Is this evil? with a twist.

[Kudaku]

I have a character concept under way, a Hedge Witch named Esmeralda who poisons unsuspecting divine spellcasters and then uses Blood Transcription (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spells/bloodTranscription.html) on her unfortunate victims. She does this in order to learn spells from them in the hopes of discovering new healing spells, to improve her ability to take care of her community.

Esmeralda specifically targets divine casters that she feels "doesn't create, only destroy" or that actively obstructs or hinders society, typically battle-focused divine and some arcane casters.

Other than her penchant for killing people and drinking their blood Esmeralda is a genuinely nice and caring person. She works tirelessly to help better the society she lives in, through use of spells and skills, funds an orphanage on the gold she earns on the healing she provides, frequently provides healing for free when the patient is unable to pay, help conditions for the homeless and so on.

She desperately tries to convinces herself that the murders are done for the greater good and that she's not doing anything wrong.

Now, personally I'd consider this character evil because good deeds doesn't outbalance bad ones. However I'm at a loss as to what kind of evil this qualifies as: Is this character Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Evil?

What do you think? Am I off-base in calling Esmeralda evil? If I am, what would you consider her? If I'm not, what brand of evil is she?

Edit: Forgot to specify that this is a Pathfinder specific character, we're not using Book of Vile Darkness or Book of Exalted Deeds. Please feel free to ignore their (imho somewhat ham-handed) attempts to classify good and evil actions.


Second edit: This is a bit of background story for Esmeralda should you be interested in using her in your campaign. If there's anything here you feel could be changed for the better let me know! I'm always up for some constructive criticism. :smallsmile:
Esmeralda used to work as a herbalist, midwife and general healer. She owned a small hovel and worked tirelessly to help her local community, six small villages and a number of small farms out in the boonies, in an area generally ignored by civilization. Because of the sparse population and the general insignificance of the area the Churches are loath to send divine spellcasters there, instead the small chapels in the area are run by commoners and experts.
(for the record this is fairly normal in the setting we're playing in, the major religions tend to focus on building and maintaining a presence in the larger cities).

Again and again Esmeralda would see people die because she couldn't help them - because she couldn't summon a cleric fast enough, because she didn't have the right knowledge, because she didn't have enough power.

Ultimately this is what drove Esmeralda to become a witch and to accept a pact with her patron, a devil who symbolizes Aging (Esmeralda has the Time patron), growing old and weak and passing away. Note that Esmeralda is not aware that her patron is in fact from the nine hells.
Now Esmeralda has access to low level healing spells, but she finds it's not enough. She still isn't powerful enough, her people are dying from diseases, children are stillborn, she still can't save them all...
Esmeralda throws herself into her studies and goes on local quests seeking out yet more knowledge so that she can finally gain the power she needs... Unknowingly, her patron leads her to discover a long-lost tome with lore and knowledge she finds repugnant. Esmeralda is about to burn the tome in disgust when she finds the Blood Transcription spell... And an idea takes root...
For months she'd dither on what to do. For months she'd consider her options. In the end, the choice is made for her.
A cleric is brought to her dying from a wasting disease, coughs wrack his body. On his armor is the holy icon of Sarenrae, the goddess of Healing.
Esmeralda searches the nameless cleric's backpack to see if he has anything that she can use to help but what she finds is a grisly trophy: a necklace of fingerbones, each bone the size of a child's finger. Flesh still sticks to some of the bones.

OOC: Unknown to Esmeralda this troubled cleric is another victim of the same devil that's providing her with spells. He has been led her intentionally to serve as the final push to lead Esmeralda into corruption.

That same night, Esmeralda performs a ritual...

Since then the killings have gotten a little easier with each victim. She doesn't kill often, maybe one or two casters a year, people who pass through and won't be noticed, won't be missed. She'll offer them to stay with her in her hovel or find a way to gain access to their food and drink. She'll poison them with the most merciful poison she has access to, and wait. If the poisoning works the villagers will bring her the victim so that she can cure whatever ails them, and that leaves her free to drain their energies. If the poisoning doesn't work, she'll pretend like nothing ever happened and slip back into her role of devoted healer and servant.

Her guilt over these killings wracks her and she has thrown herself into her work more than ever, working tirelessly to help her local community, travelling from village to village in her rickety house wagon, always willing to help. Whatever coin she makes she puts to good use, again to help those around her.

[LadyLexi]

Chaotic Neutral. I think that would best fit that sort of character.

[Vizzerdrix]

What is Blood Transcription? :smallconfused:

[Gnomish Wanderer]

If she doesn't care what alignment the divine casters are I'd say either Chaotic or True Neutral as well.

[Blind Orc]

Chaotic good? :smallbiggrin:

Would she change her actions if there was a better way to do good?
She kills her victims after poisoning them?
She enjoys it? etc etc

[Gray Mage]

What is Blood Transcription? :smallconfused:

I assume he means this (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/blood-transcription).

I'd say LE, personally, since she seems to have a personal code, or maybe NE. Definitely evil, though.

[Waker]

What are the means by which she chooses her targets? Does she investigate the targets thoroughly, using divination and mundane means or does she say "That guy looks like a drain on society"? If she preys exclusively on evil and destructive neutral types, I could maybe see her as neutral. Even then she is walking a thin line by proactively killing people that might be dangerous.
If on the other hand she arbitrarily chooses people and projects her skewed beliefs "A priestess of Olidamara? A thief priest hurts society, she must die." and then proceeds immediately to execution, then she is evil.

[Sutremaine]

Evil for deciding who should live or die and going through with it, Lawful for her emphasis on society and its overarching rules (as she sees them).

[Mithril Leaf]

I'd say chaotic neutral. If a paladin can be lawful good for slaughtering a bunch of usually chaotic evil monsters, no reason she can't be at least neutral for working to help society and hurting those that seem to harm society.

[LadyLexi]

Another factor to remove her from evil is the number of good deeds she preforms. Her killing removes her from being good, because of the manner in which she finds targets and they way she destroys them.

[Slipperychicken]

Esmerelda is taking a few evil acts routinely. The first is poison use, which the rules classify as Evil. The second is Murder, which also Evil if done for theft. The Third is Theft: she is stealing these spells. The fourth is Casting Evil Spells: Blood Transcription is Evil. This puts her well on her way to being an Evil person, regardless of how noble her motivation. An Evil person will commit all sorts of depraved acts in the name of goodness.

I'll go with Lawful Evil: Esmerelda is routinely using Evil means, with noble intentions. Her hypocritical belief that she has done nothing wrong changes nothing. An Evil act in the name of Good is still Evil. She has not sought any non-evil way to accomplish her goal, and has gone straight to indiscriminate slaughter as a (quite unreliable) solution.


Side note: Why doesn't Esmerelda simply ask the Clerics if they have any new healing spells, then have them teach it to her? Or better yet, research one herself? She better hope none of those clerics prepared Detect Poison, Delay Poison, or Neutralize Poison.

[ryu]

or were dwarf clerics. ''What?! You're a dwarf?! Impossible!'' Turns out he had just taken the maximum possible height at character creation.

[That_guy_there]

Esmerelda is taking a few evil acts routinely. The first is poison use, which the rules classify as Evil. The second is Murder, which also Evil if done for theft. The Third is Theft: she is stealing these spells. The fourth is Casting Evil Spells: Blood Transcription is Evil. This puts her well on her way to being an Evil person, regardless of how noble her motivation. An Evil person will commit all sorts of depraved acts in the name of goodness.

I'll go with Lawful Evil: Esmerelda is routinely using Evil means, with noble intentions. Her hypocritical belief that she has done nothing wrong changes nothing. An Evil act in the name of Good is still Evil. She has not sought any non-evil way to accomplish her goal, and has gone straight to indiscriminate slaughter as a (quite unreliable) solution.

This would be my reasoning as well. Just because you tell yourself "its for the greater good of my community/ people" doesn't mean you're not doing evil.

As pointed out above by RAW using Poison is an evil act, and willingly engaging in evil acts warrents an alignment shift towards Evil.

Esmerelda obviously has a personal code of "morality"... she believes she's doing the right thing. Unfortunately she's doing it in the "wrong" way to walk the path of a Good Character. This however means she is also clearly Lawful.

She can't even claim remaining Neutral, as her methods are clearly evil (See above)

[roguemetal]

I'd rule CE. Conceptually meaning to do good leans her to neutral, and killing people is not inherently evil, only chaotic. Where you slip towards evil is where the player targets specific individuals under a code (which is not lawful by the way, as it doesn't uphold societal standards and only personal ideals) that have not technically done any wrongs. Doing good deeds with that simply leads you to contradict your actions with your intent, and forces you further down the chaotic road. This places you teetering around CN-CE, but then the vampirism makes my choice obvious. If your main intention was instead the harming of these individuals, with acting as a healer a farce, I might claim you were NE, as your goals are more in line with your means of execution, but it seems more like your character is simply unaware of their method being construed as evil.

[That_guy_there]

I'd rule CE. Conceptually meaning to do good leans her to neutral, and killing people is not inherently evil, only chaotic.

Killing people is not inherently evil in individual situations, however by RAW : {"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.} http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm
Which means that yes, in this case the PC is evil because the murders (and thats what they are) don't really chaff with her ideology.



Where you slip towards evil is where the player targets specific individuals under a code (which is not lawful by the way, as it doesn't uphold societal standards and only personal ideals) that have not technically done any wrongs.

Again, close but not quite... as the Lawful Side of Alignment By RAW says: {Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties}http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm
Which implies that society is important but does not rule out a personal code of honor guiding your actions.



Doing good deeds with that simply leads you to contradict your actions with your intent, and forces you further down the chaotic road. This places you teetering around CN-CE, but then the vampirism makes my choice obvious. If your main intention was instead the harming of these individuals, with acting as a healer a farce, I might claim you were NE, as your goals are more in line with your means of execution, but it seems more like your character is simply unaware of their method being construed as evil.


Anyway, I agree with you that by the PC choosing to drink blood makes the entire thing an evil act/ path. Unfortuantely their method isnt being construed as evil... by the rules of the game it is evil. perception has nothing to do with it.

(Specifically the Chaos and Law axis doesn't really overlap the reasoning for a character being "good" or "evil". A CG PC and A CE PC can both hate Slavery. Thats the Chaotic part [personal freedom is most important in life] but the CG person might free the slaves while the CE might kill them. After all if they're dead they're not enslaved. Rediculous example yet i hope it shows what i want to show.)


EDIT: I just flipped through the Book of Exhaulted Deeds looking for information to help with this thread:http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248164 and found this gem on Page 9: {In the D&D universe, the fundamental
answer is no, an evil act is an evil act
no matter what good result it may
achieve.}

[hoverfrog]

Definitely Evil for the reasons given above but I'd also say she was Lawful. My reasoning is that she works to help and build her community rather than merely herself.

[Kudaku]

What is Blood Transcription? :smallconfused:
Like Gray Mage stated, I did indeed mean Blood Transcription (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/blood-transcription). Thanks for the link Gray! :smallsmile:


Side note: Why doesn't Esmerelda simply ask the Clerics if they have any new healing spells, then have them teach it to her? Or better yet, research one herself?

Admittedly this might be due to my spotty understanding of the rules (lent away my APG so I don't have access to the exact phrasing atm) but from what I can read on the Pathfinder SRD witches can normally only learn spells in three ways: By leveling up, by having familiars trade spells, or by destroying scrolls and feeding the ashes of the scroll to their familiar.

Since witches are specifically Arcane Casters, they can (again, as near as I can tell from reading the magic chapter in the core rulebook and extrapolating) only teach their familiar spells from Arcane Scrolls. This creates a problem for Esmeralda since the spells on the witch spell list that she wants most, those that focus on curing diseases, granting restoration, cure poison and the like are primarily found on divine casting lists. The only arcane caster that gets cure light wounds, for instance, is the bard and the witch. In this particular campaign both are rare and it is unlikely that Esmeralda has access to scrolls created by these classes.

The nicest epic level cleric in the world could offer to personally tutor her in healing spells, but as long as his spell list is Divine and hers is Arcane they can't trade scrolls, spells or understanding of the spells involved. Fish and fowl, so to say.

However, Blood Transcription sidesteps the whole issue by automatically granting her understanding of the spell as long as it is on her spell list.

Again, this is based on my understanding of the rules involved and it's perfectly possible I'm wrong. If so, please correct me and let me know where I went astray :smallsmile:.

What are the means by which she chooses her targets? Does she investigate the targets thoroughly, using divination and mundane means or does she say "That guy looks like a drain on society"? If she preys exclusively on evil and destructive neutral types, I could maybe see her as neutral. Even then she is walking a thin line by proactively killing people that might be dangerous.
If on the other hand she arbitrarily chooses people and projects her skewed beliefs "A priestess of Olidamara? A thief priest hurts society, she must die." and then proceeds immediately to execution, then she is evil.

I wouldn't say she hunts specifically for targets that fit her particular profile. This is a fairly immobile character - she has various commitments keeping her from leaving her domain, so she's mostly going for targets of opportunity and justifying it to herself as she goes. I'd say she's somewhere in between the two versions you put forward - she won't target a person exclusively on what he wears/what deity he worships, but she can be somewhat fickle and will happily decide to off someone who came across as rude, obnoxious, uncaring or undeserving of his divine blessings.

I forgot to mention it in the OP (and I'm editing it in as we speak) but this is Pathfinder, not 3.5. Feel free to disregard the Book of Exalted Deeds/Book of Vile Darkness - I personally find that neither book is much use when it comes to defining the alignment of an act.


Finally, thank you so much for everyone posting and keep up the good work. So far we have everything from Chaotic Good to Lawful Evil with the majority of voters saying some kind of Neutral... I really wasn't expecting that! :smallbiggrin:

[whibla]

Definitely Evil for the reasons given above but I'd also say she was Lawful. My reasoning is that she works to help and build her community rather than merely herself.

Don't you think her community might have laws against murder?

I can't see that's she's operating within the law, or even, taking into account her personal code in deciding who dies, following what most people would consider to be lawful behaviour. At best she's neutral on the law-chaos axis, and, alas, she's almost certainly slipped into the black on the good-evil axis too.

Just as an aside, I never could quite understand the whole poison is evil, period, thing. Not disagreeing that it's RAW, but take a look at "Touch of Golden Ice" sometime. Hard to reconcile being exalted (v. good) and poisoning people with a touch...

[QuidEst]

I agree that she definitely falls under Evil. I think she falls under NE, personally.

Reasoning for Evil:
I'm of the opinion that if either the means or the end is evil, the character should certainly be considered a strong candidate for evil. Have circumstances forced her hand? No, there are other ways to learn the spells, although not easy ones. (Metagame, there's leveling up, alternate favored class bonus, and the healing hex.) Furthermore, the killing doesn't even guarantee she learns a new healing spell. Killing people in order to have a chance at getting easier means towards a good end still feels pretty evil to me. I would consider it somewhat analogous to injecting unwilling human subjects with diseases to try and find a cure.

Reasoning for Neutral:
There's a directness to her approach that is efficient, premeditated, and probably illegal. That sounds like neutral to me.
If she just wants a socially acceptable excuse for killing people or starts being less picky about who she bumps off, I'd call it chaotic.
If she has obtained permission from the local jurisdiction or conducts a thorough investigation of her victims to make sure they deserve it, I'd call it lawful.

[Kudaku]

Just as an aside, I never could quite understand the whole poison is evil, period, thing. Not disagreeing that it's RAW, but take a look at "Touch of Golden Ice" sometime. Hard to reconcile being exalted (v. good) and poisoning people with a touch...

Ravages is essentially "I can't believe it's not Poison" for Good People(TM). It's also one of a few reasons why my group refuses to use BoED/BoVD in our campaigns. Some of the fluff in the books is interesting and they have some fun prestige classes, but the vast majority of the rulings on alignment in the books feel simplistic, uninspired or just downright dumb. The BoVD rulings on evil actions specifically is one of the biggest hindrances to interesting roleplay decisions in 3.5 as a whole.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Alright, a quick rant on the subject of poison and murder.

The BoED's alignment sections are sketchy at best. In Assassin's Creed, Altaïr and Ezio used poison, and Connor probably will too. All of them kill targets in surprise attacks, which, other than killing someone who's helpless, is the definition of murder. But that doesn't make them evil. Especially if you decide to act more humanely and not kill, say, the Florence guards when playing Ezio, as they are under the control of the Medici, instead opting to use unarmed combat skills and smoke bombs. In D&D, any rogue worth his salt is going to use stealth to sneak up on enemies and deal sneak attack damage. Oh, and then there are Ravages, which are basically "but if poisons are evil, then that takes out a rogue archetype!" "Hm... I know! Let's throw in these poisons that only work against evil creatures!".

Now to the subject.

How does she pick targets? Does she see clerics of Kord walking around with big morningstars and spears, opting to attack the orcs rather than heal the wounded, and decide to kill them, ignorant of the fact that they'll start healing when they gain more spells the next day? Does she ask around town, and decide to kill them when she hears that they just fend off raiders and don't actually tend to wounds? Does she decide to just kill the warlike clerics of Hextor that are building an empire, who prepare a couple healing spells in the days after a battle and heal wounded soldiers? Does she only attack if they're clerics of Erythnul who are themselves the raiders, attacking any weak settlements of any race they come across in the name of their god?

If it's the first, she's definitely evil, with her willingness to kill based on what she saw them do for the few minutes before she got bored. If it's the second, she's neutral with evil leanings at best, but probably still evil. If it's the third, she's probably neutral, with her willingness to kill evil even if it's semi-productive to the society. If it's the fourth, she can be any alignment.

[That_guy_there]

Just as an aside, I never could quite understand the whole poison is evil, period, thing. Not disagreeing that it's RAW, but take a look at "Touch of Golden Ice" sometime. Hard to reconcile being exalted (v. good) and poisoning people with a touch...

I agree whole heartedly with this statement.

However, rules wise it is an evil act and i guess the reasoning is that poison is more harmful than simply stabbing them with a sword, as it deals damage over a longer time period... using disease in a similar way would be an evil act too i guess.

"Touch of Golden Ice" feels like it was a way of going "Here Paladins and Divine good Casters, you can now use this special type of poison." It feels like an exception to the rule.

[Hiro Protagonest]

However, rules wise it is an evil act and i guess the reasoning is that poison is more harmful than simply stabbing them with a sword, as it deals damage over a longer time period... using disease in a similar way would be an evil act too i guess.

Than why isn't using, oh... Acid Fog an evil act? Or Melf's Acid Arrow?

[Kudaku]

well-written Stuff.

First of all I think we agree on the BoVD rulings and I like your example with the Assassin's Creed games. I can't help feel like those books dropped the ball on what could be a really interesting discussion on the concepts of Good and Evil and how those relate to D&D.

Secondly I think I can see Esmeralda doing the second option - killing off one of the Kord clerics when she realizes they have no interest in actually helping the community apart from chasing off the local raiders. She'd gather some information before reaching a decision, but she feels that her needs and the needs of the society she is part of has precedence over the lives of her (relatively few) victims. After all, she can put those spells to infinitely better use than the brutish lout who used to have them, right? :smallamused:

[paddyfool]

Under Aristotle's virtue ethics, Kant's deontology, rule utilitarianism, or human rights ethics... evil. Because, above all else, you don't go around murdering people.

Under act utilitarianism... possibly not evil, if she's highly selective about the targets.

Under D&D or pathfinder alignments? On the whole, I don't think there's much to add to slipperychicken's argument.

A real-world analogy would be someone going around murdering people and harvesting their organs from people who've "devoted their lives to destruction" (soldiers, bouncers, prizefighters... although all of these would impose some practical challenges) to donate said organs to others who need them. Or the classic trolley problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) and its variations, for that matter.

[Gray Mage]

Like Gray Mage stated, I did indeed mean Blood Transcription (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/blood-transcription). Thanks for the link Gray! :smallsmile:


You're welcome. :smallsmile:



Admittedly this might be due to my spotty understanding of the rules (lent away my APG so I don't have access to the exact phrasing atm) but from what I can read on the Pathfinder SRD witches can normally only learn spells in three ways: By leveling up, by having familiars trade spells, or by destroying scrolls and feeding the ashes of the scroll to their familiar.

Since witches are specifically Arcane Casters, they can (again, as near as I can tell from reading the magic chapter in the core rulebook and extrapolating) only teach their familiar spells from Arcane Scrolls. This creates a problem for Esmeralda since the spells on the witch spell list that she wants most, those that focus on curing diseases, granting restoration, cure poison and the like are primarily found on divine casting lists. The only arcane caster that gets cure light wounds, for instance, is the bard and the witch. In this particular campaign both are rare and it is unlikely that Esmeralda has access to scrolls created by these classes.

The nicest epic level cleric in the world could offer to personally tutor her in healing spells, but as long as his spell list is Divine and hers is Arcane they can't trade scrolls, spells or understanding of the spells involved. Fish and fowl, so to say.

However, Blood Transcription sidesteps the whole issue by automatically granting her understanding of the spell as long as it is on her spell list.

Again, this is based on my understanding of the rules involved and it's perfectly possible I'm wrong. If so, please correct me and let me know where I went astray :smallsmile:.


I'm going to admit that I know next to nothing about pf, but reading the spell description, you learn the spell, then can cast it normally. However, witches cast from a specific spell list, and the spell doesn't actually add the spell to this list. So, wouldn't the normal be not being able to cast it? Or am I missing something?

And I still think LE fits the best. Being evil doesn't mean that the person can't care about anyone else but him/herself and neither caring about someone makes it automatically good or even makes up for murder.

[That_guy_there]

Than why isn't using, oh... Acid Fog an evil act? Or Melf's Acid Arrow?

The really simple answer is because neither of those spells are "inherently Evil" (They do not have the Evil Descriptor). Casting an evil spell is an evil act by RAW. Rarely does intent play well into alignment (there are massive, angry threads on alignment arguments)...

And Maybe my explainantion is way off... I dunno. I'm not claiming to know the official reasons why. It's my speculation on the "why" of why poison is evil. You'll notice i agree that poison shouldn't be inherently evil:


Quote:
{Originally Posted by whibla:
Just as an aside, I never could quite understand the whole poison is evil, period, thing. Not disagreeing that it's RAW, but take a look at "Touch of Golden Ice" sometime. Hard to reconcile being exalted (v. good) and poisoning people with a touch...}

{Me: I agree whole heartedly with this statement.}

[Hiro Protagonest]

The really simple answer is because neither of those spells are "inherently Evil" (They do not have the Evil Descriptor). Casting an evil spell is an evil act by RAW. Rarely does intent play well into alignment (there are massive, angry threads on alignment arguments)...

And Maybe my explainantion is way off... I dunno. I'm not claiming to know the official reasons why. It's my speculation on the "why" of why poison is evil. You'll notice i agree that poison shouldn't be inherently evil:


Quote:
{Originally Posted by whibla:
Just as an aside, I never could quite understand the whole poison is evil, period, thing. Not disagreeing that it's RAW, but take a look at "Touch of Golden Ice" sometime. Hard to reconcile being exalted (v. good) and poisoning people with a touch...}

{Me: I agree whole heartedly with this statement.}

Yeah, I know, but this is just backing up my claim that the stuff about alignment in BoED/BoVD is sketchy.

[That_guy_there]

Yeah, I know, but this is just backing up my claim that the stuff about alignment in BoED/BoVD is sketchy.

I get that, but that stuff also applies from the SRD and Player's guide.

I agree the BoVD/ BoED failed to touch on the subtleties of Alignment but they did (more or less) reaffirm the "official" stance on Good and Evil (more black and white than shades of grey).

[Kudaku]

I'm going to admit that I know next to nothing about pf, but reading the spell description, you learn the spell, then can cast it normally. However, witches cast from a specific spell list, and the spell doesn't actually add the spell to this list. So, wouldn't the normal be not being able to cast it? Or am I missing something?

The idea here is that some spells like Remove Disease exist on both the Arcane Spell List for Witches and the Divine Spell List for various divine casters (clerics, oracles, inquisitors, druids and rangers). Blood Transcription lets you attempt to learn one spell the deceased spellcaster had access to as long as the same spell is on your spell list.

Since Remove Disease is on the Spell List for witches, it is a spell that it is possible for a witch to learn. However, if a witch didn't take that particular spell when she leveled up she could still be able to pick it up from another caster who did have access to it using Blood Transcription. That other caster would then either have to be a witch, or a divine caster who had access to the spell either because they have access to all spells (like the ranger and the cleric) or because they specifically chose it (oracle).

Of course, I just realized that you could then argue that the Arcane Remove Disease spells that witches have and the Divine Remove Disease spell that various divine classes have access to are not the same spell and thus witches can't learn the spell through Blood Transcription... That makes things tricky. Part of the problem here is simply that Blood Transcription is a spell that's incompletely worded.

[Gray Mage]

The idea here is that some spells like Remove Disease exist on both the Arcane Spell List for Witches and the Divine Spell List for various divine casters (clerics, oracles, inquisitors, druids and rangers). Blood Transcription lets you attempt to learn one spell the deceased spellcaster had access to as long as the same spell is on your spell list.

Since Remove Disease is on the Spell List for witches, it is a spell that it is possible for a witch to learn. However, if a witch didn't take that particular spell when she leveled up she could still be able to pick it up from another caster who did have access to it using Blood Transcription. That other caster would then either have to be a witch, or a divine caster who had access to the spell either because they have access to all spells (like the ranger and the cleric) or because they specifically chose it (oracle).

Of course, I just realized that you could then argue that the Arcane Remove Disease spells that witches have and the Divine Remove Disease spell that various divine classes have access to are not the same spell and thus witches can't learn the spell through Blood Transcription... That makes things tricky. Part of the problem here is simply that Blood Transcription is a spell that's incompletely worded.

Well, but then she could simply buy a scroll and learn it for these spells, right?

[Kudaku]

Like I mentioned earlier, the only arcane class that has access to the spells Esmeralda is interested in would be another witch. Since the witch class was just introduced to this world there isn't a ready store of scrolls from other witches for her to purchase/access. Blood Transcription is her best bet. Besides, stopping at the local magic mart for scrolls would ruin the entire character concept :smallcool:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Like I mentioned earlier, the only arcane class that has access to the spells Esmeralda is interested in would be another witch. Since the witch class was just introduced to this world there isn't a ready store of scrolls from other witches for her to purchase/access. Blood Transcription is her best bet. Besides, stopping at the local magic mart for scrolls would ruin the entire character concept :smallcool:

I'm pretty sure that if a cleric just writes down the incantation, she can learn it. It's not a divine scroll, it doesn't require a UMD check, no magical power is invested in it, , it's literally just a piece of paper with instructions written on it. All you need to learn the spell is a detailed summary of the hand gestures and a copy of the incantation.

Unless you're using it purely on casters you would kill anyway, it's flat-out evil.

[Gray Mage]

Like I mentioned earlier, the only arcane class that has access to the spells Esmeralda is interested in would be another witch. Since the witch class was just introduced to this world there isn't a ready store of scrolls from other witches for her to purchase/access. Blood Transcription is her best bet. Besides, stopping at the local magic mart for scrolls would ruin the entire character concept :smallcool:

Yes, but there are divine classes that have acess to the spell, right? Reading the part from learning from a scroll, it doesn't make a distinction about it being from a divine scroll or an arcane one, but even if it did, wouldn't that same distinction apply to the Blood Transcription spell?

And who says anything about magic mart, trade with some of the good aligned divine spellcasters that she'd have killed or even more from those that she wouldn't have killed. Odds are she's bound to find ne with scribe scroll sooner or later. Or even go to the nearest good aligned temple and ask for a scroll so that she could learn and use it for good, it's very likely they'd be ok with trading or even giving her the spell, given her reasons.

[Kudaku]

Agreed on the general description not mentioning it, but if you read the specific ruling on the scroll section it says the following: To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.

The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)

One would assume that in order to learn the spell has to be activated.

Edit: sorry if I'm coming across as a bit short ATM, typing this on my phone and the keyboard is doing my head in :(. I'll check in here again tomorrow morning!

[Slipperychicken]

Like Gray Mage stated, I did indeed mean Blood Transcription (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/blood-transcription). Thanks for the link Gray! :smallsmile:

Admittedly this might be due to my spotty understanding of the rules (lent away my APG so I don't have access to the exact phrasing atm) but from what I can read on the Pathfinder SRD witches can normally only learn spells in three ways: By leveling up, by having familiars trade spells, or by destroying scrolls and feeding the ashes of the scroll to their familiar.


If it's really hard for her to learn the spells, she could encourage some benevolent church to set up shop in her town (or at least send a mission there), then they can dole out healing like it's nobody's business. I could imagine a town donating rent-free land to the church in exchange for healing.

[Waker]

Questions about the mechanics of the spell aside, I would put her squarely in the Chaotic Evil category. She has a personal code of sorts, but it seems ill-defined and she is mostly an opportunistic killer. Were her targets a bit more specific I could see her maybe being bumped up to Neutral, and possibly even Lawful is she chose her targets in advance.
She may aspire towards helping her community, but as it currently stands she is a murderer who thinks she is making the world a better place by killing people whose morals and acts she disagrees with so that she can steal their blood and power.

[Gray Mage]

Agreed on the general description not mentioning it, but if you read the specific ruling on the scroll section it says the following: To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.

The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)

One would assume that in order to learn the spell has to be activated.

Edit: sorry if I'm coming across as a bit short ATM, typing this on my phone and the keyboard is doing my head in :(. I'll check in here again tomorrow morning!

Nothing a UMD check couldn't solve. Luckly, witches have that as a class skill.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Agreed on the general description not mentioning it, but if you read the specific ruling on the scroll section it says the following: To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.

The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)

One would assume that in order to learn the spell has to be activated.

It's different. There are scrolls, as in single-use spell devices that require the Scribe Scroll feat and an investment in XP and gold, and there are scrolls, as in pieces of paper with the spell written on it. Spellcasters can learn spells from scrolls (either kind) if those spells are on their spell lists. There is no UMD check for arcane casters learning from scrolls written by a divine caster.

[Deadlights]

I have a character concept under way, a Hedge Witch named Esmeralda who poisons unsuspecting divine spellcasters and then uses Blood Transcription (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spells/bloodTranscription.html) on her unfortunate victims. She does this in order to learn spells from them in the hopes of discovering new healing spells, to improve her ability to take care of her community.

Esmeralda specifically targets divine casters that she feels "doesn't create, only destroy" or that actively obstructs or hinders society, typically battle-focused divine and some arcane casters.

Other than her penchant for killing people and drinking their blood Esmeralda is a genuinely nice and caring person. She works tirelessly to help better the society she lives in, through use of spells and skills, funds an orphanage on the gold she earns on the healing she provides, frequently provides healing for free when the patient is unable to pay, help conditions for the homeless and so on.

She convinces herself that the murders are done for the greater good and that she's not doing anything wrong.

Now, personally I'd consider this character evil because good deeds doesn't outbalance bad ones. However I'm at a loss as to what kind of evil this qualifies as: Is this character Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Evil?

What do you think? Am I off-base in calling Esmeralda evil? If I am, what would you consider her? If I'm not, what brand of evil is she?

Edit: Forgot to specify that this is a Pathfinder specific character, we're not using Book of Vile Darkness or Book of Exalted Deeds. Please feel free to ignore their (imho somewhat ham-handed) attempts to classify good and evil actions.

It's a little hard to justify someone as "not evil" when your description contains things likes "poisons unsuspecting divine spellcasters", "penchant for killing people and drinking their blood", and "She convinces herself that the murders are done for the greater good and that she's not doing anything wrong."

Remember that evil deeds with good intentions are still evil. A handful of good deeds don't excuse evil behavior (the road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc...). If she has to rationalize excuses for her evil behavior, she is almost certainly evil, if not somewhat oblivious to that fact.

[whibla]

It's different. There are scrolls, as in single-use spell devices that require the Scribe Scroll feat and an investment in XP and gold, and there are scrolls, as in pieces of paper with the spell written on it. Spellcasters can learn spells from scrolls (either kind) if those spells are on their spell lists. There is no UMD check for arcane casters learning from scrolls written by a divine caster.

Emphasis mine.

Where are you getting this from? There is quite a long section on both arcane and divine magic in the PHB, among other places. This quite clearly refers to arcane spellbooks, and the ability to learn a spell from them, as well as from an arcane scroll, but there's nothing that refers to divine spellbooks. As for scrolls, as in pieces of paper with the spell written on it, if you're not referring to a spellbook, or rather a page or two from it, I have no idea what you're talking about. Spellcasters can learn spells from magical scrolls of the correct (divine or arcane) type, in the case of a cleric if the spell in question is from a supplement from example. I'm not so sure about the rest of it though.

Can you give a reference to the non-magical type please?

[Honest Tiefling]

I'd say evil, unless I am missing something on how she picks her target. If she simply jumps any and every caster in her domain, she is evil. Even if she only feeds on those who fit her profile, a lot of paladins and good-aligned 'butt-kicking for goodness!' types are going to become a midnight snack.

Killing people to benefit your buds, even if your buds are adorable wee orphans is still kinda evil in my perspective. A lot of evil people throughout history were quite nice with their chums. Doesn't really excuse mass murder.

I also wouldn't say she's working for the greater good, as she might be removing a whole heap of otherwise decent, if neutral, people who benefit the world. War gods tend to lean to neutral, but have pretty firm stances on the whole murder and pillage business which makes them better to have around. Great, you MIGHT have gotten a few extra spells in exchange for ridding the world of several battle clerics and wizards. I hope that neither of those are in short supply in this world, and no one might need healing or arcane powers on the battlefield!

She might also target Oracles and Sorcerers, who while their players control their spells, their characters have theirs picked by them by forces they can't control. What if a oracle gets chosen to fight evil? What if a sorcerer can't help that they have elemental powers, but decides to use them to help others? Too bad, OM NOM NOM.

She could...Also perhaps ask neutral clerics or witches if they MIND the blood thing? There has to be a few neutral clerics or witches who won't mind being nibbled upon in exchange for money for orphans or to their church.

[QuidEst]

She could...Also perhaps ask neutral clerics or witches if they MIND the blood thing? There has to be a few neutral clerics or witches who won't mind being nibbled upon in exchange for money for orphans or to their church.

Nope- the spell description requires that the spellcaster was killed in the past 24 hours. So it might even not work with the ones that die peacefully in their sleep.

With respect to getting the spell through other methods- yes, it's possible, but no, it shouldn't be possible in this setting. Paizo isn't forcing Witches to bump off Clerics for a shot at certain spells, but it makes for a very cool character if she is restricted to that. A little refluffing and she can't learn them by leveling either, so she's pretty much forced into that route.

[Honest Tiefling]

Oops, didn't read that far. But if it DOES work with someone who died peacefully, through she could pass herself off not just as a healer, but a worshiper of a death god who peacefully ushers the dead into the next life, such as Pharasma. Hopefully, a few clerics and witches will die anyway and be given to her to be put into the graveyard. Heck, even if not, enough might die in battle to give her the ability to use the spell.

Also, I think familiars can learn from each other. Time consuming, but considerably less evil and less prone to make demons dance in glee now that someone after someone did them a favor of killing off oodles of battle clerics and pesky arcane casters.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Emphasis mine.

Where are you getting this from? There is quite a long section on both arcane and divine magic in the PHB, among other places. This quite clearly refers to arcane spellbooks, and the ability to learn a spell from them, as well as from an arcane scroll, but there's nothing that refers to divine spellbooks. As for scrolls, as in pieces of paper with the spell written on it, if you're not referring to a spellbook, or rather a page or two from it, I have no idea what you're talking about. Spellcasters can learn spells from magical scrolls of the correct (divine or arcane) type, in the case of a cleric if the spell in question is from a supplement from example. I'm not so sure about the rest of it though.

Can you give a reference to the non-magical type please?

Well, I'm not sure, but it makes sense. Spellbooks cost 125 GP because paper was expensive in medieval times. If you have a spellbook, you can't just cast spells above your level by reading them aloud from the book. I don't see why you can't do the same for scrolls.

But if that won't fly, you could just make a deal with the cleric so that you give him the scroll's full cost to make sure you won't just run off with it and get it for cheap, then give it back in exchange for most of your gold back, but he keeps a couple hundred pieces (the guideline being 100 x spell level, or 50/75 x spell level if the cleric is willing to do you a favor) in exchange for you getting to copy it down.

[whibla]

As an aside to the question, which I've answered in a previous post, I'd just like to say:

Thanks Kudaku! I love the concept of this character.

I think I will be 'borrowing' Esmerelda for a brief cameo in my game. A lured and drugged pc mage/cleric, a poorly judged poison dose, a full expose while he's bleeding out on the sacrificial stone, and a last minute dash to the other pc's by a frantic familiar should make for a most enjoyable encounter. Whether the pc's will kill her, condemming the poor orphaned children to death when the purple plague sweeps over the island, or whether they'll find it in their hearts to forgive her, and maybe even agree to provide her with a few bardic scrolls, I cannot call. It will certainly be a tough moral dilemma for the party's paladin though. Roll on the next couple of sessions...

[Kudaku]

It's a little hard to justify someone as "not evil" when your description contains things likes "poisons unsuspecting divine spellcasters", "penchant for killing people and drinking their blood", and "She convinces herself that the murders are done for the greater good and that she's not doing anything wrong."

Remember that evil deeds with good intentions are still evil. A handful of good deeds don't excuse evil behavior (the road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc...). If she has to rationalize excuses for her evil behavior, she is almost certainly evil, if not somewhat oblivious to that fact.

I phrased it harshly on purpose - I didn't want to candycoat the way Esmeralda operates. Ultimately she is a character who uses evil means for what she considers the greater good, but to me personally she's crossed a boundary by preying on magical users. I think what she does is evil and would make her an evil character - killing people in order to utilize their resources to help other people is evil no matter how much those resources do actually help.
My original purpose in creating this thread was primarily to find out if people would consider her Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic Evil.
However I've seen a few alignment threads on this forum and I always enjoy the discussion it creates, so I left an encouragement for people to make whatever argument they want for how they see Esmeralda's alignment. After all you could make an argument for a fair few different alignments, and quite a few different ones have already been suggested.

Now, some people seem to have the impression that Esmeralda is a mass murderer with dozens of people on her conscience - not so. I can imagine Esmeralda maybe killing two or three divine casters a year - not more. Actually now that I think about it I should probably give a bit more detail about the backstory and the community she works in - I'll edit the OP.

What I ultimately find most interesting about this character is that it's an Evil aligned character that provides a powerful and necessary service in a society that is essentially completely dependent on her. If the party encounters her and simply kills her when they find out how she operates, they create a situation where hundreds if not thousands of people suddenly lose all access to free magical healing, benevolent magic used to encourage crops, a competent midwife etc etc.



As an aside to the question, which I've answered in a previous post, I'd just like to say:

Thanks Kudaku! I love the concept of this character.

I think I will be 'borrowing' Esmerelda for a brief cameo in my game. A lured and drugged pc mage/cleric, a poorly judged poison dose, a full expose while he's bleeding out on the sacrificial stone, and a last minute dash to the other pc's by a frantic familiar should make for a most enjoyable encounter. Whether the pc's will kill her, condemming the poor orphaned children to death when the purple plague sweeps over the island, or whether they'll find it in their hearts to forgive her, and maybe even agree to provide her with a few bardic scrolls, I cannot call. It will certainly be a tough moral dilemma for the party's paladin though. Roll on the next couple of sessions...

That's awesome! I hope she makes for an interesting plot line for you guys :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

I'll go with Lawful Evil: Esmerelda is routinely using Evil means, with noble intentions. Her hypocritical belief that she has done nothing wrong changes nothing. An Evil act in the name of Good is still Evil. She has not sought any non-evil way to accomplish her goal, and has gone straight to indiscriminate slaughter as a (quite unreliable) solution.

This, the bolded part in particular. Definitely LE.

[Kudaku]

This, the bolded part in particular. Definitely LE.

I wouldn't describe what she does as indiscriminate slaughter, she has a code for working out who she can and can't kill. For instance she'd never consider going after a cleric who functioned in a similar function to how she works.


Also, I think familiars can learn from each other. Time consuming, but considerably less evil and less prone to make demons dance in glee now that someone after someone did them a favor of killing off oodles of battle clerics and pesky arcane casters.

A good point but like I mentioned earlier, Esmeralda is in a setting where witch magic is fairly new and access to witch scrolls or other familiars is very rare. At this time in the campaign Esmeralda is the only witch she knows off in the local area, and she's loath to seek another witch out since she's then leaving her villages and her responsibilities behind.

[Psyren]

I wouldn't describe what she does as indiscriminate slaughter, she has a code for working out who she can and can't kill. For instance she'd never consider going after a cleric who functioned in a similar function to how she works.

Very well, discriminate slaughter then. But yeah, still LE; killing should be the last resort, not the first.


As for witch magic being new in this setting, (a) she can still learn healing from regular scrolls, and (b) she can also learn healing spells as part of her two free spells from leveling up. (Represented in-game by her familiar acquiring such lore at her behest, her patrons', or merely deducing that she would be interested in such magic based on her preferences thus far.)

In addition to the above, remember that she is a Hedge Witch - they don't actually have to learn healing magic, because she can spontaneously convert any prepared spell into curative energy.

[Kudaku]

Very well, discriminate slaughter then. But yeah, still LE; killing should be the last resort, not the first.

As for witch magic being new in this setting, (a) she can still learn healing from regular scrolls, and (b) she can also learn healing spells as part of her two free spells from leveling up. (Represented in-game by her familiar acquiring such lore at her behest, her patrons', or merely deducing that she would be interested in such magic based on her preferences thus far.)

In addition to the above, remember that she is a Hedge Witch - they don't actually have to learn healing magic, because she can spontaneously convert any prepared spell into curative energy.


Actually from what I can tell witches can only learn spells from arcane scrolls since they're an arcane caster. The spells Esmeralda wants (remove disease, neutralize poison, diagnose disease etc etc) are specifically only on the arcane spell list of other witches, and a few that may be available to bards. Since Esmeralda has never met another witch and doesn't know of any in the area, she has no other way of learning spells. Obviously the spells she's been choosing when leveling up have been suitable for what purpose she has, but 2 spells/level is not enough. Not even close.

The discussion on whether or not witches can learn spells from divine scrolls has been going back and forth in this thread for a while now. I still haven't seen any ruling that states witches can in fact use divine scrolls without UMD, which as near as I can tell means they can't add the spells to their familiar.

Please note that I don't disagree that Esmeralda is evil - I see her as undeniably evil myself. Only want to make sure you fully grasp the situation she's in :smallsmile:.

Finally: out of curiosity, why Lawful?

[Psyren]

Actually from what I can tell witches can only learn spells from arcane scrolls since they're an arcane caster.

Hmm. I disagree with this. Here is the relevant text:


Adding Spells to a Witch’s Familiar

Witches can add new spells to their familiars through several methods. A witch can only add spells to her familiar if those spells belong to the witch’s spell list.
...
Learn from a Scroll: A witch can use a scroll to teach her familiar a new spell. This process takes 1 hour per level of the spell to be learned, during which time the scroll is burned and its ashes used to create a special brew or powder that is consumed by the familiar. This process destroys the scroll. At the end of this time, the witch must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level). If the check fails, the process went awry in some way and the spell is not learned, although the scroll is still consumed.

The category of scroll is not specified; in fact, Spellcraft allows you to recognize spells regardless of the list they come from. If it did not, it wizards could only identify wizard scrolls for example.

Speaking of Wizards, it is also not specified for them either. I would imagine that a Wizard who makes his Spellcraft check could (for example) copy Charm Person from a Bard scroll into his spellbook, because that spell is also on the Wizard list. He could not cast it from the Bard scroll, but he could certainly copy it.

By my understanding, the restriction only comes into play if you're activating the scroll, not scribing from it. But I may need a separate thread to ask that question and determine if there is a rule somewhere that I'm missing.



Please note that I don't disagree that Esmeralda is evil - I see her as undeniably evil myself. Only want to make sure you fully grasp the situation she's in :smallsmile:

Finally: out of curiosity, why Lawful?

You answered this question yourself:


she has a code for working out who she can and can't kill.

Such a self-imposed restriction/principle would be meaningless to a CE or NE character.

[Kudaku]

My objection to the scroll learning method is not that the spell comes from another class - id have no problem with a witch learning a spell from a bard or wizard scroll. However, the difference between divine and arcane spells is score division in the rule set, and is repeatedly referred to throughout the magic chapter. More specifically, would you let a wizard learn resist energy from a cleric scroll?

To me is poses a problem because of the way clerics and wizards approach spellcasting: for the wizard that scroll would be a step by step guide through the spell. For the cleric a scroll is essentially a plea to their deity to bless them with the chosen spell.

A plane and a car can both get you from A to B but they do it in different ways, and knowing how to drive doesn't mean you can pilot or vice versa.

[hoverfrog]

Nobody really thinks of themselves as evil. They justify the bad things that they do and make excuses when they hurt others. We all selectively edit our experiences like this, some people are just better at it. This witch probably thinks that she is killing people for the greater good but at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law I'm sure that Hitler did too.

Let's put the witch on trial and see is she is guilty of a crime or could her arguments sway a jury into letting her literally get away with murder?

[Zale]

I'm not sure why everyone's getting hung up about a little casual murder.

How many goblins does your average Adventurer murder again?

Of course, they're Evil, so it hardly matters.

She's probably Lawful Evil.

Outside of DnD I'd rank her as a Type III Anti-Heroine (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfAntiHeroes)* sliding towards villainy, especially with her patron corrupting her.

She's interesting. If only she were transplanted into a setting with shades of grey.

*I am not responsible for time lost due to Tvtropes.

[Bharg]

She doesn't qualify as an Anti-Heroine. I don't see how her actions would be justified. She is chaotic evil. :smallsigh:

Not every kind of code you follow makes you lawful.

What is her devilish ward up to anyways? Don't you have to be rotten and evil anyways to make such a pact thing?

[Zale]

I say this in the most polite way possible, but your opinion does not factor into my opinion.

She's doing evil things for good reasons, but she's going to far. Hence the evil-sliding.

Not really, since I guess the Devil tricked her into thinking it was something else.

Not that it matters, since she's associated with a fiend (Unknowingly or not) and that's Evil.

So, yeah. Some brand of E.

[QuidEst]

The category of scroll is not specified; in fact, Spellcraft allows you to recognize spells regardless of the list they come from. If it did not, it wizards could only identify wizard scrolls for example.

Speaking of Wizards, it is also not specified for them either. I would imagine that a Wizard who makes his Spellcraft check could (for example) copy Charm Person from a Bard scroll into his spellbook, because that spell is also on the Wizard list. He could not cast it from the Bard scroll, but he could certainly copy it.

By my understanding, the restriction only comes into play if you're activating the scroll, not scribing from it. But I may need a separate thread to ask that question and determine if there is a rule somewhere that I'm missing.


Arcane casters can't cast a spell from a divine scroll. They can cast it from any arcane scroll. Your Bard/Wizard example is incorrect, I believe.

The rules do not address copying the spell directly. However, common sense would say that if you can't cast a spell, then copying it down (or feeding it to your familiar) will not change the spell so that you can cast it.

[Kudaku]

What is her devilish ward up to anyways? Don't you have to be rotten and evil anyways to make such a pact thing?

To quote the Pathfinder SRD: "At 1st level, when a witch gains her familiar, she must also select a patron. This patron is a vague and mysterious force, granting the witch power for reasons that she might not entirely understand. While these forces need not be named, they typically hold influence over one of the following forces."
It's essentially the equivalent of Domains for clerics, they offer the witch some spells that wouldn't normally be found on her spell list.

I used "pact" as a word of convenience, I wouldn't say that Esmeralda is aware that the "vague and mysterious force" she draws her spells from is in fact from the seven hells.

[Khedrac]

D&D's alignment system is always clunky - people are always a mixture, reacting to different things in different ways.

That said, always remember that when it comes to Good and Evil what people are and what people think they are can be very different.

Very few people actively think of themselves as evil - they may not think about morality at all (and would probably say they are neutral) whilst going around doing evil things.
The (usually insane) charsimatic cult leader who kills his followers to protect them from the world thinks he is good - most people disagree and regard him as evil.
Equally the person who has seen "the light" and regards herself as a wretched evil person may actually be perfoming great works in helping others ("too little" and "not enough" they say to themselves) and have a clearly good alignment.

I would see the character described as one who (at first anyway) thinks of themselves as good but is definilty neutral at best, slipping fast into evil.

It might be interetsing to look at the Depravity rules in Heroes of Horror - they might cover what the witch is doing quite nicely...

As for lawful/chaotic, I'm not sure but it could be constured as insanity which tends to mean chaotic. (Does that make the obsessive-compulsive chaotic because they are insane?)

[Acanous]

nine hells.

One, maybe two people a year? She's good.
She provides free healing every day. 364 days a year, she's working to help her community at her own personal expense.
one day a year, she commits an evil act.
If Good can only exist where there is no evil, and you cannot atone through actions, only through the spell? Then sure, Evil.
If otherwise? She shifts to evil when she poisons and murders someone, shifts slowly back to neutral over the next couple months, and probably ends up as good again before killing once again.

If a party were to encounter her, and it had been months since her last murder, she'd con neutral.

Evil people are not wracked with guilt about their evil deeds.
Edit; To clarify, Capitol E Evil requires as much devotion and regularity as Capitol G Good in order to maintain. If you commit an evil act every once in a while, your alignment will shift at that point, if it's a big enough Evil, but will shift back if it is not maintained.

Thus is why a Paladin can detect-smite without worry. If something Cons Evil, it's done some serious evil and never repented(Genocide), or has done some regular, minor evil (Preying on the sick and needy) with regularity.
If someone feels guilt, repents at personal cost, over a long period of time and with an expendature of real effort? They are certainly not going to stay evil very long, even for murder.

[Psyren]

Arcane casters can't cast a spell from a divine scroll. They can cast it from any arcane scroll. Your Bard/Wizard example is incorrect, I believe.

Since I'm not talking about casting from scrolls at all, I disagree.


My objection to the scroll learning method is not that the spell comes from another class - i'd have no problem with a witch learning a spell from a bard or wizard scroll. However, the difference between divine and arcane spells is score division in the rule set, and is repeatedly referred to throughout the magic chapter. More specifically, would you let a wizard learn resist energy from a cleric scroll?

I would, actually, because the Spellcraft check to know it is a Resist Energy scroll is no different between divine and arcane, implying that the information on the scroll is also no different.

And while scrolls are indeed divine or arcane, the line is still blurry, because a given scroll can actually contain both regardless of its ultimate classification.

But like I said, I didn't want to derail the discussion with this; I'll gladly make another thread to get the community's thoughts.


To me is poses a problem because of the way clerics and wizards approach spellcasting: for the wizard that scroll would be a step by step guide through the spell. For the cleric a scroll is essentially a plea to their deity to bless them with the chosen spell.

A plane and a car can both get you from A to B but they do it in different ways, and knowing how to drive doesn't mean you can pilot or vice versa.

I'm not sure your analogy works though; it's less about knowing how to drive vs. fly, and more about being able to read a manual and know whether it belongs to a car or a plane. Though cars (arcane) and planes (divine) are indeed very different, Spellcraft itself is a universal bridge for recognizing both on sight.

And Witches themselves blur this distinction even further; they are nominally arcane, but their fluff is considerably divine as well (what with communing with enigmatic entities for power.) And if it weren't possible for them to learn from divine scrolls, where did the first witches get those spells? How do Alchemists add curative and other nominally divine extracts to their formula books? Neither of these classes typically scribe scrolls.


Anyway, to refocus on the topic - the main point for Esmerelda specifically is that she still has other ways to get what she needs, and she is deliberately avoiding those methods in favor of murder. As a Hedge Witch, she does not need to learn cure spells at all, which means she can devote her "free" spells to the other forms of remedial magic. And I don't buy the argument that there aren't enough slots of these spells for her to learn everything she needs either; how often for instance does she need to remove curses from people, or reincarnate them? A certain level of pragmatism should be exercised, ranking spells that address common ailments like disease and poison highly. Her need to collect every healing spell (and kill to do so) is symptomatic of a mania.

[Kudaku]

Is mania a trait of a lawful character though?

[Zale]

It can be.

[Psyren]

Is mania a trait of a lawful character though?

Putting aside that I don't think mental disorders are tied particularly strongly to any alignment, she appears to be obsessed with just one thing (as opposed to flitting about randomly), so that would be pretty lawful.

[Zale]

In fact, let's ask Pally, the Paladin.

What do you say on the subject of Mania and Lawfulness, Pally?

Smite. Smite.

Smite.

SMITE.SMITE.SMITE.SMITE.

SMITE!

SMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITE SMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITE SMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITE SMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITE SMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITE SMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITE SMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITE SMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITE SMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITE SMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITE SMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITESMITE!

SMITE EVIL!


She enjoys her job.

[Psyren]

In fact, let's ask Miko.

FTFY :smallbiggrin:

[Hiro Protagonest]

The rules do not address copying the spell directly. However, common sense would say that if you can't cast a spell, then copying it down (or feeding it to your familiar) will not change the spell so that you can cast it.

Your common sense is different from my common sense. My common sense says that because it is on her spell list, she can learn it.

And when we disagree, we turn to the rules. The rules just say "scroll". Not arcane or divine.

[Deadlights]

nine hells.

One, maybe two people a year? She's good.
She provides free healing every day. 364 days a year, she's working to help her community at her own personal expense.
one day a year, she commits an evil act.
If Good can only exist where there is no evil, and you cannot atone through actions, only through the spell? Then sure, Evil.
If otherwise? She shifts to evil when she poisons and murders someone, shifts slowly back to neutral over the next couple months, and probably ends up as good again before killing once again.

If a party were to encounter her, and it had been months since her last murder, she'd con neutral.

Evil people are not wracked with guilt about their evil deeds.
Edit; To clarify, Capitol E Evil requires as much devotion and regularity as Capitol G Good in order to maintain. If you commit an evil act every once in a while, your alignment will shift at that point, if it's a big enough Evil, but will shift back if it is not maintained.

Thus is why a Paladin can detect-smite without worry. If something Cons Evil, it's done some serious evil and never repented(Genocide), or has done some regular, minor evil (Preying on the sick and needy) with regularity.
If someone feels guilt, repents at personal cost, over a long period of time and with an expendature of real effort? They are certainly not going to stay evil very long, even for murder.


This isn't Fallout 3, your typical DM won't let you atone for blowing up megaton by giving purified water to a bunch of homeless people, particularly if you plan on doing it again next year.

[LadyLexi]

Acanous, I agree with you. A lot of people seem to treat good as something you must maintain effort at and has an upkeep where as evil is easy mode, you never need to worry about losing your evil alignment. But frankly a CE cleric who retires to become a barmaid might lose her alignment(and the favor of her deity) from being too neutral.

I think that D&D does intend a balancing act of good and evil deeds. Kill three travelers for their clothes and money, Evil. Protect a village of halfings from a party of adventures who are terrorizing them without reward and with personal cost and legitimate danger to one's personal safety, a good act. I'd say they about balance if not weigh slightly more in the way of good.

[QuidEst]

Your common sense is different from my common sense. My common sense says that because it is on her spell list, she can learn it.


First, Wizards. Well, sure… go ahead and copy it down. You now have instructions for casting a divine spell. If I were DM (and I'm obviously not), then that's what I'd probably end up ruling. With respect to Witches, they're feeding it to their familiar, so my argument doesn't hold. It would be a matter of keeping things the same as the Wizard, which may not be important.


And when we disagree, we turn to the rules. The rules just say "scroll". Not arcane or divine.

I'd say we turn to the rules, then, since there's some conflict ("copying" from an unusable scroll not making much sense according to intuition), we leave it to Rule 0 and the DM's call. Certainly, it makes a lot of sense to ignore scroll type because it's a nuisance. But if the character is allowed to copy down spells from divine scrolls, the basis for the character no longer works. There wouldn't be any point in discussing this. I'm going with the assumption that the DM has given a ruling that makes this character a viable concept.


Anyways, I stated my views on the alignment. I think you can, depending on how you play her, fit her into lawful, neutral, or chaotic. The balance of neutral seems like it would be the most fun, although lawful certainly makes for a creepier serial killer vibe. With respect to morality, I'm convinced she's evil, but if you want to play her as neutral, there are clearly people who feel that way, and even some that think the numbers work out to good.

Enjoy! It's an interesting idea- Blood Transcription is a very unique spell.

[Deadlights]

Acanous, I agree with you. A lot of people seem to treat good as something you must maintain effort at and has an upkeep where as evil is easy mode, you never need to worry about losing your evil alignment. But frankly a CE cleric who retires to become a barmaid might lose her alignment(and the favor of her deity) from being too neutral.

I think that D&D does intend a balancing act of good and evil deeds. Kill three travelers for their clothes and money, Evil. Protect a village of halfings from a party of adventures who are terrorizing them without reward and with personal cost and legitimate danger to one's personal safety, a good act. I'd say they about balance if not weigh slightly more in the way of good.

Couldn't disagree more, a change in alignment should come about from character development. There is no statute of limitations on evil, someone willing to commit evil acts to achieve her goals is evil, even if she hasn't done it in a while. This isn't like counting calories, you don't just make up for eating a slice of chocolate cake by taking the stairs instead of the elevator.

She has willfully committed an evil act to benefit her goals (noble as they are), and is actively planning on doing it again in the future. Now, if she realized the error of her ways and began to atone for her evil by not doing it anymore and only doing good, then she would be good. But the very act of planning on doing it again means she is still evil.

Moreover a good person who hasn't had the chance to save the world recently for whatever reason doesn't begin to to slide into neutral. Again, the character is still willing to do good and will continue to do so should the opportunity arise.

[Slipperychicken]

Is mania a trait of a lawful character though?

Mania, in dnd 3.5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm), is a Mental Disorder -a possible result of Sanity loss in the Variant Sanity Rules. Mania is not the result of any alignment, nor is it exclusive to any alignment.

[LadyLexi]

She has willfully committed an evil act to benefit her goals (noble as they are), and is actively planning on doing it again in the future. Now, if she realized the error of her ways and began to atone for her evil by not doing it anymore and only doing good, then she would be good. But the very act of planning on doing it again means she is still evil.

Moreover a good person who hasn't had the chance to save the world recently for whatever reason doesn't begin to to slide into neutral. Again, the character is still willing to do good and will continue to do so should the opportunity arise.

I would argue that repeatedly ignoring opportunities for good, such as passing by a mugging and deciding it just isn't your problem or ignoring the pleas for help from someone in danger when it is well within your grasp to assist is a slide towards Neutral. Likewise continually passing over chances to commit evil, when it is clear that you would be able to get away with it with no harm to yourself and some sort of gain, is a shift towards that same Neutrality. Neutral isn't unaligned, or at least it shouldn't be. Inactive people, such as farmers and other people who just stick to themselves and don't care for ill or good of others are neutral.

[kardar233]

The important issue here is just how selective she is with victims. If she's specifically targeting divine casters that are having a negative impact on society, then I'd say that's fine. In point of fact, that would also pass the Categorical Imperative, for all you philosophers around here.

[Almaseti]

nine hells.

One, maybe two people a year? She's good.
She provides free healing every day. 364 days a year, she's working to help her community at her own personal expense.
one day a year, she commits an evil act.
If Good can only exist where there is no evil, and you cannot atone through actions, only through the spell? Then sure, Evil.
If otherwise? She shifts to evil when she poisons and murders someone, shifts slowly back to neutral over the next couple months, and probably ends up as good again before killing once again.

If a party were to encounter her, and it had been months since her last murder, she'd con neutral.

Evil people are not wracked with guilt about their evil deeds.
Edit; To clarify, Capitol E Evil requires as much devotion and regularity as Capitol G Good in order to maintain. If you commit an evil act every once in a while, your alignment will shift at that point, if it's a big enough Evil, but will shift back if it is not maintained.

Thus is why a Paladin can detect-smite without worry. If something Cons Evil, it's done some serious evil and never repented(Genocide), or has done some regular, minor evil (Preying on the sick and needy) with regularity.
If someone feels guilt, repents at personal cost, over a long period of time and with an expendature of real effort? They are certainly not going to stay evil very long, even for murder.

But she's not healing to try to atone for the murders, she murders in order to heal better, plans to murder more in the future and doesn't think it's wrong. If she doesn't repent, or even stop murdering, no amount of good deeds will stop her from pinging evil.

[LadyLexi]

Hmm, while I'd agree in real life that anyone who takes a life in order to get more power for their country/social group is evil, I think D&D where you kill off kobolds, goblins and bugbears in their own homes (dungeons) and steal their stuff (looting) the rules are a little different.

Standard monster fights with looting aren't considered evil and may even be perceived as good depending on the race. Targeting humanoids for divine power to save other humanoids isn't so much darker than slaughtering a race because they look different or have a bad reputation.

[ryu]

Slaughtering opponents who are known to be cannibalistic, rapists, murderers, and various other things is far less dark than killing any divine caster you don't suspect to be evil. For goodness sake they're CLERICS (Well mostly. Paladins probably aren't as useful to target or as likely in general.) They probably inadvertently save more live adventuring in a week than you (Named witch) do in a month.

[Zale]

You check that?

Everytime before your character murders something?

[ryu]

You'd be surprised. How do you think I maintained an unquestionably good alignment despite having a higher murder count than most world wars? I knew what every name was and what their usual day was like. :smallamused:

[Zale]

I love how Dnd alignment can be like that.

You killed an innocent person to save the world?! EVIL!

You drove the orcs to extinction? GOOD!

[hamishspence]

Thus is why a Paladin can detect-smite without worry. If something Cons Evil, it's done some serious evil and never repented(Genocide), or has done some regular, minor evil (Preying on the sick and needy) with regularity.
If someone feels guilt, repents at personal cost, over a long period of time and with an expendature of real effort? They are certainly not going to stay evil very long, even for murder.

Heroes of Horror points out that paladins can expect to be jailed for murder if they Detect & Smite and it's their only evidence of wrongdoing.

Eberron Campaign Setting also points out that "not every Evil being deserves to be attacked by adventurers".

There's a great deal of variety within Evil alignment.

[ryu]

Oh I didn't drive orcs to extinction. I just murdered all the rapists, murderers, cannibals, and of course desecrating villains. That's not extinct. It's endangered.

[Kudaku]

Slaughtering opponents who are known to be cannibalistic, rapists, murderers, and various other things is far less dark than killing any divine caster you don't suspect to be evil. For goodness sake they're CLERICS (Well mostly. Paladins probably aren't as useful to target or as likely in general.) They probably inadvertently save more live adventuring in a week than you (Named witch) do in a month.

Ryu, I'll ask you to please reread the original post. It's been edited with some additional information that you might have missed. In short: She targets on average one to three divine casters (hereafter referred to as DC) that pass by her community a year. She specifically goes for DC's that she feels do not contribute to society and abuse or ignore the divine blessings that the gods have bestowed upon them. How she decides if they fill her requirements vary a bit and obviously her views are slanted by her own moral opinions. I would however say that any DC devoted to an evil god is fair game after a cursory inspection and some information gathering, a cleric of a neutral or war-like deity might be added to the list, while a DC of some "iffy" good gods might pass - for instance a cleric devoted to the god of healing would be sacrosanct whereas a DC devoted to drinking, dance or war might be in the danger zone.



But she's not healing to try to atone for the murders, she murders in order to heal better, plans to murder more in the future and doesn't think it's wrong. If she doesn't repent, or even stop murdering, no amount of good deeds will stop her from pinging evil.

This is actually a very interesting point - Esmeralda is killing DCs to gain access to the spells she feels she needs in order to adequately serve her community. Once she gains access to the spells she requires, she'd have no reason to continue targeting DCs. Assuming she had to kill, say, 8 DCs over a 5-year period, would you consider letting her slip back into the Good part of the alignment system? If so, how long would it take for her to atone, keeping in mind that to her mind what she did was regrettable but "for the Greater Good"?

[QuidEst]

This is actually a very interesting point - Esmeralda is killing DCs to gain access to the spells she feels she needs in order to adequately serve her community. Once she gains access to the spells she requires, she'd have no reason to continue targeting DCs. Assuming she had to kill, say, 8 DCs over a 5-year period, would you consider letting her slip back into the Good part of the alignment system? If so, how long would it take for her to atone, keeping in mind that to her mind what she did was regrettable but "for the Greater Good"?

I'd guess that as she continues to level up, she'd keep trying to get access to more and more powerful spells. She might even start relaxing her standards as there are fewer and fewer clerics of the appropriate level.

As for letting her get back into Good, it could take a while, especially if she's of the opinion that she'd do it again with no regrets. (If I have to put a number on it, I'd say those five years again, and as many as ten if she still sizes up clerics when they pass through.) If she regrets it, but doesn't want their deaths to be in vain, I'd put her on a much faster track. The other question would be why did she stop- no more healing spells, getting caught, or running out of clerics leans towards staying in evil or neutral for a while, while quitting because of her conscience gets her closer to good faster. I'm not committed to those numbers or anything, though. XP

[ryu]

Point still stands for a neutral cleric and doubly so for ANY good cleric. Even war clerics who never heal anyone probably save more innocent lives killing off baddies than the witch saves in a month if not more. Now we could try to make a point of the same life being saved multiple times counts equally to the same number of different lives, but even then the cleric is traveling and probably saving in bulk.

[Honest Tiefling]

Would she om nom nom the DCs again if she lost her healing spells, or found out there were more? If so, I'd put her back at evil. She's trying to benefit one group of people at the detriment of everyone else, and devaluing the lives of people who live differently then she does. The fact that she can so callously disregard lives just because they have different values and pursue different things in life seems off for a good character.

The war cleric thing on second thought also rings false. She's not a pacifist, she's murdering people. What happens when her town is invaded, does she hate the militia? Does she stand there and get killed rather then fight? Does she refuse to heal them? Does she regard it to waste the gods blessing PREVENTING injury and death by warfare, when the gods themselves think it is fine and dandy? Does she hate certain war gods?

[Kudaku]

Point still stands for a neutral cleric and doubly so for ANY good cleric. Even war clerics who never heal anyone probably save more innocent lives killing off baddies than the witch saves in a month if not more. Now we could try to make a point of the same life being saved multiple times counts equally to the same number of different lives, but even then the cleric is traveling and probably saving in bulk.

I can't help but feel like your argument is "what she does is evil because her math doesn't add up". Wouldn't that depend on the characters she decides to off? In this campaign, when I refer to war clerics I don't mean warrior priests who work tirelessly to put down evil monsters for the good of all - I'm describing something like the Templar knights, organisations that have their own goals, creeds and ethos and doesn't necessarily give a damn about some flyspeck village on the ass end of nowhere.

In fact, from a purely theoretical point of view, I'd say her math is correct. Her community benefits significantly more from the healing resources she obtains by killing these DCs than from a random warrior priest who passes through the villages on the way to someplace he thinks actually matters.


Would she om nom nom the DCs again if she lost her healing spells, or found out there were more? If so, I'd put her back at evil. She's trying to benefit one group of people at the detriment of everyone else, and devaluing the lives of people who live differently then she does. The fact that she can so callously disregard lives just because they have different values and pursue different things in life seems off for a good character.

That is a very interesting reply. I wouldn't necessarily say she is trying to benefit one group at the detriment of everyone else, it's more an argument of extreme utilitarianism: She benefits the many at the detriment of the few.

If she'd do it all over again if she lost her healing spells... That would depend. I can imagine that with some more years of experience, insight in her own actions and knowledge of the world at large, probably not. Then again, who can tell? Hell, I might even make that into a plot hook down the line - thanks for the inspiration :smallsmile:.


The war cleric thing on second thought also rings false. She's not a pacifist, she's murdering people. What happens when her town is invaded, does she hate the militia? Does she stand there and get killed rather then fight? Does she refuse to heal them? Does she regard it to waste the gods blessing PREVENTING injury and death by warfare, when the gods themselves think it is fine and dandy? Does she hate certain war gods?

I never argued that she's a pacifist, I'd say she respects warriors who work hard to protect society at large. However, she feels that DCs who concentrate on warfare waste their ability doing something that others could do just as well, instead of focusing on helping others by using their unique abilities.
Like I mentioned earlier in this post, it should also be noted that most warrior priests in this campaign are not the "protectors of society" that traditional campaigns tend to feature - warrior priests have their own goals, politics morals and ethos. While they probably wouldn't mind putting down a goblin raid if they happen to pass by a village as it gets attacked, they probably wouldn't bother tracking down the source and putting down the threat either - they have more important things to do.

[Canarr]

IIf the party encounters her and simply kills her when they find out how she operates, they create a situation where hundreds if not thousands of people suddenly lose all access to free magical healing, benevolent magic used to encourage crops, a competent midwife etc etc.



I find the character concept interesting (for an NPC, I assume; it would be far too immobile for a PC); if there actually were other options for her to learn the spells she wants, that'd actually make her *more* interesting, since she's ignoring several other, more difficult but non-Evil options to solve her problem --> definitely Evil.

However, there are a few things that, I feel, need to be considered in order to have the concept make sense:

1. How many clerics will she actually need to kill? Say, she wants Delay Poison, Neutralize Poison, Remove Disease, Cure Light and (maybe) Cure Moderate Wounds.... that would make if four or five "necessary" kills, then she should be "done". Maybe another two or so, in case she doesn't catch clerics with the necessary caster level for all the spells she wants on the first try. Which, again, makes her even more interesting IMO: "You're the last one, I promise. Then I can finally keep my people safe, forever!"

2. How many people can truly rely on her spells? Unless witches have an exceptionally large list of spells per day, she can't cure more than a handful of people per day. Less, if she also wants to cast spells assisting with crops, modifying the weather, etc.If nothing spectaculary bad happens, she can probably travel from village to village and deal with small accidents or the occasional illness. But, in case of war, or an epidemic? The community would be just as screwed with as without her.

[hoverfrog]

If the party encounters her and simply kills her when they find out how she operates, they create a situation where hundreds if not thousands of people suddenly lose all access to free magical healing, benevolent magic used to encourage crops, a competent midwife etc etc.If the community knows about the killings and condones them for their own benefit then they are just as evil as she is.

[Zale]

Everyone's Evil.

Problems are now solved. You can kill anyone without having to worry.

Killing Evil creatures isn't murder, after all. :smalltongue:

[ryu]

But see I don't CARE about motivations here. I'm a strict utilitarian looking at numbers. Even if the war priests in question aren't putting down raids at their source the ''more important area'' is probably some big, nasty threat to their particular church right? Assuming neutral like stated earlier it can't be cleansing a bunch of innocent peasants, therefore I put it to you that the cleric of war is working on a much larger scale. Is it a rival church evil aligned and openly threatening the turf of whatever war god our cleric is into? Bigger scale. Is it some big villain with a plan to kill billions, or take over a large swath of land? Much bigger scale. I am also assuming the traveling clerics in question actually have some form of goal relating to their community or religion.

[Kudaku]

If the community knows about the killings and condones them for their own benefit then they are just as evil as she is.

The community does not know how Esmeralda gained her power, nor do they understand witches in general. Then again, to most commoners in this world "magic is magic", better left alone.


But see I don't CARE about motivations here. I'm a strict utilitarian looking at numbers. Even if the war priests in question aren't putting down raids at their source the ''more important area'' is probably some big, nasty threat to their particular church right? Assuming neutral like stated earlier it can't be cleansing a bunch of innocent peasants, therefore I put it to you that the cleric of war is working on a much larger scale. Is it a rival church evil aligned and openly threatening the turf of whatever war god our cleric is into? Bigger scale. Is it some big villain with a plan to kill billions, or take over a large swath of land? Much bigger scale. I am also assuming the traveling clerics in question actually have some form of goal relating to their community or religion.

The war priests that travel through the area are usually associated closely with a major monotheistic religion that dominates the kingdom this takes place in. Think of it as the equivalent of an independent militaristic political movement like the old religious knightly orders (Templars, Hospitallers etc), they're usually on the way to join a crusade against a different kingdom with a different set of religious beliefs.

The war they're fighting is not based on idealistic motivations but rather political aspirations with a smattering of intolerance and a healthy lack of open-mindedness to other faiths.
Then again, most of these clerics aren't specifically evil either. They're men carrying out the orders they have been handed by their superiors, safe in the knowledge that they are (allegedly) doing their God's work.


I find the character concept interesting (for an NPC, I assume; it would be far too immobile for a PC); if there actually were other options for her to learn the spells she wants, that'd actually make her *more* interesting, since she's ignoring several other, more difficult but non-Evil options to solve her problem --> definitely Evil.

However, there are a few things that, I feel, need to be considered in order to have the concept make sense:

1. How many clerics will she actually need to kill? Say, she wants Delay Poison, Neutralize Poison, Remove Disease, Cure Light and (maybe) Cure Moderate Wounds.... that would make if four or five "necessary" kills, then she should be "done". Maybe another two or so, in case she doesn't catch clerics with the necessary caster level for all the spells she wants on the first try. Which, again, makes her even more interesting IMO: "You're the last one, I promise. Then I can finally keep my people safe, forever!"

First of all glad you find the character interesting! I try to get behind the psyche of each major NPC, villain or otherwise - I find it makes them a lot more interesting from both sides of the table.

As for how many clerics she'd need to kill, that depends on what spells she wants. I started doing a list of spells that would be beneficial to have at each level for Esmeralda, and I found that the number was not completely insurmountable.

Esmeralda would start with three first level spells, plus an additional three for her high intelligence - a grand total of 6. Esmeralda is a level 6 witch, meaning she can add another 10 from gaining additional levels. Finally, Esmeralda is a Hedge Witch which means she doesn't need to take the Cure X Wounds spells, she has access to those by default.

At level 1 she picks:
Diagnose Disease
Infernal Healing
Remove Sickness
Restore Corpse
Cure Light Wounds (Hedge Witch)
Sleep
Sanctify Corpse

At level 2 she adds:
Mount
Unseen Servant

At level 3 she gains level 2 spells and adds:
Cure Moderate Wounds (Hedge Witch)
Delay Poison
Status

At level 4 she adds:
Delay Pain
Delay Poison

At level 5 she gains level 3 spells and adds:
Remove Blindness/Deafness
Remove Disease

At level 6 she adds:
Remove Curse
Heroism

On my list of spells that I could imagine she'd want I'm missing Gentle Repose, Soothing Word, Delay Poison (Communal), Lesser Restoration, and a fair few other spells. Obviously level 4 spells (Neutralize Poison, Restoration etc) would also be a big bonus. The spells I've chosen are bare bones and extremely focused on healing and restoration. Should the opportunity present itself there are various other cleric and druid spells that might come in handy for a small rural community...


2. How many people can truly rely on her spells? Unless witches have an exceptionally large list of spells per day, she can't cure more than a handful of people per day. Less, if she also wants to cast spells assisting with crops, modifying the weather, etc.If nothing spectaculary bad happens, she can probably travel from village to village and deal with small accidents or the occasional illness. But, in case of war, or an epidemic? The community would be just as screwed with as without her.

The community would indeed be in trouble if a pandemic broke out, but the chances of that actually happening are significantly lower specifically because Esmeralda would be there at the start of it doing everything in her power to keep the outbreak from growing into a full-on epidemic.

Furthermore, I'd say Esmeralda is important to this community not because she is a waterfall of restorative magic but because she is a constant trickle of healing to combat whatever misfortune should hit the locals - she can cast 4/4/4/3 spells per day, and you can reasonably assume that every spell slot would be used to aid others. If a major crisis such as a war or an epidemic was to break out then she would quickly be overwhelmed, but as it stands now she is the only source of healing in the area.

Really it's more about the day-to-day accidents. Knowing that a broken leg or a case of pneumonia can be dealt with in a matter of hours or days once you send a message to Esmeralda instead of being bedriddled for months, crippled for life or possibly even die is a great relief to this community.

Similarly, having someone on hand to ensure that the dead can be consecrated properly and guarantee that there won't be any kind of undead problem appearing is a boon in a world where evil stalks in the night.

[ryu]

Quick question then. Are the opposed kingdoms reciprocating? If so the clerics save local lives by ending those of other kingdoms. Now then lets allow every noncombatant killed to count as negative three or so lives saved. At that point the cleric still probably has a better metric than the witch unless the other kingdoms in question are severely and I do mean severely outgunned.

[Kudaku]

The other kingdom is actively defending itself, it is not returning aggression - partly because it is very distant and it has its hands full defending itself.

It's a bit like Europe during the crusades - warriors pass through to join the crusades and go to the holy land.

[Honest Tiefling]

1) Is she only targeting DCs of this cause, or any DC with a big whacky stick that wanders into town?

2) How closely does she examine targets before treating them like an open bar?

3) What spells does she have already, and what accidents are these people getting into to justify mass murder?

4) Which spell is she using to consecrate the dead?

5) What prevents her from uh...Just asking a cleric of a different faith then the crusaders from staying in the village? Ask one of the beauty clerics to set up shop. Sure you might get flowers all over the place, but it is far less evil then mass murder. Or even help train an apprentice cleric, since this seems like an easy assignment.

6) If she's just a village healer, how is she certain she knows this much of the political aspect of the war? I doubt everyone is totally cool with killing those people over there for being different. What if there was more to the war then she was aware of?

[Dr.Epic]

People often times confuse what good and evil really are. Concepts like the ends justify the means only add to the confusion. There is one sure fire way to truly tell if something/someone is evil:

How many puppies will die as a direct reaction to their deeds?

:smallwink:
:smalltongue:

[Kish]

Quite thoroughly evil, yes. Most likely Neutral Evil.

That she justifies her murders doesn't make them not-murders, it just means she isn't a Snidely Whiplash caricature.

[enderlord99]

I think she's Lawful Orange (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality).

[Almaseti]

This is actually a very interesting point - Esmeralda is killing DCs to gain access to the spells she feels she needs in order to adequately serve her community. Once she gains access to the spells she requires, she'd have no reason to continue targeting DCs. Assuming she had to kill, say, 8 DCs over a 5-year period, would you consider letting her slip back into the Good part of the alignment system? If so, how long would it take for her to atone, keeping in mind that to her mind what she did was regrettable but "for the Greater Good"?

I think that she can't atone without admitting that what she did was wrong. Not "sad but necessary" but wrong. Being a good person isn't like going on a diet. She'd be worthy of atonement if she sincerely regretted and tried to make amends for the bad thing she did, not if she did some other good stuff that had nothing to do with her evil actions.

[enderlord99]

Everyone's Evil.

That's what the majority of people here are implying, yes.