good aligned people) do NOT impregnate Orc hookers with the intent of turning the fetus into a undead creature fueled by neglect and suffering.

I'm not argueing that a good person wouldn't do that, but its not black and white, its gray... aka neutral. And the DN isn't trying to keep a good alignment, they're trying to keep a neutral one.

[TheArsenal]

I'm not argueing that a good person wouldn't do that, but its not black and white, its gray... aka neutral. And the DN isn't trying to keep a good alignment, they're trying to keep a neutral one.

So murder of the innocent is "Eh, Nutral" in your book?
No its not.

[OrganicGolem]

I think that someone can murder someone and not be evil, yes... otherwise EVERY general of every army in existence is evil because they will occasionally have to kill one to save thousands, if not millions.

Once you make that distinction, or gray area, then it just becomes a matter of reasoning if a situation is grey enough to qualify for being neutral.

In this case, the person didn't think they were killing the fetus for any real length of time because they see undead the way they see living people... it would be like (to this character) a doctor killing a patient by removing a bullet from their brain which they knew would kill them, then bringing them back to life.

[hamishspence]

And the DN isn't trying to keep a good alignment, they're trying to keep a neutral one.

While Heroes of Horror does mention characters being a "flexible neutral"- and committing Evil acts- such characters need to be able to balance the Evil acts with good intentions.

A Dread Necromancer who only ever casts [Evil] spells, rebukes undead, etc to save and protect people- that's a good example of such "balancing" and such a character could feasibly be Neutral.

A character who commits Evil acts more serious than that- for personal benefit rather than "to protect others"- probably isn't going to stay Neutral.

[TheArsenal]

In this case, the person didn't think they were killing the fetus for any real length of time because they see undead the way they see living people... it would be like (to this character) a doctor killing a patient by removing a bullet from their brain which they knew would kill them, then bringing them back to life.

Impregnating an Orc, turning the fetus into an undead Monstrocity (Killing the Orc)

This is WRONG. No buts ifs or "Well maybe". its just plain wrong.

[OrganicGolem]

Impregnating an Orc, turning the fetus into an undead Monstrocity (Killing the Orc)

This is WRONG. No buts ifs or "Well maybe". its just plain wrong.

I didn't see any mention of the orc being killed, in fact I was under the impression that she was willing.

And and dread necromancer wouldn't call their art a monstrosity.

[hamishspence]

I think that someone can murder someone and not be evil, yes... otherwise EVERY general of every army in existence is evil because they will occasionally have to kill one to save thousands, if not millions.

There's usually considered a moral difference between murder and other kinds of killing.

The trick is where to draw the line morally. One way might be to look at the general principles modern law uses to define "justifiable homicide" and start from there.

[TheArsenal]

I didn't see any mention of the orc being killed, in fact I was under the impression that she was willing.


Seriosly what the hell!

ITS MURDER! AGAINST THE INNOCENT! WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED!

[Frozen_Feet]

Whether or not the mother is willing (and her being willing is not necessarily sign that the act is a-okay, it might be a sign the mother is evil!), the child has no say in this. Evil in D&D terms is "destroying or debasing life for fun and profit". Killing a developing fetus just to pervert it to a creature that fundamentally embodies misery kinda counts. (Seriously, think of what a Slaymate is and what it metaphysically represents. Turning a child to such, no matter how young, is evil.)

I think a big problem here is that the alignment change is displayed as punitive, when it's real purpose should be descriptive.

If the GM is okay with running an evil campaign, then this all should have jack and squat to do with penalizing the player. It's just following the spirit and rules of the game and setting. Again, the character doesn't really change, because the new alignment doesn't bring about a change, it just describes a change that already happened.

I again suggest just telling her "You're evil for now, deal with it. Weäll see if you behave well enough to shift back to neutral."

[Haarkla]

I think that someone can murder someone and not be evil, yes... otherwise EVERY general of every army in existence is evil because they will occasionally have to kill one to save thousands, if not millions.
There is a big difference between 'occasionally having to kill one to save thousands' and impregnating an orc for the sole purpose of killing the fetus and turning it into an undead monstrosity fueled by neglect and suffering.

I am suprised that you cannot see that.

[Arbitrarious]

What's wrong with evil, in game at least? Honestly just make her evil. You can actually show her the book of evil and say you are doing things worse then some things in here. Actually isn't the therge from Oots like that? "Undead are my friends and are being oppressed by the living." She's pretty evil.

Regarding murder being neutral, it can be. If you kill in self defense, necessity, or due to extraordinary circumstances it's neutral. If you kill an embodiment of evil it's good. If you kill solely for your own profit without provocation it's evil, especially if it's unnecessary. She doesn't have any metamagic feats so you can't say she is gaining power to do some greater good. She wants a pet. So unless the baby that they made with the intent to kill somehow is presenting a clear and present threat it's evil to kill it.

[hamishspence]

If you kill in self defense, necessity, or due to extraordinary circumstances it's neutral.

Most of these might end up as "not murder" though- self-defense especially.

[TheArsenal]

But again, this is very simple:

Were not discussing necromancy as evil to the core, were discussing making a horrible, horrible monstrocity by an insane Necromancer that doesn't see the difference between living and undead and hopes to overthrow the living.

Sounds like a campian villain to me.

[Ravens_cry]

Wait, if said necromancer doesn't see the difference between positive and negative energy based lifeforms, why would he want to overthrow one?

[Gullintanni]

While Heroes of Horror does mention characters being a "flexible neutral"- and committing Evil acts- such characters need to be able to balance the Evil acts with good intentions.

A Dread Necromancer who only ever casts [Evil] spells, rebukes undead, etc to save and protect people- that's a good example of such "balancing" and such a character could feasibly be Neutral.

A character who commits Evil acts more serious than that- for personal benefit rather than "to protect others"- probably isn't going to stay Neutral.

Wee Jas in Living Greyhawk is the personification of this. Wee Jas' clerics use necromancy and rebuking in order to guide, ward and protect the dead. They will only animate the corpses of those willing.

Roles in which this would make sense:
- A fallen warrior leaves a will that specifies that his corpse should be raised to protect the tomb of his ancestors for a period of 20 years, at which point his corpse should be laid to rest.
- An infected vampire's last request before turning is to be rebuked and commanded into service to prevent the spread of the curse and its subsequent violence.
- Graveyards are desecrated in order to bolster the ancestral dead that have been raised to protect them.
- Chaotic undead are rebuked, commanded and destroyed for the abominations that they are.

All of these scenarios are examples of using RAW evil means to promote a greater good, namely the defense and veneration of the dead.

[FatJose]

The simple fact that anyone can "not" see a problem with this whole thing makes me weep for humanity.

Dude, just tell her straight.
"Your character is evil! She's evil because of the incredible dread she makes me feel for her actions"
Gut Check the Ho! (Directed at the character not the player, of course)

[Ravens_cry]

Quite. While a player chooses the initial alignment of their character, if the DM feels that alignment has changed due to the players actions, it changes.

[Gnaeus]

As I said previously, the alignment system is bizarre, and has it's issues. I do not know if there is a specific place where it is mentioned that a creature must be self-aware to have an alignment or not, but I'm not going to go diving for it. If you have any relevant rules on the matter, I'd love to see them.

The alignment system is bizarre. In this case, however. your reading of it makes it more bizarre and less moral than it would otherwise be.



I did not miss the previous five paragraphs, they simple don't relate to the point. The act of killing in both our discussion with the dread necromancer and the paladin have never had a question of accidentally, recklessly, or knowingly.

No. Those 5 paragraphs are EXACTLY on point.

If I kill a human, believing him to be a dangerous demon, after taking whatever reasonable precautions I can (given the time and resources available) to protect bystanders and to confirm the demonic nature, that is accidental (and not evil). I did not intend to kill a human.

If I kill a human, believing him to be a demon, but I didn't really try very hard to verify this, that would be reckless (and somewhat evil). If I had acted appropriately, I would have learned that he was a human before I killed him.

If I just kill a human, that is knowing, and evil.

This relates to insanity, because insanity affects our ability to make that choice. To extend that example:

If I throw someone off a roof, because I think they are a butterfly and I am helping them, that is accidental. I did not intend to kill them. It was caused by my insanity, I had no understanding of the harmful nature of my act. It was an accident. (This is also why the tiger is not evil. It is incapable of understanding the harmful nature of its actions).

If I know that I suffer from hallucinations or murderous fits, and I take the wheel of my flying castle and drive it into a city because I have a hallucination, that is reckless, and somewhat evil. I did not intend to kill lots of people, but I knew that that was a plausible result of my piloting a flying castle. The deaths were caused by my insanity, and I did not intend to cause them, but I could/should have prevented them.

If I murder the king because I (insanely) think that it will make the king's wife fall in love with me, it is evil. It is caused by my insanity, true, but I know that what I am doing is wrong, and I choose to do it anyway.



Our theoretical paladin is killing the innocent in question intentionally. He is not swinging his sword and accidentally killing the innocent. He is not recklessly swinging his sword and killing the innocent. He is knowingly swinging his sword with the intent to kill the innocent, whom he believes to be Evil. Additionally, the example has no mention of insanity making it irrelevant to the dread necromancer topic.

My previous post was, as I said, discussing the dread necromancer, and her claim of not-Evil-through-insanity. I did not want to derail the thread with continued discussion of a theoretical paladin. The second sentence does not apply to her, as she is not being deceived by an outside influence.

It also does not contradict my previous statement, as in my previous statement there was no outside influence. There was no evil being working to fool the paladin into murder. In my statement, the paladin did that fully of his own accord, making him solely responsible. If another being, such as a devil, or actively working to deceive the paladin, then the paladin is no longer a free agent, but rather the tool the devil used to commit a murder themselves.

If you use an illusion or some other method to fool someone into believing an innocent is a demon, then you are the murderer, using the tricked person as your murder weapon. Still an Evil act, but one you bear the burden of. If, however, you decide the innocent is a demon on your own, with no outside influence, then the murder is all yours.

No. The act of tricking someone is not what absolves someone of the responsibility for their actions, it is their ability/lack thereof to understand the consequences. You are entirely making that up, and then blaming the Alignment system for it not making sense. Moral wrongdoing is not something that you can bear for someone else. If the demon had tricked the paladin into murder, but the paladin had had the time and resources to verify that the victim wasn't a demon, and neglected to do so, his actions would be evil, despite the demon's influence.

Conversely, if the paladin walked in on a situation (maybe it is dark, and he knows that there are demons in the city) where he THINKS that one civilian is a demon about to kill someone, and he acts within the moment to protect the innocent (upholding his code), but he is mistaken, his action is accidental (and not evil). No one tricked him, he was just mistaken. But he didn't have the time to check, and he was acting in a good fashion. He might feel guilty afterwords, but he shouldn't fall. This is comparable to the first example in the five paragraphs that you don't use, where the paladin climbs up a hill to escape owlbears and causes an avalanche. The paladin intended to climb the hill, but he had no way to know the results of his actions.

[Larpus]

The thing to consider is that the alignment has more to do with intention than actual actions and is centered on a LG society for a means of comparison, since it's not a guidebook for the PCs and NPCs but instead a way for us, players and DMs to see how X creature or society acts as opposed to the "normal and ideal" LG.

Which means that, regardless of the PC's personal views and experiences, if it's evil it's evil, even if she doesn't see it that way. Otherwise, it's the same as claiming that it's ok to do the evilest of acts and go on unpunished as long as your personal view is different, if that were the case, the whole alignment system would simply make no sense and not work.

In an evil-aligned society, evil deeds might be viewed different, but the deed and society are still evil. Growing in a society that is accepting of undead and the such doesn't make one see them as awesome and totally ok. People still freaking die, scream and suffer before becoming undead, and even then, unless they're all freaking liches, they're now mindless and decaying creatures who are obviously not their original selves.

If the alignment worked just like a videogame based on actions as opposed to intent, the evil overlord who spares the local orc tribe so he can have an orc army would shift his alignment towards good, while the Paladin who is told by the big bad that there are a bunch of orphans trapped inside a building that is about to explode only to have said building explode 'cus the explosion activator was "door be opened by a good character" would go towards evil and lose all his powers.

Yes, there are prizes and punishments for both actions, the evil overlord will be claimed as merciful and just by the orcs, while the paladin will have to spend a lot of time in penance for his lack of insight and could even lose his powers, but due to him punishing himself or being punished for failing to see the bigger scheme, not 'cus he's LN now as he intended to do a good deed, but it turned out to be an evil one without him knowing, Gnaeus made this point better than I can.

As for neutrality in the Good-Evil axis means that the character falls into one of the 3 basic types (give or take a few steps towards good or evil):

1. Is actually good, but does bad things willingly if it leads to a greater good, still, such evil is quite mild and done in the "best way possible". Example: the Necromancer raises an army of the dead to fight a worse evil and save people, similarly, prefer to only raise fallen enemies (perhaps even with the pretext that in doing so the enemies have a chance to pay for their sins) and bodies that were already dead as opposed to killing innocents for that, unless absolutely necessary.

2. Is actually right there in the middle of the road, a true neutral. He doesn't quite understand or believe on notions of good and evil. Example: the Necromancer does so for his own personal gain, which can be quite petty and egoistical, but is still far from evil, similarly, he still prefers to rise fallen ones and bodies that were already dead, but could still raise Commoner McJoe who died in the attack instead of burring him so his wife can pray for him; also, it's possible that he would end up actively killing someone to turn into an undead, but it's a rare thing and the person killed must really be worth it for some sort of greater good, still, he does it in the fastest and less painful way possible.

3. Is closer to evil, he enjoys to do evil deeds, yet, he has some sort of moral that throws him closer to good as opposed to a true evil character, maybe he's sort of merciful or does very bad things with good ideals? Example: the Necromancer does what he does for his personal gain and is very egoistical about it, but he still fights a greater evil so people are free as opposed to joining him or overthrowing him. When he's choosing bodies to raise, he raises all the ones he can without caring about norms and the such and is more prone to actively kill someone to increase his army than mr. "neutral-neutral" just above and can be rather sadistic about the kill, but nothing that bad as he still doesn't do anything that is too horrible, 'cus for whatever reason, he's somewhat of a nice guy and prefers to have happy living people around him than an army of the undead to do his bidding.

The DN in case seems to me like an evil character who comes rather close to neutral due to good deeds, but is still essentially evil, especially if she only makes those good deeds as an excuse to be truly nightmare fuel evil, which is actually a nice concept given her insanity, leaving her as someone demented one who believes that good deeds mean she's got a free pass to be bat**** gruesome and sadistic when she wants to or that they justify her deeds in a "well, but this undead baby will be crucial for defeating the big bad!".

It would be somewhat "ok" or at least grayer ground if the whole undead baby thing was absolutely necessary for some very good reason and there was no other way, such as a demon who is too powerful to be fought and has to either eat an undead baby thing or 1000 innocent people before going away. But she did it just 'cus "she wanted it" and she wasn't even up to do the bad part herself, which is really petty, twisted and literally taking the shortest nicest (for her and her alone) route, thus, evil.


If that's confusing or something, think about it this way: if she is Neutral, just what in the name of anything is Evil for you?

[Thrice Dead Cat]

:smallconfused:

That's not good. That's I wanna mess around and always have an excuse for doing something stupid, malicious, or maliciously stupid when I get bored with the DM's talky bits. :smallyuk:


See, I think that more than anything this was pushing the boundaries. Both for the player and the character. The character, because, well, that DN was given an on the spot house-rule of "Non-evil." The player due to the possible parallels with abortion, but that's speculation - at best - on my part.

That said, I think the character could still be CN. If she played more the crazed anarchist than the "LOL Not really CE," it would be fairly legit, but that judgment needs to be made by you, as the DM.

Really, as has been said on these boards already, while you've painted us a more than a more-than-adequate "what does the Playground think?" "reaction" thread, even with new information we won't be able to conquer the last element in this equation. Yet.

Still, good job! :smallcool:


*most if not all rebuttals to this and following included because I can and read up to a different point*


*snip*


*snip*


*didn't read this. No offense to hamish*


*but did skim that*

Okay, so, actually Gnaeus goofed. Not because his arguments aren't sound, but because he used the wrong source.:smallwink:

Evil - at least, DND Evil - is Evil (maybe). Champions of Ruin, Page 7 explicitly that Evil generated by insanity is Evil. It could be inferred that they only refer to non-magically induced, otherwise permanent affliction - like some sort of terrible O or C Disease, but I'd rather not have to make that argument.:smallwink:

EDIT: So I sort of picked this thread back up due to one quote, then found myself into a arrangement of quotes catching back up, thus this bit at the end.

EDIT2: Actually, both of you are right. I reread that page of Champions of Ruin: the last line says that insanity-induced evil can be of "all" alignments!

[Cartigan]

{Scrubbed}

[Ravens_cry]

I don't see it that way. Mind you, I try to uphold a Lawful Good style morality, so that may be it, but killing a thousand babies is still, very, very wrong to me. By that logic, it isn't evil to falsely accuse and execute someone if it installs fear in the populace of committing an actual crime. At what point does the evil balance out the good and visa versa?

[Cartigan]

I don't see it that way. Mind you, I try to uphold a Lawful Good style morality, so that may be it, but killing a thousand babies is still, very, very wrong to me. By that logic, it isn't evil to falsely accuse and execute someone if it installs fear in the populace of committing an actual crime. At what point does the evil balance out the good and visa versa?

Generally, it's easier to just publicly execute some one for committing the crime rather than try to make it up beforehand.

But doing bad things for good reasons (and obviously the reverse) is EXPLICITLY how D&D defines Neutral - that is (explicitly mind you) why the Dread Necromancer is allowed to have a Neutral alignment at all.

[Larpus]

I don't see it that way. Mind you, I try to uphold a Lawful Good style morality, so that may be it, but killing a thousand babies is still, very, very wrong to me. By that logic, it isn't evil to falsely accuse and execute someone if it installs fear in the populace of committing an actual crime. At what point does the evil balance out the good and visa versa?
Evil balances out with good when such evil is the only way or, at least, the only apparent way.

Otherwise, trying to fight the thousand baby eating fiend and failing, meaning that the fiend gets fed up and starts to destroy everything, would be an evil deed as opposed to a good one that ended up badly.

[Ravens_cry]

Generally, it's easier to just publicly execute some one for committing the crime rather than try to make it up beforehand.

Whatever, the point is, that is still a dangerous evil in my view.



But doing bad things for good reasons (and obviously the reverse) is EXPLICITLY how D&D defines Neutral - that is (explicitly mind you) why the Dread Necromancer is allowed to have a Neutral alignment at all.

I don't care how D&D defines morality, D&D couldn't define morality with a dictionary, I don't play by D&D by D&D morality. My characters feel guilty if they kill if they are good people, even mooks. Actually ,especially mooks.
I also disagree that Necromancy is explicitly evil, as long as it is done respectfully, so I can see a Dread Necromancer been Neutral, or even Good, without resorting to Karma Meter morality.

[Cartigan]

I don't care how D&D defines morality, D&D couldn't define morality with a dictionary, I don't play by D&D by D&D morality.
Then my opinion is I find your opinion irrelevant to the discussion.

[Ravens_cry]

Then my opinion is I find your opinion irrelevant to the discussion.
Your free to do so, but I think you are taking it to a place that is scary and dark and holds many of humanities worst features, hardly 'neutral'.

[hamishspence]

But doing bad things for good reasons (and obviously the reverse) is EXPLICITLY how D&D defines Neutral - that is (explicitly mind you) why the Dread Necromancer is allowed to have a Neutral alignment at all.

it's how it defines Neutral alignment- but not Neutral acts- and there's still a case to be made, that some acts are so evil, that repeatedly doing them, regardless of Good intentions, will shift a character's alignment all the way into Evil.

In the DMG, or the PHB (or both) 2nd ed- it mentions a paladin "burning a village which has plague, to save a continent"- and this is a "shift PC alignment all the way to evil" act.

[Cartigan]

it's how it defines Neutral alignment
Being what I said....


and there's still a case to be made, that some acts are so evil, that repeatedly doing them, regardless of Good intentions, will shift a character's alignment all the way into Evil.

In the DMG, or the PHB (or both) 2nd ed- it mentions a paladin "burning a village which has plague, to save a continent"- and this is a "shift PC alignment all the way to evil" act.
Neutral on the Good-Evil axis is also FAR more flexible, by the rules, than either Good or Evil. An action that would cause Good or Evil to skip right over Neutral would only push Neutral towards the extreme and only maybe cause it to trip the line.

Burning a village to save a continent is one of those "The path to hell is paved with good intentions things." Good characters shouldn't do it - they are doing good for its own sake. Evil characters will do it just to do it. It is the Neutral ground where something like that will lie IF starting from Neutral. Neutral is like the TARDIS - bigger on the inside.

[TheArsenal]

Lets just say her internal alighnment is CG but her evil deeds leave an aura of CE on her. K?

[Darth Stabber]

More thoughts
A) Dread Necromancers are required to be "any non-good", and they give no rules for ex-dread necromancers. Does this mean that the class makes one incapable of being good or what? It is the only alignment restricted base class I know of that has no rule for alignment shift.

B) She (The DN) is not really evil for the lulz. She actively bite every plot hook, and frequently attacks window dressing elements as though they were plot hooks (random shop keep became a major npc that way), and even makes her own plot hooks (ie the ritual infanticide for slaymate). These are great traits in a sandbox style game. She role plays her sanity challenged nature well, and it is significantly less disruptive than I thought it would be. The major disruption is when she refuses to let her undead fight, for their safety, other than that she is an excellent contribution to the group.

C) There is no power gaming going on in this campaign. The DN started out semi-optimized, but that is only because she asked me for character building advice, and I have a hard time turning off my optimizer instincts. But between subsequent build decisions and play style she is clearly not power gaming. The other characters are not powergaming either. Yet, they routinely out perform any reasonable expectation of combat ability.

D) I love this particular party, and have no interest what so ever in punishing any of the players for morally grey, or evil activities. None of them are paladins, clerics of good deities, or any other required good types. Infact they all have tomb-tainted soul (a feat requiring non-good alignment and makes them heal from negative energy and take damage from positive). They are all from the same country as the DN, and they were all exiled from that country for various reasons before the game started (they met on the exile deportation boat).

EDIT: actually the tomb-tainted soul thing could be considered power gamey, but in the long run, it's more of a feat tax. Free out of combat healing is not as strong as it would seem, and is likely not worth a feat.

[Ravens_cry]

Burning a village to save a continent is one of those "The path to hell is paved with good intentions things." Good characters shouldn't do it - they are doing good for its own sake. Evil characters will do it just to do it. It is the Neutral ground where something like that will lie IF starting from Neutral. Neutral is like the TARDIS - bigger on the inside.
That sounds more like Stupid Evil, insane or card carrying, moustachio twirling, villany.
I refer to the wisdom of Ed (http://www.diggercomic.com/?p=314) for a more real, and therefore more terrifying, kind of evil.

[Larpus]

More thoughts
A) Dread Necromancers are required to be "any non-good", and they give no rules for ex-dread necromancers. Does this mean that the class makes one incapable of being good or what? It is the only alignment restricted base class I know of that has no rule for alignment shift.

B) She (The DN) is not really evil for the lulz. She actively bite every plot hook, and frequently attacks window dressing elements as though they were plot hooks (random shop keep became a major npc that way), and even makes her own plot hooks (ie the ritual infanticide for slaymate). These are great traits in a sandbox style game. She role plays her sanity challenged nature well, and it is significantly less disruptive than I thought it would be. The major disruption is when she refuses to let her undead fight, for their safety, other than that she is an excellent contribution to the group.

C) There is no power gaming going on in this campaign. The DN started out semi-optimized, but that is only because she asked me for character building advice, and I have a hard time turning off my optimizer instincts. But between subsequent build decisions and play style she is clearly not power gaming. The other characters are not powergaming either. Yet, they routinely out perform any reasonable expectation of combat ability.

D) I love this particular party, and have no interest what so ever in punishing any of the players for morally grey, or evil activities. None of them are paladins, clerics of good deities, or any other required good types. Infact they all have tomb-tainted soul (a feat requiring non-good alignment and makes them heal from negative energy and take damage from positive). They are all from the same country as the DN, and they were all exiled from that country for various reasons before the game started (they met on the exile deportation boat).

EDIT: actually the tomb-tainted soul thing could be considered power gamey, but in the long run, it's more of a feat tax. Free out of combat healing is not as strong as it would seem, and is likely not worth a feat.
Well, making someone Evil is not a punishment at all, unless he/she needs the neutral alignment.

But if you're ok with considering all that "neutral", there is absolutely no problem.

Just don't forget that, just like neutral can mean at least 3 things, both good and evil can be made to mean at least 3 things each too.

For evil:

1. Evil with friends. The sort of evil character that sees no problem in killing others and raising all sorts of hell, but cares deeply for his important ones, can actually overlap with the "evil-neutral", but is more brutal and merciless in intent and actions.

2. Paranoid evil. The sort that is completely egoistical and unable to see others as anywhere as important as they are. The typical saturday morning cartoon villain, who keeps generals and henchmen around, but doesn't really give them any actual credit and would kill them in a heartbeat if needed.

3. Evil for the lulz. The sort that truly enjoys evil deeds and does them more for the pleasure of doing than any sort of after prize, most commonly associated with CE.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Zombies, not liches. Its insanity treating them like Humans.

Ah yes, treating lesser beings equally. A true sign of insanity... What's that PETA?

[Frozen_Feet]

More thoughts
A) Dread Necromancers are required to be "any non-good", and they give no rules for ex-dread necromancers. Does this mean that the class makes one incapable of being good or what? It is the only alignment restricted base class I know of that has no rule for alignment shift.


My interpretation would be that being a Dread Necromancer requires so many questionable acts that it makes maintaining good alignment impossible. Think of what the name means.

It does not, and should not, make a character incapable of good acts. Indeed, I could imagine a DN being quite likeable and jolly fellow. It's just that when your main interest and abilities revolve around channeling energy inimical to ordinary life and creating twisted mockeries of life that embody aspects of misery and illness, it puts a pretty big metaphysical stain on your being.


Ah yes, treating lesser beings equally. A true sign of insanity... What's that PETA?
But zombies aren't "lesser beings". If anything, they're non-beings. They are automatons directed by outside will grafted to their being by magic. They have less capacity to feel than plants.

[Darth Stabber]

My interpretation would be that being a Dread Necromancer requires so many questionable acts that it makes maintaining good alignment impossible. Think of what the name means.

It does not, and should not, make a character incapable of good acts. Indeed, I could imagine a DN being quite likeable and jolly fellow. It's just that when your main interest and abilities revolve around channeling energy inimical to ordinary life and creating twisted mockeries of life that embody aspects of misery and illness, it puts a pretty big metaphysical stain on your being.

Paladins are choosen by their gods to fulfill their divine duties, and they can fall, what happens when a DN... stands?

[Cog]

Performing evil acts is a basic feature of the class, but some dread necromancers manage to balance evil acts with good intentions, remaining solidly neutral...
Simply using your class features denies you a Good alignment, apparently. I couldn't find an ex-DN section, though, so your alignment is free to shift to Good without denying you any abilities; you just swing right back to Neutral as soon as you so much as cast a spell.

[Gnaeus]

Paladins are choosen by their gods to fulfill their divine duties, and they can fall, what happens when a DN... stands?

Well, presumably, they go on a retraining quest. Because really, if the Dread Necro chooses not to use any of his spells or class features that involve fear, disease, negative energy or raising/befriending/becoming the undead, there really isn't much left of their class. Although I guess rainbow necrosnake then becomes an option.

[Frozen_Feet]

Actually, many paladins aren't chosen by anyone in particular. They just embody metaphysical forces of good, and that connection is lost if they commit evil. Think of Paladins as standing on high ground, and if they falter, they fall. A Dread Necromancer's case is different -they embody darker side of things, but that connection is much heavier. They stand on lever ground, and the burden they carry prevents them from rising up, but at the same time they can't exactly fall anywhere either.

Again, just being and continuing to be a Dread Necromancer requires some pretty dubious things (you're turning yourself to a lich, for example). It doesn't strike me as odd to think that just remaining neutral would be a struggle.

[true_shinken]

Paladins are choosen by their gods to fulfill their divine duties, and they can fall, what happens when a DN... stands?

You can no longer take levels in Dread Necromancer.
You could still advance your casting via a prc, though.

[Jolly]

You have an evil party, you are ok with this. Fine. Everyone arguing semantics of alignment are missing the point.

The point is, you as DM know she is evil. She is trying to weasel out from under a pretty obvious and straightfoward rules judgement.

Your issue isn't "dey be ebil" because you have no issue with that. I certainly would, but you don't so let's move on.

Your issue is a rules lawyer trying to undermine your authority as DM. That's a common issue, really. All this alignment stuff has no real bearing on the discussion.

[Darth Stabber]

Now what happens if a lich has a sudden change of heart, and starts to genuinely care for the well being of others, not using evils spells, ect. If a lich starts acting like a paladin, can it become good? Ditto worm that walks. I ask this because they are working for a nuetral mostly good demilich, he's not acting like a paladin at all, but is past most of the evil stuff and seeks to reclaim and stabilize the necromancer kingdom it was originally heir to and bring peace and end the constant infighting and blood letting the kingdom is suffering. It doesn't eat souls, and treats its minions with respect and such, and the only evil things about it are it's army of skeletons (all of them atleast a century old) and it's own existance. If not a demilich it would be TN, but it is currently NE, should it get neutrality?

[Cog]

You can no longer take levels in Dread Necromancer.
All you have to do is touch yourself and you're Neutral again, though.

Hey. I mean Charnel Touch. Stop looking at me like that.

[Marnath]

Now what happens if a lich has a sudden change of heart, and starts to genuinely care for the well being of others, not using evils spells, ect. If a lich starts acting like a paladin, can it become good? Ditto worm that walks. I ask this because they are working for a nuetral mostly good demilich, he's not acting like a paladin at all, but is past most of the evil stuff and seeks to reclaim and stabilize the necromancer kingdom it was originally heir to and bring peace and end the constant infighting and blood letting the kingdom is suffering. It doesn't eat souls, and treats its minions with respect and such, and the only evil things about it are it's army of skeletons (all of them atleast a century old) and it's own existance. If not a demilich it would be TN, but it is currently NE, should it get neutrality?

Doesn't matter how nice you are at that point, you are quite literally a soulless abomination. The things you had to do to reach demilichdom are probably bad enough to permanently mark your psyche anyway.

[hamishspence]

Given that fiends have become Good (while, thanks to their Evil subtype, still detecting as evil) - the WoTC site had one- I don't see too much problem with an intelligent undead changing alignment.

[Frozen_Feet]

Now what happens if a lich has a sudden change of heart, and starts to genuinely care for the well being of others, not using evils spells, ect. If a lich starts acting like a paladin, can it become good? Ditto worm that walks. I ask this because they are working for a nuetral mostly good demilich, he's not acting like a paladin at all, but is past most of the evil stuff and seeks to reclaim and stabilize the necromancer kingdom it was originally heir to and bring peace and end the constant infighting and blood letting the kingdom is suffering. It doesn't eat souls, and treats its minions with respect and such, and the only evil things about it are it's army of skeletons (all of them atleast a century old) and it's own existance. If not a demilich it would be TN, but it is currently NE, should it get neutrality?

My problem with this is mainly, how is a Lich supposed to have a change of heart? They are heartless, in both figurative and literal sense. Once you've committed the ritual-that's-too-evil-to-be-said to become a Lich and become an unholy mockery that's antithetical to life by your mere existence, how could you go back?

Using OotS and Start of Darkness as quite an insightful example, there's a point soon after Xykon's lichification when Redcloak's brothers says roughly "We don't need that human scum", to which Redcloak answers "He isn't human. Not even close."

So while some evil undead are sapient and you can presume they have free will to an extent, I think it's wrong to assume that creatures so thoroughly debased as many intelligent undead are can "act like a paladin". They might physically incapable of that.

Of course, at this point you're likely to point out neutral or good liches from splat book. Okay. If such is on the table, I suppose a lich can become a decent person. But in my mind, it should take one helluva effort to crawl back to the shallow end of the aligment pool. You don't balance a past life of great evil and an existence that's perverted all in itself by being a tolerable guy for a little while. In your example, I think NE is still accurate descriptor - I'm not seeing anything expectionally good in that demiliche's actions, and judging by your PCs, he's still a-okay with some pretty darn questionable allies.

Maybe in a few hundred years, after the kingdom's in peace and it's fully eschewed necromancy, it might be neutral or even good. But at this point and with information given, I'd be hesitant to call it either.

[OrganicGolem]

for any argument that says undead must be non-good, I present you the Baelnorn Lich (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Baelnorn_lich)

[MammonAzrael]

The original point was whether or not the dread necromancer's claim of insanity precluded her being Evil, which we both agreed it did not.

The rest of my response is spoilered, since it does not directly pertain to the thread.


No. Those 5 paragraphs are EXACTLY on point.

The three scenarios present in those five paragraphs of the BoVD do not deal with insanity or deception. They deal with ignorance. The two scenarios we have been discussing have been a dread necromancer having a child conceived for the sole intention of killing and reanimating it while claiming insanity, and a paladin that kills an innocent out of an incorrect belief that the innocent was a devil. Neither is based in ignorance.

Additionally, you are still claiming that insanity could be an excuse, a way to make an act not-Evil. And yet, you have provided not a single piece of the rules that supports this other than a parenthetical note that it could be argued, not that it is. That simply is not enough. Give me an example, quoted from an official source, where insanity is flatly stated to be a reason that an Evil act would be not Evil. Without a quote supporting that, the objective nature of Good and Evil in D&D will override any other argument.


If I kill a human, believing him to be a dangerous demon, after taking whatever reasonable precautions I can (given the time and resources available) to protect bystanders and to confirm the demonic nature, that is accidental (and not evil). I did not intend to kill a human.

If I kill a human, believing him to be a demon, but I didn't really try very hard to verify this, that would be reckless (and somewhat evil). If I had acted appropriately, I would have learned that he was a human before I killed him.

If I just kill a human, that is knowing, and evil.

If you kill a human, incorrectly believing them to be a demon, it is an Evil action. It is effectively the same scenario as the maniac that poisons a town's water supply. You were wrong in your belief, and the action was Evil. There is no outside influence on your actions. You are wholly responsible. The fact that you believed you were doing good does not change the nature of the action. Your intent would be Good, but the action would be Evil. You are mixing the intent of an action with the action itself; they are two separate things. In your second example, the intent would be Neutral, while the action remained Evil.


This relates to insanity, because insanity affects our ability to make that choice. To extend that example:

If I throw someone off a roof, because I think they are a butterfly and I am helping them, that is accidental. I did not intend to kill them. It was caused by my insanity, I had no understanding of the harmful nature of my act. It was an accident. (This is also why the tiger is not evil. It is incapable of understanding the harmful nature of its actions).

If I know that I suffer from hallucinations or murderous fits, and I take the wheel of my flying castle and drive it into a city because I have a hallucination, that is reckless, and somewhat evil. I did not intend to kill lots of people, but I knew that that was a plausible result of my piloting a flying castle. The deaths were caused by my insanity, and I did not intend to cause them, but I could/should have prevented them.

If I murder the king because I (insanely) think that it will make the king's wife fall in love with me, it is evil. It is caused by my insanity, true, but I know that what I am doing is wrong, and I choose to do it anyway.

One's ability to perceive or decide things does not alter alignment, because alignment is not subjective, changing from person to person.

If you throw someone off a roof believing them able to fly, the intent is Good, as you are trying to help. The action is Evil, because you are in fact killing them.

Again, you have provided no support in your claim that insanity can change the alignment of an action.


No. The act of tricking someone is not what absolves someone of the responsibility for their actions, it is their ability/lack thereof to understand the consequences. You are entirely making that up, and then blaming the Alignment system for it not making sense. Moral wrongdoing is not something that you can bear for someone else. If the demon had tricked the paladin into murder, but the paladin had had the time and resources to verify that the victim wasn't a demon, and neglected to do so, his actions would be evil, despite the demon's influence.

Firstly, I do not appreciate your accusation that I am making things up. You have already questioned whether I purposely ignored text in an attempt to make a point. Please refrain from further personal attacks.

It is not a person's "ability/lack thereof to understand the consequences," it is the person's ignorance that absolves them. That is how we get manslaughter instead of murder.

I never claimed that anyone was bearing moral wrongdoing for someone else. If a demon has tricked a paladin into committing murder, that means that the demon has successfully tricked the paladin, which includes defeating any attempts the paladin may have made to verify the victim being Evil. I have never implied that the demon was attempting to trick a paladin, I have been consistent in that the demon has already tricked said paladin. The paladin is not ignorant of his actions, he has been deceived by an outside, malicious force. That is why the example in BoVD involving the glabrezu tricking a good character into poisoning a town the act is probably not Evil - the addition of an outside force purposely manipulating things.

I agree that if a paladin had the time and resources to verify that the innocent was in fact an innocent, and neglected to do so, then the action would be Evil on the paladin's part.


Conversely, if the paladin walked in on a situation (maybe it is dark, and he knows that there are demons in the city) where he THINKS that one civilian is a demon about to kill someone, and he acts within the moment to protect the innocent (upholding his code), but he is mistaken, his action is accidental (and not evil). No one tricked him, he was just mistaken. But he didn't have the time to check, and he was acting in a good fashion. He might feel guilty afterwords, but he shouldn't fall. This is comparable to the first example in the five paragraphs that you don't use, where the paladin climbs up a hill to escape owlbears and causes an avalanche. The paladin intended to climb the hill, but he had no way to know the results of his actions.

Here you are modifying the circumstance with context. BoVD mentions the equivalent of this as well, in the final paragraph on page 6. Naturally, it is muddled do to poor writing, since it first claims that the act is not Evil because of both the intent and context, while the following sentence says that standing by is far more Evil, implying that the act of killing the poisoner is still Evil, just the lesser of two.

I disagree that the scenario you have presented is comparable to the first of the three landslide scenarios. In the first landslide, the character is ignorant of what may happen. He is unaware of the consequences of his action. In yours, the character is fully aware of what will happen (the creature he attacks will die), he is simply mistaken regarding the creature's identity. I agree that he should not fall, but not that the result of his action was unknown to him.


Okay, so, actually Gnaeus goofed. Not because his arguments aren't sound, but because he used the wrong source.:smallwink:

Evil - at least, DND Evil - is Evil (maybe). Champions of Ruin, Page 7 explicitly that Evil generated by insanity is Evil. It could be inferred that they only refer to non-magically induced, otherwise permanent affliction - like some sort of terrible O or C Disease, but I'd rather not have to make that argument.:smallwink:

EDIT: So I sort of picked this thread back up due to one quote, then found myself into a arrangement of quotes catching back up, thus this bit at the end.

EDIT2: Actually, both of you are right. I reread that page of Champions of Ruin: the last line says that insanity-induced evil can be of "all" alignments!

Ermm...maybe I'm just not seeing it, but where on page 7? The last relevant line on "Mad, I tell you" is "Another character might delight in the things he does, or he might not even be aware of what he is doing."

Going by the CoR options, I'd say that the dread necromancer probably falls under "I am not evil" on page 6.

[Darth Stabber]

Doesn't matter how nice you are at that point, you are quite literally a soulless abomination. The things you had to do to reach demilichdom are probably bad enough to permanently mark your psyche anyway.

A lich is not soulless, they just use off site storage (what do you think is inside the phylactery?).

EDIT: champions of ruin is an FR book, as such it's contents are not pertinent. I cannot accept FR as evidence as it written for a specific setting that I am not using. A greyhwk specific text is acceptable since I cribbed everything I didn't want to make up from that setting, but eberron, forgotten realms, oriental adventures (including rokugan) and dragonlance are off the table.

[true_shinken]

My problem with this is mainly, how is a Lich supposed to have a change of heart?
Book of Exalted Deeds clearly supports this. Anyone can be redeemed.
They have an exalted mind flayer in that book, for crying out loud.
Of course, the powers that be punished him by forcing him to take levels in Monk :smalltongue:

[Cog]

Of course, the powers that be punished him by forcing him to take levels in Monk :smalltongue:
Sure. It gets him free Improved Grapple, after all. He'll really enjoy that the next time he wants to eat some...body's... brain...

Oh.

[Yukitsu]

D&D is a bad place to get a moral compass. Alignment shouldn't be a dominating part of the game, the mechanics or the characters, so just stop keeping track of it. If you absolutely have to do anything that mechanically relies on alignment, then bring it up, but really you'd basically have to force yourself into doing that. Just let the players have fun and don't bother with all that alignment crap.

[Darth Stabber]

Given they are really ticking off an order of paladins, their alignment is still somewhat important for purely mechanical reasons. Those mechanics consist entirely of spells, but it is a relevant point. If they were never going to run into paladins, nor a holy word nor blasphemy spell, it would not be an issue in any way. However since blasphemy and holy word are reasonable clerical offensive spells, and paladins are born to smite, it is relevant. Besides alignment debate is fun, and I am surprized so many people have lept to the defense of the cat's neutrality.

Also why does everyone say the whole party is evil? The psion hasn't performed any evil acts aside from standing by while the others do their thing. Is being surly a grounds for evil alignment? Because if letting things happen and having an unpleasant personallity are grounds for a smiting, I've misunderstood the alignment system for years. His compatriots are a different story.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Given they are really ticking off an order of paladins, their alignment is still somewhat important for purely mechanical reasons. Those mechanics consist entirely of spells, but it is a relevant point. If they were never going to run into paladins, nor a holy word nor blasphemy spell, it would not be an issue in any way. However since blasphemy and holy word are reasonable clerical offensive spells, and paladins are born to smite, it is relevant. Besides alignment debate is fun, and I am surprized so many people have lept to the defense of the cat's neutrality.

Also why does everyone say the whole party is evil? The psion hasn't performed any evil acts aside from standing by while the others do their thing. Is being surly a grounds for evil alignment? Because if letting things happen and having an unpleasant personallity are grounds for a smiting, I've misunderstood the alignment system for years. His compatriots are a different story.

Well, in the strictest sense of the word, the psion COULD be considered evil by some people. Not in DnD terms - I'd probably place him a solid TN/LN. But the act of letting evil happen when you could have the ability to stop it (come on, he's a telepath - psychic communication with the church of Pelor, anyone?) is considered an evil act by some.

[Coidzor]

A character who commits Evil acts more serious than that- for personal benefit rather than "to protect others"- probably isn't going to stay Neutral.

Especially when she's purposefully creating a new life via methods that could very easily be rape in order to brutally snuff it out and make an undead out of it. In order to make a pet out of it.


Also why does everyone say the whole party is evil? The psion hasn't performed any evil acts aside from standing by while the others do their thing. Is being surly a grounds for evil alignment? Because if letting things happen and having an unpleasant personallity are grounds for a smiting, I've misunderstood the alignment system for years. His compatriots are a different story.

The most prominent and discussed member seems to be wanting to run an evil game without any of the actual being formally evil. That tends to color perceptions of the rest of your players and their characters.

Also, it annoys people because it makes her player look like a duplicitous liar or a fool on the one hand and on the other hand there's some people who just get annoyed by Evil games.

[sengmeng]

Not sure if OP is still bothering to read at this point, but I thought of a way to give this issue campaign-relevance and resolution: inform the character. Have a celestial that can trounce the whole party show up, one that has Detect Evil at will... and have the celestial realize that the DN is not truly evil. Then tell her that what she contemplates doing is going to condemn her permanently, and inform her that she is at a crossroads: her soul will be doomed to whatever afterlife evil people go to in your campaign if she creates the slaymate, or she can return to her home country and TAKE IT DOWN. For Good (pun intended). Do not, however railroad her or use the celestial to take down the party if she refuses; make it a real choice. Insanity will no longer be an excuse.

[Hawriel]

Lets see here. A necromancer who kidnaps a women, then hired peaple to rape her untill she gets pregnant. The prostitute is held prisoner for six months untill she is beaten with the intent to kill the unborn child. The reason is so the crazy bitch can then bring unlife unto the dead unborn child.

There is an assassin. A class that has no purpose other than to kill peaple for mony. With no regared as to who or why. Not to mention the person highering them.

Then you have the average violent nut job who loves killing peaple because he saw them.

Yes these peaple are discustly evil.

Have the community athorities deal with them just like a good party would have been asked to deal with them.

[The Glyphstone]

Lets see here. A necromancer who kidnaps a women, then hired peaple to rape her untill she gets pregnant. The prostitute is held prisoner for six months untill she is beaten with the intent to kill the unborn child. The reason is so the crazy bitch can then bring unlife unto the dead unborn child.

There is an assassin. A class that has no purpose other than to kill peaple for mony. With no regared as to who or why. Not to mention the person highering them.

Then you have the average violent nut job who loves killing peaple because he saw them.

Yes these peaple are discustly evil.

Have the community athorities deal with them just like a good party would have been asked to deal with them.

Did you miss the part where they're also hiring the prostitute(s)? Unless I misread it, they're effectively renting her services (and womb) for 6 months...still dispicable, but there's no kidnapping or rape involved.

[Coidzor]

Did you miss the part where they're also hiring the prostitute(s)? Unless I misread it, they're effectively renting her services (and womb) for 6 months...still dispicable, but there's no kidnapping or rape involved.

There's not kidnapping or rape explicitly involved but they're dealing with prostitution here, so... yeah. Can of worms.

[Darth Stabber]

1) The swordsage is not an assassin as in the class, just a professional killer. He is bordering on evil (but not as evil as the DN), he could easily make the case for neutrality, but is more than willing to take the alignment. My issue is not him being evil, just having the more evil character not taking the alignment.

2) I am still reading this thread, and enjoying it. Getting some new insights, and ideas, always great. Plus I love alignment debates.

3) The player is accepting the evil alignment (under protest). Given her contempt for paladins, I doubt that a celestial would convince her. Besides she's about to get a quasit familiar, so I'm pretty sure that the upper planes will have no purchase on her any more.

[The Glyphstone]

Let her protest. Then have her listen to When You're Evil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTuhuon1j6U), for no particular reason.:smallbiggrin:

[MammonAzrael]

Let her protest. Then have her listen to When You're Evil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTuhuon1j6U), for no particular reason.:smallbiggrin:

I fully support this. The song and the protests. Because the song is awesome, and because you're the DM, so you get final say in her alignment based off of her actions.

[Coidzor]

1) The swordsage is not an assassin as in the class, just a professional killer. He is bordering on evil (but not as evil as the DN), he could easily make the case for neutrality, but is more than willing to take the alignment. My issue is not him being evil, just having the more evil character not taking the alignment.

Well, she is, finally, after much hemming and hawwing. So combine that with the assassin class's example that such an archetype must be evil...


2) I am still reading this thread, and enjoying it. Getting some new insights, and ideas, always great. Plus I love alignment debates.

:smallconfused: Why!?

[Darth Stabber]

Well, she is, finally, after much hemming and hawwing. So combine that with the assassin class's example that such an archetype must be evil...


I'm just going to say that in a country with many high level spell casters, assassination is more of a 1d10 day inconvenience. And to be fair most of this is back story.

Also alignment debates tend to be amusing since WotC has given a lot information with enough holes, contradictions, and grey areas that you can make a lot of different points and back it up. Same reason I like politics.

[Ravens_cry]

To be fair, that isn't entirely WotC fault; it's basically a feature of moral and ethical arguments in general.

[Coidzor]

I'm just going to say that in a country with many high level spell casters, assassination is more of a 1d10 day inconvenience. And to be fair most of this is back story.

What's that really got to do with anything though? Frequency of killing people makes it less evil to do so?

[Yukitsu]

To be fair, that isn't entirely WotC fault; it's basically a feature of moral and ethical arguments in general.

Most are a good deal more coherent than the WOTC ones. At the very least, they're written by 1 person instead of a bunch of different ones.

[Ravens_cry]

Most are a good deal more coherent than the WOTC ones. At the very least, they're written by 1 person instead of a bunch of different ones.
And therein lies the difficulty, you got a bunch of people , with a bunch of different opinions writing a bunch of different source books. Yeah, things are going to get a little . .incoherent. And that's leaving aside all the opinions of all the people on the Internet, like you and me.

[Darth Stabber]

What's that really got to do with anything though? Frequency of killing people makes it less evil to do so?

I'm saying that assassination is less evil when there is a reasonable expectation that your target will not remain dead. Also you could make the argument that it is less evil if your target is completely evil (a dangerous argument but has some validity).

[Coidzor]

I'm saying that assassination is less evil when there is a reasonable expectation that your target will not remain dead. Also you could make the argument that it is less evil if your target is completely evil (a dangerous argument but has some validity).

Well, you'd still be most likely wrong, as there's no basis for that decision in regards to your first point. And either A. there's no point or B. you're banking on that slim chance of succeeding in making them dead and stay dead, in which case you successfully assassinated someone versus partially succeeded.

Evil unto evil by evil is still evil and doesn't make you not evil. Because, really, if you're growing up in a society of that sort where evil is so ubiquitous and go into a line of work that is explicitly called out as evil in the PrC that derives its name from the profession and requires initiation into an assassin's guild, it's a bit incredulous for him not to be evil after that and he better have a mighty compelling explanation.

[TheArsenal]

I'm saying that assassination is less evil when there is a reasonable expectation that your target will not remain dead.

No, that just makes the Society evil.



Also you could make the argument that it is less evil if your target is completely evil (a dangerous argument but has some validity).


And if your target happened to be a Cleric of Charity, helping the orphans in the Town, then you would do it anyway, right?

If you murder an target just for money it doesn't matter whether or not "he was evil". Your just murdering others for your own sake. Thats evil.

[Darth Stabber]

And if your target happened to be a Cleric of Charity, helping the orphans in the Town, then you would do it anyway, right?

If you murder an target just for money it doesn't matter whether or not "he was evil". Your just murdering others for your own sake. Thats evil.

I am not saying I think that, I am merely stating it could be argued. Maybe you got into the business so you could get rid of evil doers and get paid for it. I would not accept that argument, but it atleast has a note of validity.

[sengmeng]

The player is accepting the evil alignment (under protest). Given her contempt for paladins, I doubt that a celestial would convince her. Besides she's about to get a quasit familiar, so I'm pretty sure that the upper planes will have no purchase on her any more.

Quasit Familiar? I thought the slaymate was a sort of familiar.

How about an epic plotline? Uber-celestial makes his pitch, gets rebuffed, and comes up with better offer for her: he tells her that the forces of Good would be willing to help her in a bid to kill and replace the current God of Undeath (I assume the setting has one?). She should jump at the chance, even if she doesn't like angels, and the celestials would probably prefer a Goddess of Undeath who doesn't like seeing undead used as cannon fodder and has less destructive tendencies. So, she now has a goal (yet the goal is still to grow as a necromancer and gain power), an angel quest-giver, and you have something that you likely won't need to railroad them into at all. Then you come up with various things she needs to accomplish to make an attempt at divinity, and presto, you have endless quest opportunities.

What could be more awesome than having your character, by virtue of their attitude, get Celestial backing to become an evil god?

[TheArsenal]

I am not saying I think that, I am merely stating it could be argued. Maybe you got into the business so you could get rid of evil doers and get paid for it. I would not accept that argument, but it atleast has a note of validity.

Alright.

Look there is nothing wrong with an party of Evil PCs. As long as they simply accept that they are a bunch of horrible people. The place they live in seems to be Evilsville anyway so have them just be evil.

[Darth Stabber]

Alright.

Look there is nothing wrong with an party of Evil PCs. As long as they simply accept that they are a bunch of horrible people. The place they live in seems to be Evilsville anyway so have them just be evil.

That's what I'm doing at this point.


Quasit Familiar? I thought the slaymate was a sort of familiar.

How about an epic plotline? Uber-celestial makes his pitch, gets rebuffed, and comes up with better offer for her: he tells her that the forces of Good would be willing to help her in a bid to kill and replace the current God of Undeath (I assume the setting has one?). She should jump at the chance, even if she doesn't like angels, and the celestials would probably prefer a Goddess of Undeath who doesn't like seeing undead used as cannon fodder and has less destructive tendencies. So, she now has a goal (yet the goal is still to grow as a necromancer and gain power), an angel quest-giver, and you have something that you likely won't need to railroad them into at all. Then you come up with various things she needs to accomplish to make an attempt at divinity, and presto, you have endless quest opportunities.

What could be more awesome than having your character, by virtue of their attitude, get Celestial backing to become an evil god?

That is wonderful, I need to figure out a few things and there will probably be a thread, about this, but that is an awesome idea. She would be the easiest death god the celestials had ever seen. And it would let her run a giant zombie rights movement. If she could get a spell that grants zombies and skeletons sentience she would even have a built in cult of worshipers. Now the question is should she make her own niche, or try to displace nerull, we jas or vecna?

Also the quasit familiar comes from a class feature (they have the choice of an imp (way too lawful for her), a vargoille (sucks), quasit (the likely choice), or ghostly visage (which gives you a near pemanent 1/2 of a mind blank{offers no protection against scrying but you get the other immunities}), and by RAW they get full familiar benefits as opposed to the reduced effective level crap that wizards with improved familiar get (not that any familiar gets more than 8 levels of owner advancement anyway). The slaymate will likely fall under her created undead hit dice limits (though control limit from rebuke is an option).

The fact that animate dead and rubke undead have seperate hd pools is crazy. Add to it that charisma is the classes main ability score (as opposed to secondary or tertiary for clerics), and it gets the spell control undead (no cap, and no save for mindless), and a familiar, DN is the most pet having class.

[TheArsenal]

That is wonderful, I need to figure out a few things and there will probably be a thread, about this, but that is an awesome idea. She would be the easiest death god the celestials had ever seen. And it would let her run a giant zombie rights movement. If she could get a spell that grants zombies and skeletons sentience she would even have a built in cult of worshipers. Now the question is should she make her own niche, or try to displace nerull, we jas or vecna?


God! This sounds apocalyptic! This woman will be the end of us all!

[sengmeng]

Now the question is should she make her own niche, or try to displace nerull, we jas or vecna?


No, the question is: Who's first?

[true_shinken]

1) The swordsage is not an assassin as in the class, just a professional killer. He is bordering on evil (but not as evil as the DN), he could easily make the case for neutrality, but is more than willing to take the alignment. My issue is not him being evil, just having the more evil character not taking the alignment.
Killing people for money is evil. It's murder.
Period.

[hamishspence]

Except when it's an official executioner who takes a wage. In such case it wouldn't (strictly speaking) be murder- so arguably not always evil.

Mercenaries don't so much "kill for money" as "fight for money"- their goal isn't to kill, but to achieve whatever military objective they're hired for.

[true_shinken]

Except when it's an official executioner who takes a wage. In such case it wouldn't (strictly speaking) be murder- so arguably not always evil.

Mercenaries don't so much "kill for money" as "fight for money"- their goal isn't to kill, but to achieve whatever military objective they're hired for.

Exactly, but this is an assassin here.

[hamishspence]

True. 4E Dragon Annual, discussing assassination- suggested that while assassinating purely for the money is "unquestionably evil" assassinating for other reasons, might be reasonable even for LG characters.

But that's 4E.

[sengmeng]

considering the thread has now moved to deicide, I think the issue about their side hobby of unlawfully killing people is, well, dead

[TheArsenal]

True. 4E Dragon Annual, discussing assassination- suggested that while assassinating purely for the money is "unquestionably evil" assassinating for other reasons, might be reasonable even for LG characters.


Then its not assassination. If you only kill what you want then thats a crap assassin. And LG do not do stuff like sneak attack because its unfair and immoral. LG fight with honor. Not a poisoned meal. Its reasonable, but not something they would do.

Murdering for the Gods would still be Neutral. Your just following orders.

An assassin is a rouge that focuses on Murder. And Just murder.

Edit:

Yes, the issue is solved and the thread is dead.

[sengmeng]

Then its not assassination. If you only kill what you want then thats a crap assassin. And LG do not do stuff like sneak attack because its unfair and immoral. LG fight with honor. Not a poisoned meal. Its reasonable, but not something they would do

The historical assassins, or hashishans, were actually a lot like the ones in Assassin's Creed. However, they didn't use stealth except to get close to the target, whereupon they stabbed them in broad daylight and allowed themselves to be martyred. They killed for religious/political reasons, knowing that it would cost their lives but hoping that the continued slaying of public officials would help convince the occupying force to leave or change its policies. It was protest through murder and self-sacrifice.

[TheArsenal]

The historical assassins, or hashishans, were actually a lot like the ones in Assassin's Creed. However, they didn't use stealth except to get close to the target, whereupon they stabbed them in broad daylight and allowed themselves to be martyred. They killed for religious/political reasons, knowing that it would cost their lives but hoping that the continued slaying of public officials would help convince the occupying force to leave or change its policies. It was protest through murder and self-sacrifice.

Cool. Il give that a CG though.

[Coidzor]

And LG do not do stuff like sneak attack because its unfair and immoral.

So why exactly do you gimp Lawful Good Rogues?


I am not saying I think that, I am merely stating it could be argued. Maybe you got into the business so you could get rid of evil doers and get paid for it. I would not accept that argument, but it atleast has a note of validity.

If you didn't think that and it wouldn't sway you in the case of the player arguing it then why did you bring it up like it would or you did in the context of this player successfully arguing that his character isn't evil because he's not cackling and planning on causing prostitutes to miscarry so they can make a pet out of the resulting miscarriage?

Alignment debates are fun enough without giving the appearance that you just deliberately misled others as to your stance.

[Darth Stabber]

Then its not assassination. If you only kill what you want then thats a crap assassin. And LG do not do stuff like sneak attack because its unfair and immoral. LG fight with honor. Not a poisoned meal. Its reasonable, but not something they would do.

Murdering for the Gods would still be Neutral. Your just following orders.

An assassin is a rouge that focuses on Murder. And Just murder.


BoED has a LG only rogue PRC with almost identical features to Assassin, they just focus on slaying fiends and the utterly corrupt. Including Sneak Attack. On an LG only PRC. If that isn't a WotC A-OK on LG sneak attack, I don't know what is.

[Undercroft]

Thought i'd add some ideas too (I'm skipping the whole evil debate, but enjoying reading it).

Why not allow them to create a slaymate, but then have the afterbirth or whatever (perhaps even have the orc miscarry twins or something) also end up being effected by whatever necromantic magic they use to make the slaymate. Except instead of a 2nd slaymate it spawns off an Atropal Scion (Libris Mortis page 84).

The atropal scion has 9HD and a CR of 11. Should maybe at least show them some consequences to their actions. Plus it has a nasty death gaze and negative energy aura.
Also plane shift too, so perhaps have it pop back as a recurring villian (maybe lump on some cancer mage levels) and wanting revenge upon the players because they're the reason it became what it is.

[Darth Stabber]

Thought i'd add some ideas too (I'm skipping the whole evil debate, but enjoying reading it).

Why not allow them to create a slaymate, but then have the afterbirth or whatever (perhaps even have the orc miscarry twins or something) also end up being effected by whatever necromantic magic they use to make the slaymate. Except instead of a 2nd slaymate it spawns off an Atropal Scion (Libris Mortis page 84).

The atropal scion has 9HD and a CR of 11. Should maybe at least show them some consequences to their actions. Plus it has a nasty death gaze and negative energy aura.
Also plane shift too, so perhaps have it pop back as a recurring villian (maybe lump on some cancer mage levels) and wanting revenge upon the players because they're the reason it became what it is.

I think I just had an evilgasm.

[Yukitsu]

BoED has a LG only rogue PRC with almost identical features to Assassin, they just focus on slaying fiends and the utterly corrupt. Including Sneak Attack. On an LG only PRC. If that isn't a WotC A-OK on LG sneak attack, I don't know what is.

And more importantly, assassination, as the class is explicitly stated to conduct them. Which funny enough, is an "always" form of murder.

[Undercroft]

I think I just had an evilgasm.

I'm a DM. Evil is my thing :smallwink: (mind if i sig that btw? my sig feels a bit empty since i've recently stopped lurking)

And thinking a little more about the atropal scion part, their negative energy aura should kill the orc mother too (and any other townsfolk within range), since it's essentially 2 negative levels for everythign within range. Would provide a nifty way to up the stakes too if all the nearby townsfolk raised as wights.

[TheArsenal]

I think I just had an evilgasm.

Unless the Orc was a Godess then no. No Atropal.

[Darth Stabber]

I'm a DM. Evil is my thing :smallwink: (mind if i sig that btw? my sig feels a bit empty since i've recently stopped lurking)

And thinking a little more about the atropal scion part, their negative energy aura should kill the orc mother too (and any other townsfolk within range), since it's essentially 2 negative levels for everythign within range. Would provide a nifty way to up the stakes too if all the nearby townsfolk raised as wights.
You can sig it, but I stole it from Xykon.

I have no problem brewing up a version that won't eat the town alive, the "even more evil" twin was the great part.

[Yukitsu]

The atropal scion has 9HD and a CR of 11. Should maybe at least show them some consequences to their actions. Plus it has a nasty death gaze and negative energy aura.


Consequences only really stick when you've got direct correlation between what they're doing and what the result is. This seems like one of those truly out of left field, has no direct connection to what they're doing arbitrary "because you irritated me" kind of punishments.

And more importantly, the players are going to think this is awesome and just abuse this opportunity to make a gob of evil undead baby fetuses.

[The Glyphstone]

The Scion is a great idea, but don't view it as a punishment, and they won't either. Just have it as a random thing that happens - an effect of the ritual accidentally being performed on twins, and it becomes a beneficial thing that they'll probably remember as 'awesome' instead of 'jerk DM'.

[Undercroft]

Yeah, never meant to suggest it as a punishment. Perhaps my wording was a bit off. basically i wanted to suggest it as something to make them think about their actions and the effect on the world.

do evil action leading into spawn unholy creature with a vendetta that may or may not become a reccuring villain/plothook. i'd expect a tough-ish fight (adding or ignoring wights as needed) with the players feeling awesome afterwards for thwarthing the DM's "wrathful attempts at karma" for being evil.

Hmm on a similar note, having a Shadow Sibling (Magic of Eberron page 156) get spawned too could up the creepiness. It's a symbiont that sort of works like a second skin. I don't know too much about the fluff behind them, apart from normally when a daelkyr halfblood is born a shadow sibling is birthed too. However you could possibly fluff it in somehow (could make a nifty reward for the party for killing/chasing off the scion)

[MammonAzrael]

If you want to do something with the Atropal Scions, I think you should be upfront with your players. Like...have a percentage chance that whatever ritual they perform could turn into one instead of a Slaymate or something.

[The Glyphstone]

If you want to do something with the Atropal Scions, I think you should be upfront with your players. Like...have a percentage chance that whatever ritual they perform could turn into one instead of a Slaymate or something.

Even that's a bit harsh - there's no reason not to let the players have the Slaymate they asked for. You can just give them the Scion too via the twins thing, and it's easily explainable that the ritual was only designed for one child.

[Darth Stabber]

Update: the modified atropal scion twin was born alongside the slaymate. The town was decimated as the creature's connection to the negative energy plane overwhelmed it's tiny form. The ichor slicked creature crawled to the door of the the desicrated chapel and screamed in voice lacking in all innocence or warmth, "I'll get you mommy" as he winked from sight. Our three "heroes" knew unmistakeably that it did not refer to the unconsious harlot before them, but to the inadvertant architect of it's damned existence.

[Calanon]

Okay, so I am GMing a campaign, and all of the characters are neutral, but that hovering the line with evil kind of neutral. One of them is a TN elan psion who is surly and unpleasant, but tolerates the action of the others. The CN human Unarmed swordsage is pretty much an assassin, and enjoys killing entirely too much, and has recently taken up combat taxidermy. But the CN Tibbit Dread Necromancer takes the cake. She is quite sweet, mostly good natured, but crazy.


The following content is not for the faint of heart, and makes me mildly sick to think about. DO NOT READ if you have delicate sensibilities.
The DN decides she want a slaymate. So she researches how to make one. I make up some stuff about necromancers in the past reanimating stillborn children. So she hires an Orc prostitute, the Swordsage hires some male prostitutes to get the orc pregnant and in about 6 months they are going to punch her in the stomach and cast animate dead on her dead baby bump. I tell the DN that this will make her alignment shift evil, this causes a long winded complaint so i offer 2 permanent wis drain instead (since she is obviously getting crazier). This she accepts, under protest.
Am I alone in thinking that this idea is beyond normal bounds for player evil. They already have a demilich paymaster and the ire of the church of pelor, but I am having a hard time impressing on these players just how evil they are stooping. My only consolation is that at least they work together, just that it is very scary when they put their minds together.

Ok first of all her decisions are SOOOOO REGRETTABLE! >:D
I know this because I've tried this before >_>

ANYWAY~
1. Animate Dead wouldn't work (Unless she wants to make a zombie/skeleton demon baby (http://berserk.wikia.com/wiki/Child))

2. make her use Create Undead (Or if you want to be a prick about it you can make her use create greater undead)

3. a Slaymate is an intelligent undead... most experienced Necromancers don't want to many of those around who can read there spellbook or formulate a plan to kill the Necromancer >_> (A slaymate has an intelligence of 11 meaning she can become a Wizard or a Sorcerer)

The slaymate becomes a Monster NPC (It can gain character levels :smallbiggrin:) after a while of her abusing her slaymate... eventually the slaymate wises up and figures "Wait she needs me more than i need her!" the slave rebels and you end up with one more enemy... but this enemy is smarter than normal because it knows how to kill you... >:D

RP it as that Slaymate found out its origin and wants revenge

Even if she "slays" the Slaymate she just minused herself out (She did that WHOLE process and sacked the Wis for no reason)

ANYWAY~ its more like a long term punishment so let her have her little slaymate for now...

When i tried to do this my DM waited 10 or so years (game years... so like 12 games) than they slaymate did the above...

Moral of this story: A blessing can quickly turn into a curse no matter how good it is...

[SowZ]

I once had a group go to a plane of hell and bater with the devils. In my world, that means giving up things that matter to you. One player gave up all of his melee weapon proficiencies for a book. Another gave up the color of ther hair, eyes, and skin, for magical daggers. Yet another offered the Devil a favor that another Devil owed him. But a TN character? She offered the soul of her first as yet unborn child.

I had to stop and tell her that it would mean an alignment shift, (this was back when I still used alignments.) She stared at me for a second and said, "Why?" There was an argument about it that the other players found amusing. It ended with her deciding to offer her child bearing organs instead, but man...

TLDR: A player did not understand why offering up the soul of her first as yet unborn child to a devil would make her evil.

I feel your pain, man.

[TheJake]

You're giving your player's the options of NOT changing alignments? You're a nicer DM than I am.

- J.

[MammonAzrael]

Update: the modified atropal scion twin was born alongside the slaymate. The town was decimated as the creature's connection to the negative energy plane overwhelmed it's tiny form. The ichor slicked creature crawled to the door of the the desicrated chapel and screamed in voice lacking in all innocence or warmth, "I'll get you mommy" as he winked from sight. Our three "heroes" knew unmistakeably that it did not refer to the unconsious harlot before them, but to the inadvertant architect of it's damned existence.

So basically you're about to have a whole lot of fun at their expense? Excellent. :smallbiggrin:

[deuxhero]

The fact that the PCs NEED to do that to get a slaymate is bizzare. Surely pre modern medicine a stillborn child isn't THAT hard to find?

[sdream]

The fact that the PCs NEED to do that to get a slaymate is bizzare. Surely pre modern medicine a stillborn child isn't THAT hard to find?

There was some info in written sources they only came from children who died as a direct result of parents negligence.

Neglecting to decline an offer of cash to kill your unborn kid is pretty neglectful, whereas just being sans-medical care is much less so.

Darth - let me be among the many to congratulate you on your cool party (even if they had a hard time believing they could be evil while still fighting for noble causes). In the real world, I think most evil is committed by people who think they are good people, underneath it all.

Frankly I'm surprised that template that gives healing from dark energy doesn't automatically make them suffer smite damage (can they also be healed by regular light energy heals?)

[deuxhero]

OK, some pair of dirt farmers willing to trade an extra child for some gold. Still less time and money consuming than the hooker mess.

[Darth Stabber]

OK, some pair of dirt farmers willing to trade an extra child for some gold. Still less time and money consuming than the hooker mess.

The point was that the child was born out of an act of neglect, an important bit of symbolism. If they would have picked a random peasant kid, it would not have been such a strong symbol.

Yes I homebrewed the details of the ritual, but it works in universe. I could have made it cost a higher level spell, but in all honesty the point isn't what level the spell it, The point is to have a child "born" out of an act of parental negligence and the animate dead was merely to provide the necromantic energies that constitute it's new motive force. There are several ways I could have done it that had more mechanical basis, but mechanics took a back seat to the story and symbol, and when the payoff was as amazing as that I will happily tell mechanics to take a break and come back later.

[Calanon]

The point was that the child was born out of an act of neglect, an important bit of symbolism. If they would have picked a random peasant kid, it would not have been such a strong symbol.

Yes I homebrewed the details of the ritual, but it works in universe. I could have made it cost a higher level spell, but in all honesty the point isn't what level the spell it, The point is to have a child "born" out of an act of parental negligence and the animate dead was merely to provide the necromantic energies that constitute it's new motive force. There are several ways I could have done it that had more mechanical basis, but mechanics took a back seat to the story and symbol, and when the payoff was as amazing as that I will happily tell mechanics to take a break and come back later.

If you'd be so kind as to show us the ritual you designed for the making of a Slaymate, i might want to use it myself :smalltongue:

I completely understand your perspective for making the Slaymate and understand the need for the parental abuse. The one thing i never grasped until now is the need for horror behind the thought of undead, The reason for why the ghost moans if you will. this thread has actually enlightened me a little in that department and i thank you for that.