Chaotic good ur priest?

[(Un)Inspired]

I've got a character I'm building for an upcoming game and I was wondering if it would be reasonable to ask my dm to let me take levels in ur priest without being evil.

The character in question is a tiefling and I really like the idea of stealing divine power from asmodeus himself. The character is chaotic good bordering on chaotic neutral but absolutely isn't evil.

I would ask to replace the spell focus (evil) requirement with something else as well.

Would you let a player do this in your game?

[Sir_Thaddeus]

Since Ur-priests steal divine power from gods, and gods are all over the alignment grid, I've always held the opinion that being evil shouldn't be necessary. So, if I were your DM, I'd say sure (assuming I was allowing Ur-priests to begin with; they're quite a powerful class). It seems like a very reasonable request.

[ArcturusV]

Well... I suppose it would depend on the nature of Ur-Priests in the setting. I mean one of the requirements (One I imagine most people ignore though when I DM, I don't, particularly since the class is so powerful): Must be trained by another Ur-Priest.

Now, in the standard fluff for the class, Ur-Priests are Vashar, irredeemably evil hatemongering god hating proto-humans. And Vashar lack certain basic concepts that you might use to appeal to them. They don't have emotional bonds for your to try to schmooze your way into exploiting. Nor do they generally seem to understand most non-Vashar mortals. So the big question is, how is your Chaotic Good human getting training from a pure evil Ur-Priest? Sure, they hate all gods, but the Race owes their very existence to Evil Outsiders so they might be more partial towards them... at first. So convincing them to teach you how to steal power from a God that supposedly is on their side and helping them take on the other Gods might be hard to fathom.

I would maybe allow it, if you could provide that justification some way in character. Might swap the Malign Spell Focus feat requirement for Consecrate Spell metamagic feat.

And considering how powerful an Ur-Priest is, I in no way feel bad about making a player do some leg work to actually earn their entry into the class.

[mattie_p]

Start evil and redeem yourself? Once you take levels in Ur-priest, you can convert to a different alignment, and take levels in a different prestige class that advances divine casting. The second prestige class can advance Ur-priest casting.

[Jeff the Green]

Now, in the standard fluff for the class, Ur-Priests are Vashar, irredeemably evil hatemongering god hating proto-humans. And Vashar lack certain basic concepts that you might use to appeal to them. They don't have emotional bonds for your to try to schmooze your way into exploiting. Nor do they generally seem to understand most non-Vashar mortals. So the big question is, how is your Chaotic Good human getting training from a pure evil Ur-Priest? Sure, they hate all gods, but the Race owes their very existence to Evil Outsiders so they might be more partial towards them... at first. So convincing them to teach you how to steal power from a God that supposedly is on their side and helping them take on the other Gods might be hard to fathom.

Wait, what? That's not true. "All Vashar priests are ur-priests" does not implie "all ur-priests are vashar priests." Especially considering that the vashar never worship gods and ex-clerics are frequently ur-priests.

If I ever allowed ur-priest in a game, I'd be fine scrapping the alignment requirement. Actually, for the most part I'm fine scrapping alignment requirements. There are very few classes who, by their very nature, are evil. Even assassins aren't necessarily. With very rare exceptions it doesn't mess up balance and constrains player choice.

Just swap Spell Focus (evil) to Spell Focus (good).

[herrhauptmann]

Start evil and redeem yourself? Once you take levels in Ur-priest, you can convert to a different alignment, and take levels in a different prestige class that advances divine casting. The second prestige class can advance Ur-priest casting.

I miss older editions where changing alignment really screwed with your character. Every point of xp counts for half, then third, quarter, fifth...

Easiest way is the adaptation section of the class. It's also mentioned in Lost Empires of Faerun. Worship a dead god.
3.5 doesn't have Amaunator, but you might find LG/LN ur priest of him in faerun. Ditto for any other netherese god.

[CIDE]

In our own games all of the players and DMs (as we rotate DM's on a weekly basis to have a decent rotation) we have all pretty much unanimously agreed to completely remove the alignments system. There's just too many flaws involved and is too set in a black-and-white system which is not how this should work.

Could disagree but that's how we roll.

That said I would agree with everyone above. The others already highlighted that deities are ALL over the alignment spectrum. You don't need to be evil to have the mindset of "**** this deity over there".

[Arbane]

I've got a character I'm building for an upcoming game and I was wondering if it would be reasonable to ask my dm to let me take levels in ur priest without being evil.

The character in question is a tiefling and I really like the idea of stealing divine power from asmodeus himself. The character is chaotic good bordering on chaotic neutral but absolutely isn't evil.

I would ask to replace the spell focus (evil) requirement with something else as well.

Would you let a player do this in your game?

One possible wrinkle on this: Since it's Asmodeus you're stealing spells from, you can't get any [good] or [chaotic] spells that way.

Other than that, sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea to me - if Prometheus could be a hero for stealing fire from the gods, stealing magic from them seems pretty heroic, too.

But just remember how Prometheus ended up....


As for how to get another Ur-priest to tech you... well, you NEED Bluff skill to take the PrC in any case, right? :smallwink:

[Andezzar]

Since Ur-priests steal divine power from gods, and gods are all over the alignment grid, I've always held the opinion that being evil shouldn't be necessary. So, if I were your DM, I'd say sure (assuming I was allowing Ur-priests to begin with; they're quite a powerful class). It seems like a very reasonable request.The thing is that stealing is inherently evil by the D&D alignment system. It is taking something for personal gain at the detriment of others.

[PersonMan]

I miss older editions where changing alignment really screwed with your character. Every point of xp counts for half, then third, quarter, fifth...

That must have been really annoying for when someone had a character who developed and changed over time rather than sticking to the same sort of behavior. I can imagine I'd be annoyed if the system said 'want to play someone whose morals change as they become something entirely different from what they were before? Screw you!' for no good reason.

Especially if it makes no sense in-game. Go from LG to NG because you realize that Law isn't always the best way to make Good things happen? Suddenly you learn to stab things better half as fast.

[Drelua]

The thing is that stealing is inherently evil by the D&D alignment system. It is taking something for personal gain at the detriment of others.

...Would you care to explain how stealing magical power from Asmodeus is detrimental to anyone? :smallconfused:

Or how, say, stealing from a corrupt government that's only using it's power to oppress thousands upon thousands of people is either detrimental or others or for personal gain? If you go around stealing from the rich (and preferably corrupt) and giving to the poor, the only thing you're gaining is rich enemies, and you're helping a lot of people.

Really, the only action that's always evil is something like torture, and good people still might do it in certain situations; it's still an evil act, but if one evil action precluded a Good alignment, there's be no such thing as Good people. Even murder (not just killing, murder) can be good if you know you're killing a bad person and saving a lot of lives in the process. So I'm sorry, but saying stealing is always evil just strikes me as completely ridiculous.

[Carth]

The thing is that stealing is inherently evil by the D&D alignment system. It is taking something for personal gain at the detriment of others.

Stealing is chaotic, not evil. Stealing can be both, evil, and good and evil at the same time.

[Andezzar]

...Would you care to explain how stealing magical power from Asmodeus is detrimental to anyone? :smallconfused:It is detrimental to Asmodeus. He cannot distribute those powers as he sees fit.


Or how, say, stealing from a corrupt government that's only using it's power to oppress thousands upon thousands of people is either detrimental or others or for personal gain? If you go around stealing from the rich (and preferably corrupt) and giving to the poor, the only thing you're gaining is rich enemies, and you're helping a lot of people.It may be the lesser of two evils but that does not change the fact that the act in itself is evil. D&D does not have an "the end justifies the means" perspective on alignment (excluding some special classes).


Really, the only action that's always evil is something like torture, and good people still might do it in certain situations; it's still an evil act, but if one evil action precluded a Good alignment, there's be no such thing as Good people. Even murder (not just killing, murder) can be good if you know you're killing a bad person and saving a lot of lives in the process. So I'm sorry, but saying stealing is always evil just strikes me as completely ridiculous.No. Killing a sentient being and a lot of other actions are inherently evil, even though committing them may also produce good results. Stealing is a lot less evil than many other acts, but the system does not differentiate in severity.

@Carth: No. stealing is evil, it is bettering yourself at the expense of another. It can only be chaotic if the society you are in has the concept of personal property. If there is only communal property and you belong to that community, you do not commit a chaotic act by taking something.

[Duke of Urrel]

That must have been really annoying for when someone had a character who developed and changed over time rather than sticking to the same sort of behavior. I can imagine I'd be annoyed if the system said 'want to play someone whose morals change as they become something entirely different from what they were before? Screw you!' for no good reason.

Especially if it makes no sense in-game. Go from LG to NG because you realize that Law isn't always the best way to make Good things happen? Suddenly you learn to stab things better half as fast.

I like the idea that alignment changes should be costly, particularly for clerics, and particularly when the cleric in question is really only changing alignments in order to become a highly unusual Ur-Priest.

However, I also like the idea that alignment changes can be made harmless with the help of another cleric who is willing to cast the Atonement spell on you.

[Drelua]

It is detrimental to Asmodeus. He cannot distribute those powers as he sees fit.

You know what else is detrimental to Asmodeus? Stopping his cult from sacrificing virgins to give Asmodeus more power. Or redeeming a Lawful Evil person before he dies so that his soul doesn't go to hell. If it's evil to act to the detriment of an evil being, then every cop and paladin is evil.

Now, I could write a few paragraphs arguing against everything you just said, but to me this argument looks to be entirely irrelevant to the whole thread, so I'm gonna stop myself there. Like I said, Good people can commit evil acts. Unless you disagree with that, there's no point arguing about what is Good and Evil here; all that can really accomplish is derailing the thread, so let's just leave it at that. :smallsmile:

You know, unless you want to start another thread about it. I'd be happy to have a civil argument over there, but I've seen too many threads derailed by alignment debates to be a part of it here.

[Duke of Urrel]

...Would you care to explain how stealing magical power from Asmodeus is detrimental to anyone? :smallconfused:

Or how, say, stealing from a corrupt government that's only using it's power to oppress thousands upon thousands of people is either detrimental or others or for personal gain? If you go around stealing from the rich (and preferably corrupt) and giving to the poor, the only thing you're gaining is rich enemies, and you're helping a lot of people.

Really, the only action that's always evil is something like torture, and good people still might do it in certain situations; it's still an evil act, but if one evil action precluded a Good alignment, there's be no such thing as Good people. Even murder (not just killing, murder) can be good if you know you're killing a bad person and saving a lot of lives in the process. So I'm sorry, but saying stealing is always evil just strikes me as completely ridiculous.


Stealing is chaotic, not evil. Stealing can be both, evil, and good and evil at the same time.

You are both quite correct – from a human point of view, and from the point of view of many other mortal creatures on the Material Plane. (Certainly Robin Hood agrees with you.) However, Andezzar made a very good point when he said that stealing from Asmodeus is detrimental to Asmodeus.

We are talking about stealing from the gods, specifically, so we have to look at the matter from the gods' own point of view. What do they think about some mortal stealing their own power?

Maybe stealing is Chaotic rather than Evil. But stealing from the gods absolutely can't be easy or cost-free. There must be some dire restriction involved. I think the game designers made that restriction "must be Evil" simply to prevent most PCs from being Urpriests. If we simply changed the restriction to "must be Chaotic," I think that would be too easy.

If we allowed Chaotic Urpriests, then maybe we should require them to be forever hounded by Inevitables out to execute them for their crimes against godkind. Or maybe Chaotic Urpriests should all have to suffer some permanent bad-luck curse. Really, I can't help thinking that gods of all alignments (even Chaotic ones) must feel strongly motivated to make the lives of Urpriests miserable, even if they are Chaotic rather than Evil.

[Andezzar]

You know what else is detrimental to Asmodeus? Stopping his cult from sacrificing virgins to give Asmodeus more power. Or redeeming a Lawful Evil person before he dies so that his soul doesn't go to hell. If it's evil to act to the detriment of an evil being, then every cop and paladin is evil.That is the crux of the badly worded code of conduct for the paladin. So while the paladin does good by stopping the cult or redeeming a villain, if in the course of that endeavor, he kills or steals he must fall by the rules, as stupid as they are.


Like I said, Good people can commit evil acts. Unless you disagree with that, there's no point arguing about what is Good and Evil here; all that can really accomplish is derailing the thread, so let's just leave it at that. :smallsmile:I totally agree that good people can commit evil acts. The problem is that regularly committing evil acts shifts your alignment. Filling your spells per day with stollen spells every day, sounds pretty regular to me.

Unrelated to the discussion of alignments, Complete Divine even suggests an adaptation for non-evil Ur-Priests. The Ur-Priests could be priests of a dead deity, that try to resurrect it. Depending on the deity I think the Feat requirement Spell Focus (Evil) should be changed if the deity is good. If it is neutral, no appropriate feat springs to mind at the moment. Maybe just either of the two.

[Farm_Ecology]

You could always go along the whole "Gods are tyrants" way of thinking for your character.

I'm sure there would be a few Ur-Priests which would aid someone steal from the Gods, even if it was for good. So that could get around the teaching requirement.

I don't think it's a stretch to imagine a character who believes in the freedom of mortals, and states that the Gods use their divine power to hold sway over the mortal realm, and see's the Ur-Priest power something more like Robin Hood. Stealing power from the Gods to heal the sick.

The other thing, is that our group usually discard the special entry requirements to a point. We see classes as guidelines of abilities, and not strict training schemes, but we also enforce RP/questing to gain a new class or prestige class (regardless of whether it has special requirements. So you could always talk to your DM about your character uncovering or forming this power on his own (or with the help of something else), so it mechanically plays as an Ur-Priest, but isnt one.

[Daer]

Not sure how exactly ur-priest magic works but if the result of tapping the power and stealing spells from it can be that some where someone is harmed because of it. (priest cant save someones life because her spell fails due magic being stolen. or somethign like that. ) and specially if ur-priest can't know the source then one should be pretty evil to use it as it might risk innocents.

then again if it is small amount here and small amount there, not enough to cause such situations then again it would be other thing.

[Andezzar]

You could always go along the whole "Gods are tyrants" way of thinking for your character.

I'm sure there would be a few Ur-Priests which would aid someone steal from the Gods, even if it was for good. So that could get around the teaching requirement.

I don't think it's a stretch to imagine a character who believes in the freedom of mortals, and states that the Gods use their divine power to hold sway over the mortal realm, and see's the Ur-Priest power something more like Robin Hood. Stealing power from the Gods to heal the sick.There is no need to steal the power. Gods give that power freely to those that serve them. Going against their wishes does not sound inherently good.

@Daer: Very good point, I forgot about that. Ur-Priests cannot decide who they steal from.


The other thing, is that our group usually discard the special entry requirements to a point. We see classes as guidelines of abilities, and not strict training schemes, but we also enforce RP/questing to gain a new class or prestige class (regardless of whether it has special requirements. So you could always talk to your DM about your character uncovering or forming this power on his own (or with the help of something else), so it mechanically plays as an Ur-Priest, but isnt one.If you diverge from RAW you can do all sorts of things, and changing fluff or rules of the Ur-Priest is just one of them. If houserules are in play it is very difficult to have a discussion over the Internet, unless all houserules are divulged to everyone. And even then some tend to be forgotten.

[Leliel]

You are both quite correct – from a human point of view, and from the point of view of many other mortal creatures on the Material Plane. (Certainly Robin Hood agrees with you.) However, Andezzar made a very good point when he said that stealing from Asmodeus is detrimental to Asmodeus.

We are talking about stealing from the gods, specifically, so we have to look at the matter from the gods' own point of view. What do they think about some mortal stealing their own power?

Maybe stealing is Chaotic rather than Evil. But stealing from the gods absolutely can't be easy or cost-free. There must be some dire restriction involved. I think the game designers made that restriction "must be Evil" simply to prevent most PCs from being Urpriests. If we simply changed the restriction to "must be Chaotic," I think that would be too easy.

If we allowed Chaotic Urpriests, then maybe we should require them to be forever hounded by Inevitables out to execute them for their crimes against godkind. Or maybe Chaotic Urpriests should all have to suffer some permanent bad-luck curse. Really, I can't help thinking that gods of all alignments (even Chaotic ones) must feel strongly motivated to make the lives of Urpriests miserable, even if they are Chaotic rather than Evil.

I agree with this.

Most ur-priests should be evil, as one of the primary motives for taking up the skill is overwhelming hubris, and the ones that aren't motivated by evil are often twisted to it by the tragedies the gods visit on them for daring to bare fangs at the very concept of divinity, in part or in whole.

A few though-often those who believe the only deities who should exist are good and neutral ones, or those who only act to stop genuine corruption in the clergy-are allowed to live out relatively normal lives, and to walk two steps without hitting another trauma. The path of those who wield the Fire of Prometheus is a long, rough, and dark one, one which often ends in misery and ruin. For a few though, just a few, they may find the end-and a light brighter than the gods'.

[Leliel]

There is no need to steal the power. Gods give that power freely to those that serve them. Going against their wishes does not sound inherently good.

It doesn't sound inherently anything, which is the point we're trying to get across-trying to say a thief of divine power is always evil when there are gods who don't deserve that power to begin with is a rather suspect proposition. Especially if that power stolen is used for good, or in the name of deities who actually deserve it.

Hence, my idea that, in a sense, ur-priests are clerics of Prometheus, he who stole fire from the gods, or a local equivalent. Fire burns and destroys, yes, but it also purifies, cooks, and hardens. The ur-priests believe much the same is true of divine magic, and that humanity deserves to wield at least some of it without stipulations. Again, this path is very hubristic, and ur-priests have a somewhat deserved reputation for being evil and arrogant. A few though? A few are held up as exemplars of virtue and nobility who stood against the power and darkness of wicked and dark gods, often by less malign deities who were helped by them.

[Andezzar]

It doesn't sound inherently anything, which is the point we're trying to get across-trying to say a thief of divine power is always evil when there are gods who don't deserve that power to begin with is a rather suspect proposition. Especially if that power stolen is used for good, or in the name of deities who actually deserve it.The Alignment system and the Pantheon of the various Game worlds have no concept of "this person does not deserve that property". Stealing is stealing. Good, neutral, evil, chaotic, and lawful gods exist, and neither has more right to exist or to wield and grant power than the others.


Hence, my idea that, in a sense, ur-priests are clerics of Prometheus, he who stole fire from the gods, or a local equivalent. Fire burns and destroys, yes, but it also purifies, cooks, and hardens. The ur-priests believe much the same is true of divine magic, and that humanity deserves to wield at least some of it without stipulations. Again, this path is very hubristic, and ur-priests have a somewhat deserved reputation for being evil and arrogant. A few though? A few are held up as exemplars of virtue and nobility who stood against the power and darkness of wicked and dark gods, often by less malign deities who were helped by them.Lathander in the Forgotten Realms, and I'm sure there are similar deities in other pantheons, has the Prometheus feel. So there is no need to defy fundamental laws of the gameworld to be a rebel/innovator.

If you refluffed the Ur-priest a deity/ideal dependent divine caster with fast spell slot progression but low caster level, there would be a lot less need for the alignment requirement.

[Jack_Simth]

Since Ur-priests steal divine power from gods, and gods are all over the alignment grid, I've always held the opinion that being evil shouldn't be necessary. So, if I were your DM, I'd say sure (assuming I was allowing Ur-priests to begin with; they're quite a powerful class). It seems like a very reasonable request.
There is a short window of opportunity in which they're a powerful class.

Without early entry shenanigans, you're taking Ur-Priest as your 6th level (Something-5/Ur-Priest-1). You've got 1st level spells when the standard Cleric is throwing around 3rd level spells. Not really all that grand. At Ur-Priest 2 (ECL 7), you're throwing around 2nd level spells when the Cleric is throwing around 4ths. Again, you're not really ahead of the Cleric. You're behind up until ECL 10 (Ur-Priest 5) when you pick up your first 5th level spell... of course, the Cleric-10 has a lot more of them (6/4+1/4+1/3+1/3+1/2+1 before Wisdom for the Cleric vs. 6/3/3/2/1/0 before Wisdom for the Ur-Priest). At ECL 11 (Ur-Priest 6) you're tied with the Cleric on spell access (6th level spells for both), although again: The Cleric has a lot more spell slots (6/5+1/4+1/4+1/3+1/2+1/1+1 pre-wis for the Cleric vs. 6/3/3/3/2/1/0 pre-Wis for the Ur-Priest; Siphon Spell power helps, but doesn't really cover it). It's not until ECL 12 (Ur-priest 7) that you're ahead with 7th level spell access vs. the Cleric's 6th (although the Cleric still has noticeably more endurance). This continues at 13th (Ur-Priest-8) with 8ths for the Ur-Priest and 7th's for the Cleric and gets worse at 14th (when the Ur-Priest gets 9ths vs. the Cleric's 7ths), but that's the peak of the difference. After that, it's downhill for the Ur-Priest (relatively). The Ur-Priest is no longer gaining new spell access, but the Cleric does. At 15th the gap starts to close - 9ths for the Ur-Priest, 8th's for the Cleric - and at 17th it vanishes as the Cleric gains access to 9ths - and the Cleric has far more spells per day (and usually a better caster level, too). OK, yes, the Ur-Priest capstone (siphon spell-like ability) is very strong in combination with the right creature (like, say, an Efreeti), and yes, the Ur-Priest has a bit more in the way of PrC options (of course, if they PrC out, they don't get the capstone)... but for the most part, the Ur-Priest isn't really any worse than a normal Cleric, except for a window of about five levels.

[ArcturusV]

By the way, Re: Alignment of Stealing up there?

I'm pretty sure Stealing would be, in DnD Alignment Terms, Evil. Not Chaotic. I mean we often end up interpreting Chaotic as "Screw the Rules!", thus we see lawbreaking in terms of our own laws as "Chaotic" actions unless they cross into the realm of comic book villains (Blatant Murder, Extortion, etc).

But when we read what they actually define the Law vs Chaos axis as, things like theft aren't really a factor of it. The Chaos side is defined more as a side of personal freedom and expression more than anything else.

Whereas on the Good vs Evil axis, Evil is defined as doing things which benefit yourself primarily, regardless of how it impacts others. Where as Good is defined in terms of group well being and such.

With how it's defined like that, Stealing Power would be an obviously evil thing to do, rather than Chaotic. Which is in part why the Ur-Priest alignment restriction makes sense.

Granted, when it comes down to brass tacks, and how alignments are played at the table, it's usually down to DM fiat in how they are interpreted, particularly in terms of Chaos and Evil, rather than how the rules as written defines them. Particularly because to some people the various actions that would fit into a category don't make sense for them to fit into that category. For example a well intentioned, but fascist, tyrannical dictatorship would actually be Lawful Good in there. Very structured and ordered, concerned with the good of the people, etc. Even as they invoke images of things we typically think of as evil. Where as a savage tribe where might is the law and basically whoever is the Alpha in the pack makes the rules to their own benefit would be Chaotic Evil, even though we tend to see such behavior as animalistic, and as such try to call it True Neutral.

Not saying either way is necessarily wrong. But pointing out that's where the disconnect comes from.

[Andezzar]

I could not agree more.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Stealing isn't evil by RAW. BoVD is -the- source for what's evil in D&D and it puts stealing as a common tool of evil but not evil in-and-of itself. The idea that stealing is evil seems to come from a stray line to that effect in BoED and from the fallacious logic that results from trying to apply moral absolutes to RL morality.

[Arbane]

The thing is that stealing is inherently evil by the D&D alignment system. It is taking something for personal gain at the detriment of others.

....In a game that's primarily based around killing intelligent beings and taking their stuff, all of a sudden people are getting all moralistic about the sanctity of spell-ownership?


Weird.

[Andezzar]

....In a game that's primarily based around killing intelligent beings and taking their stuff, all of a sudden people are getting all moralistic about the sanctity of spell-ownership?Not suddenly, but it is an old and known fluff/rules disconnect.

[Scow2]

No. Killing a sentient being and a lot of other actions are inherently evil, even though committing them may also produce good results. Stealing is a lot less evil than many other acts, but the system does not differentiate in severityCompletely unsupported. Even the BoED disagrees with you here.

[Jeff the Green]

Completely unsupported. Even the BoED disagrees with you here.

Right. Otherwise you couldn't play a paladin, since their signature class feature is designed to kill evil things.

[ArcturusV]

I wasn't even talking Book of Exalted Deeds or Vile Darkness. I was talking pure, simple Player's Handbook. When you look at the section that is about Good vs Evil, and Law vs. Chaos, you are given the following:

Good is defined in terms of Groups. Sacrificing of yourself for the sake of others. Thus charity is good (Giving to the poor), but "Stealing from the Rich" isn't really.

Evil is defined as doing damage to others, either for your own sake or because you are dedicated to the concept of evil itself (Which does sound weird, but hey, fantasy, roll with it). Thus stealing, harming others for your own benefit, would be in the realm of evil.

Note that would mean the "Robin Hood" type is still Good aligned as they are giving to charity. And their act of stealing is not actually for their own sake. However if you were stealing just to have power that you could easily have some other way, then yeah.

Where as the Law/Chaos Axis has nothing really to do with the situation. Theft could be both lawful (Orderly authoritative redistribution) or Chaotic (Anarchic thrill seeking).

But yeah. The disconnect comes from people going "Well that doesn't make sense" and effectively houseruling it.

Since being a Cleric is easy, and gets you the same power more or less, as an Ur-Priest it's not so much that you're an Ur-Priest to be a Robin Hood Schtick. You're not stealing from the rich to give to the poor. You're stealing something that you could have easily had access to anyway. So you're more like a Thrill Seeker thief stealing just because you can get away with it.

Unless there is some reason you hate the divine personally (Like the Vashar) and would never stoop to being some god's bootlicker.

Course, the character in question in the OP might be thinking of a way to get EVIL spells as a good character as well. Since the Ur-Priest list is pretty much chock full of Vile and Evil descriptor spells. In which case the Vile Darkness/Exalted Deeds lines become more relevant as the "Using evil powers is evil" makes a lot more sense. That "Evil is Radiation which corrupts and twists all near it" sort of ideal.

[Andezzar]

Right. Otherwise you couldn't play a paladin, since their signature class feature is designed to kill evil things.That's not the only place where the rules do not work as (most likely) intended.

I disagree though that BoED and BoVD are the primary sources for alignments. That is the PHB.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.If whatever you take from another without permission (i.e. steal) is even remotely needed or wanted you are hurting the owner and are depriving him of the usage of the item. That is a form of oppression.

[t'zran]

one issue with this might be that, as an evil ur- priest you steal power from the good and neutral aligned gods and you don't care where you get it from, but as a good aligned character it might not be within your interests to use this kind of evil tainted magic. But then if you could somehow justify it it would be under the pretense of some greater good, which is kind of a lawful priciple.

I guess I would just find this easier to pass off as a lawful character.

[Andezzar]

one issue with this might be that, as an evil ur- priest you steal power from the good and neutral aligned gods and you don't care where you get it from, but as a good aligned character it might not be within your interests to use this kind of evil tainted magic.Regardless of the intentions of the ur-priest he is unable to choose from whom he steals.


But then if you could somehow justify it it would be under the pretense of some greater good, which is kind of a lawful priciple.Working for the greater good (whatever that may) be is not a lawful principle. Working within society's rules is the lawful principle. Also pretense, justification, and the bigger picture are irrelevant for the classification of an act.


I guess I would just find this easier to pass off as a lawful character.A regular thief cannot be lawful unless he has been given permission to take whatever he takes from another authority (cf. privateer and pirate).

[hamishspence]

Stealing isn't evil by RAW. BoVD is -the- source for what's evil in D&D and it puts stealing as a common tool of evil but not evil in-and-of itself.

Actually, it was lying, that had that phrase used to describe it. There's no "not evil in-and-of itself" line for stealing, in BOVD.

[Sugashane]

I allowed it, as they may feel that Gods are just people who are stronger, a more powerful type of tyrant. To avoid over abuse I did tighten up the prereqs up some, and disallowed dual progression with this class.

[PersonMan]

I like the idea that alignment changes should be costly, particularly for clerics, and particularly when the cleric in question is really only changing alignments in order to become a highly unusual Ur-Priest.

Alignment changing for clerics I can see being an issue, but only in the "ok I lost my powers, now what?" sense, not "well I follow a more structured lifestyle, so now learning how to do things unrelated to that is suddenly more difficult".

Personally, I can't get past the fluff issue where someone becomes less able to increase in skill because of a change in their moral outlook. For me, it's like having classes as in-game constructs. It's not my playstyle and I don't think I could enjoy a game in which character development is punished.

[herrhauptmann]

That must have been really annoying for when someone had a character who developed and changed over time rather than sticking to the same sort of behavior. I can imagine I'd be annoyed if the system said 'want to play someone whose morals change as they become something entirely different from what they were before? Screw you!' for no good reason.

Especially if it makes no sense in-game. Go from LG to NG because you realize that Law isn't always the best way to make Good things happen? Suddenly you learn to stab things better half as fast.

I think you were allowed one shift by the rules without penalty. After that, yeah, penalties.
So Lolth touched paladin? Yeah, shift to CE, but then a shift back to LG after getting the bonuses? That's 2 shifts for the sake of powergaming (unless your DM was a jerk who threw that at you without your consent), and a penalty to XP.

It's the same thing here, I'm a Good wizard. I'm going to steal power from teh gods, so I'm going to be Evil for a little while. Now that I've learned, I'm going to be Good again. At what point is that a natural progression of a characters alignment/personality?

[Tanuki Tales]

There is no need to steal the power. Gods give that power freely to those that serve them. Going against their wishes does not sound inherently good.

Mind clarifying this?

Because I don't think you meant to insinuate that going against the wishes of, say, Vecna or Erythnul is inherently a non-good action. Sure, we need context to clarify this, but going against the wishes of an evil god is at worst a neutral act without said context that makes it an evil act. (Such as killing the innocent human daughter of Asmodeus before she can ascend to devilhood and thus damn the world for all eternity).

[ArcturusV]

Well, what I think he's getting is into Malconvoker style territory there.

Which is a class I've heard people wrangle back and forth if it was actually "good" or not, binding devils and demons to do your bidding supposedly in the name of good. Not to mention various references to Burning Hate conspiracies.

Of course the Book of Vile Darkness/Book of Exalted Deeds stances makes it pretty clear it would be evil to steal power from Asmodeus to use. Because you are using inherently evil power, and regardless of the reason, using evil power allows evil to seep into the world. So... evil.

For the classic ur-priest it makes sense that "Stealing Power is Evil" as their fluff and goal is to steal the power of the Gods in order to kill the Gods. Good, evil, etc. Basically genociding anyone with a divinity score seems pretty simply in the Evil Category.

[holywhippet]

I've always thought the Ur-Priest to be a strange class since basically they get divine spells without having to worship a god. But a cleric can choose not to pick a particular god to worship. I've always been a bit unclear as to whether this means they don't worship any gods (like Fall From Grace from Planescape: Torment) or if they have a number of gods they can call upon.

[ArcturusV]

Basically the argument why an Ur-Priest should always be evil. You're stealing power. You could have just gotten the power without dealing with gods. Clerics right out of the box can get power just through faith in an ideal or philosophy, without any Gods being involved.

[avr]

That must have been really annoying for when someone had a character who developed and changed over time rather than sticking to the same sort of behavior. I can imagine I'd be annoyed if the system said 'want to play someone whose morals change as they become something entirely different from what they were before? Screw you!' for no good reason.

Especially if it makes no sense in-game. Go from LG to NG because you realize that Law isn't always the best way to make Good things happen? Suddenly you learn to stab things better half as fast.
Pretty sure this was a house rule, and that exactly what happened with alignment shifts got house ruled a lot. I remember it as usually being a level lost or no effect whatsoever depending on the DM. Also a lot of arguments about alignment, especially with the christian guy in the group.

[ArcturusV]

Well, it wasn't a house rule in ADnD 2nd Edition. It was in the book. You change alignment, you lose your last level you gained. The justification for it being that the benefits of you gaining a level in part are based on you acting how you act, working within the systems you use, etc. A change in alignment is a radical shift in how you view and interact with the world. Thus a few things you just recently learned have to be reexamined in the context of this new life style.

[PersonMan]

I think you were allowed one shift by the rules without penalty. After that, yeah, penalties.
So Lolth touched paladin? Yeah, shift to CE, but then a shift back to LG after getting the bonuses? That's 2 shifts for the sake of powergaming (unless your DM was a jerk who threw that at you without your consent), and a penalty to XP.

See, this is where the passage in...I think it's the DMG, that says something like 'Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by the players. If the player says "I'm CG now" your response [could/should] be "Ok, prove it"' comes in.

Besides, if people are trying "turn Evil to get prereqs, turn back Good because Good" stuff, that's generally a problem better solved by working with them to find out why they want this/if there can be an agreement on it (striking the alignment requirement on something, for example). If that doesn't work, just say "Please don't change alignment for prereqs".

If they keep trying, then they're jerks and you can smile with satisfaction as you say "Well, now might be a good time to mention that there's only one way to turn Evil by the rules..." (casting [Evil] spells; if the rules do mention turning Evil from doing specific things, feel free to correct me. I'm aware of the corrupt acts thing in the FC II (or FC I? I'm not sure), but IIRC that doesn't make your alignment change, just sends you to Hell).

In my view, it's better to just say "don't do X" rather than trying to ban it in a roundabout way that can and will screw people over who are doing nothing remotely like what you're trying to stop. Besides, do you honestly believe people who say "I go CE to get this PrC" will care if they stay CE or not, since it doesn't change how they play?

Now, it actually sounds somewhat less crazy with one free change, but that still screws over the people who have their characters' alignment change in a realistic fashion rather than "well I was CN before but now I'm gonna hop straight to LG".


It's the same thing here, I'm a Good wizard. I'm going to steal power from teh gods, so I'm going to be Evil for a little while. Now that I've learned, I'm going to be Good again. At what point is that a natural progression of a characters alignment/personality?

You're taking an unfinished product and acting as if it's the end result. If the player manages to weave a wonderful, well-written story about a Good caster who is drawn to Evil by a tragedy and develops a hate for all gods (before he hated Evil gods, now he has been "enlightened" to the truth that all gods are the same in the end), seeking out and learning from those who can act against them by stealing their power, then finds redemption at the hands of a survivor of the tragedy (perhaps someone he knew personally or even someone very close to him who he thought was killed). In the end, he is convinced to drop his Evil means and return to what he was like before. However, his experience has darkened his view of the gods considerably and he doesn't always check to make sure the source of today's power is of the evil pantheon or not...

This is just an example (but writing it is making me want to fill it out and make a character backstory from it) of how something that starts as "start Good, go Evil, get PrC, go Good again" can end up. So taking a rough plan posted as an idea on how to get a CG Ur-Priest as the exact method it's going to be executed in is not the best idea.

EDIT: Not sure if it's been mentioned, but if stealing power is Evil, what about those Spellthieves?

EDIT 2: I can see why it got houseruled a lot.

Fighter A: Hey, man, maybe torture really isn't ok.
Fighter B: Uh-huh.
Fighter A: I think I agree with what that shiny guy said, actually. I'm going to stop all of this needless violence and pain.
Fighter B: Great. So, can you show me that new technique of yours again?
Fighter A: Sorry, I forgot it. I guess it was fueled by my lack of respect for the basic rights of others.
Fighter B: But...you just hit them really hard. And- hey, is it just me or did you just get skinnier?
Fighter A: Yeah, I guess that extra muscle came from being a jerk, too.
Fighter B: Remind me to never examine my moral beliefs.

[Jeff the Green]

That's not the only place where the rules do not work as (most likely) intended.

I disagree though that BoED and BoVD are the primary sources for alignments. That is the PHB.
If whatever you take from another without permission (i.e. steal) is even remotely needed or wanted you are hurting the owner and are depriving him of the usage of the item. That is a form of oppression.

Your argument doesn't follow from what you quoted; that's the converse fallacy. Evil people do x, y, and z does not imply that doing x, y, and z is evil.

Also, by not lying down and dying, the sacrificial victim is denying the BBEG the use of their soul. By not giving him the McGuffin the hero is denying them use of it. Depriving someone the use of an item is not oppression.


Of course the Book of Vile Darkness/Book of Exalted Deeds stances makes it pretty clear it would be evil to steal power from Asmodeus to use. Because you are using inherently evil power, and regardless of the reason, using evil power allows evil to seep into the world. So... evil.

That's... not true. Divine power is not inherently evil. Only [evil] and [good] spells are inherently evil. A CN cleric of Corellon Larethion who murders someone with a spell isn't doing a Good act because he's using Corellon's powers. Nor does a LN cleric of Asmodeus become LE by using his spells. That just doesn't happen, and there's nothing to suggest it happens


Basically the argument why an Ur-Priest should always be evil. You're stealing power. You could have just gotten the power without dealing with gods. Clerics right out of the box can get power just through faith in an ideal or philosophy, without any Gods being involved.

And if my ideal or philosophy is antitheism? Or antidivinity? Moreover, you can use evil power to do good, which makes you neutral.


Actually, it was lying, that had that phrase used to describe it. There's no "not evil in-and-of itself" line for stealing, in BOVD.

Yes, but neither does it outright say it's evil either. (It's included in a list that's titled "Evil Acts" but that includes ones that aren't necessarily evil.) Evil people see stealing as the best way of getting what they want. It does not follow from that statement that stealing is in se evil, even in the messed up ethical system of D&D. A good ur-priest, for example, might not want the power, but might instead want Asmodeus to not have it. Or he might need it to fulfill some good or exalted goal. Or he might believe that Asmodeus doesn't properly own that power (which may or may not be true in a given setting.)

[avr]

Well, it wasn't a house rule in ADnD 2nd Edition. It was in the book. You change alignment, you lose your last level you gained.
I should have quoted the guy PersonMan was replying to too I guess. He was referring to a rule which gave a permanent penalty to further XP gain after your 2nd alignment shift, which I believe to be a house rule in any edition.

[avr]

That's... not true. Divine power is not inherently evil. Only [evil] and [good] spells are inherently evil. A CN cleric of Corellon Larethion who murders someone with a spell isn't doing a Good act because he's using Corellon's powers. Nor does a LN cleric of Asmodeus become LE by using his spells. That just doesn't happen, and there's nothing to suggest it happens
It's not uncommon for D&D writers or DMs to assume that evil gods get power from their (usually evil) followers.

And a LN cleric of Asmodeus in D&D 3.5 lights up beautifully on a Detect Evil spell, possibly because he or she is handling a lot of [evil] power. Even if that doesn't affect his/her actual alignment.

I do think ur-priests should be able to be neutral or good. But it's less simple than saying divine power can't be inherently evil.

[Larkas]

I've been thinking: the Ur-Priest's ideals resemble the Athar philosophy very much. The Athar believe the gods are a fraud; the Ur-Priest defy the gods. The Athar bypass the gods in their search for divine power; the Ur-Priest steals divine power from the gods, maybe because they are not worthy to have it. In a Planescape game, it would make a lot of sense for the Defiers to have a number of Ur-Priests among their ranks. What's more, being close to the Athar HQ near the Spire would protect Ur-Priests from any divine wrath they might incur because of the way they get their spells.

Keeping that in mind, remember that the Athar are mostly neutral, with chaotic tendencies: they defy the established order that dictates that the Powers deserve reverence and worship. Furthermore, if the Ur-Priest steals godly powers for the benefit of his faction or his party, I'd argue that it is an entirely neutral action. It might hurt the gods a little, sure (though the class fluff indicates otherwise), but it is done with the intention of helping other people, or to prove a point (i.e.: the gods do not control the source of all divine power as well as they'd have you believe). It defies the "natural" order of things, but does so to propagate his faction's philosophy.

Summing things up, you could easily adapt the class crunch to remove any the mention to evil alignment. What's better, you don't even need to twist the fluff too much to make it fit. Substitute Spell Focus (Evil) with Spell Focus (Calling) or (Summoning) (you're siphoning the gods' powers, after all), add "Faction: Athar" as a prerequisite in case you're playing in Planescape and you're set.

Now that I think about it, a Ur-Priest/Defiant Soul (http://www.planewalker.com/sites/www.planewalker.com/files/chapter3.pdf) would make a very interesting character to roleplay!

[Jeff the Green]

And a LN cleric of Asmodeus in D&D 3.5 lights up beautifully on a Detect Evil spell, possibly because he or she is handling a lot of [evil] power. Even if that doesn't affect his/her actual alignment.

Oh, I don't deny that it could work that way, or that you could fluff it that way, or that it might work that way in some campaigns. But as far as I know, there is no actual rule saying that divine power from an Evil god is Evil, only that [evil] spells are Evil. And you can get [evil] (and [good]) spells from Neutral gods.

[Jack_Simth]

Oh, I don't deny that it could work that way, or that you could fluff it that way, or that it might work that way in some campaigns. But as far as I know, there is no actual rule saying that divine power from an Evil god is Evil, only that [evil] spells are Evil. And you can get [evil] (and [good]) spells from Neutral gods.

There is, however, a rule in place directly in the Cleric Class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm) that you radiate the alignment of your deity:
Aura (Ex)

A cleric of a chaotic, evil, good, or lawful deity has a particularly powerful aura corresponding to the deity’s alignment (see the detect evil spell for details). Clerics who don’t worship a specific deity but choose the Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law domain have a similarly powerful aura of the corresponding alignment. So a Lawful-Neutral cleric of a Lawful-Evil deity detects as Lawful-Evil. A Neutral-Good Cleric of a Chaotic-Good deity registers as Chaotic Good. And so on.

[Jeff the Green]

There is, however, a rule in place directly in the Cleric Class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm) that you radiate the alignment of your deity:So a Lawful-Neutral cleric of a Lawful-Evil deity detects as Lawful-Evil. A Neutral-Good Cleric of a Chaotic-Good deity registers as Chaotic Good. And so on.

I know that. I was referring to the second clause of the first sentence. While it's clear you radiate the alignment of your deity, it doesn't say why.

[Andezzar]

Your argument doesn't follow from what you quoted; that's the converse fallacy. Evil people do x, y, and z does not imply that doing x, y, and z is evil.It does not explicitly say doing x is evil, but mentioning an act that is not evil but done by evil people is totally nonsensical in a text about defining evil. That's like including the sentence: "evil people eat bread".


Also, by not lying down and dying, the sacrificial victim is denying the BBEG the use of their soul. By not giving him the McGuffin the hero is denying them use of it. Depriving someone the use of an item is not oppression.Refusing aid is something else than active opposition.

Also don't confuse good/evil (as D&D game terms) with right and wrong. Doing the right thing can be evil by the game rules.


Moreover, you can use evil power to do good, which makes you neutral.You are mixing up several thing here. Firstly the good ends of an evil act do not cancel out the evil, there is no rule for such. Additionally a single evil act does not change your alignment. Paladins are still screwed though.


Yes, but neither does it outright say it's evil either. (It's included in a list that's titled "Evil Acts" but that includes ones that aren't necessarily evil.) Evil people see stealing as the best way of getting what they want. It does not follow from that statement that stealing is in se evil, even in the messed up ethical system of D&D.That is wrong. It is in the list of evil acts so by definition it is an evil act. What you are saying is "It's in the rules but it's wrong". That is stepping outside of RAW, and if you do that anything can happen, but it is very difficult to have a discussion about it, as I said before.
Examining the actions of the malevolent not only helps define what evil is, but it also gives an insight into the schemes of a villain.


A good ur-priest, for example, might not want the power, but might instead want Asmodeus to not have it. Or he might need it to fulfill some good or exalted goal. Or he might believe that Asmodeus doesn't properly own that power (which may or may not be true in a given setting.)That goes against the fluff of the class. You could change that, but if you just changed it, we would not be having this discussion.

[hamishspence]

That is wrong. It is in the list of evil acts so by definition it is an evil act.

The list is a list of "problematic acts"- some of which are always evil, like harming or destroying souls, some of which aren't, like lying.

[Evolved Shrimp]

Off the top of my head, I could think of three other classes that have stealing at their core: Spellthief, Thief-Acrobat, and Temple Raider of Olidammara. The only alignment restriction any of them has is for temple raiders, which must be chaotic. (Also of note: Olidammara himself is not evil.)

This seems to indicate that, whatever the reason that an urpriest must be evil by RAW, it is not the act of stealing. It also seems to be a strong indication that stealing is not automatically considered an evil act in the rules.

In fact, the example for a chaotic good character given in the Player’s Handbook explicitly states that the character (the ranger Soveliss) “waylays the evil baron’s tax collectors”. To me, this is a clear indication that – by RAW – motive and consequences have to be considered when deciding whether an act of stealing is evil or not.

[hymer]

It may be that what you steal/take/swindle someone out of has something to do with whether it's evil or not, aside from who you're doing it to. Taking someone's money is one thing, I expect, but taking their hopes, dreams, souls or prayers might be something else entirely.
Or it might be something like how certain spells get the [evil] descriptor. Maybe stealing from the power that gods send to their followers is so foul and depraved that it can't be justified, even if the act wasn't selfish (as it would be by default).

[Telonius]

Some legends have it that Asmodeus has personally commissioned a pamphlet explaining why stealing divine power from Evil deities is not inherently evil.

He's also ordered a second, more detailed treatise as to why stealing divine power from Evil deities is inherently evil. Dozens of baatezu with maximum ranks in Profession (lawyer) are working on the project as we speak.

[Evolved Shrimp]

Taking someone's money is one thing, I expect, but taking their hopes, dreams, souls or prayers might be something else entirely.

Could be. But wouldn’t then robbing a temple also be evil? It doesn’t seem that different.

(Of course, maybe Olidammara already had the very best lawyers on the case, and that's why temple robbing is now OK :smallwink:.)

[Larkas]

Let's not be overly dramatic. Nothing in the fluff suggests that the way the Ur-Priest acts hurts the gods. Quite the contrary:


Ur-priests are canny and cunning, never stealing too much power from any one deity, but instead metaphysically slip in, draw out the power they need for their spells, and slip out again.

Besides, if one mortal stealing a little bit of the gods powers hurt those gods, how the heck are those same gods supposed to give their power to tens of thousands of clerics without being so much as weakened by the act?

Considering all that, I'd say that the Ur-Priest's action doesn't weaken the gods at all. They have pretty much infinite divine spells to give away, apparently.

[Leliel]

By the way, Re: Alignment of Stealing up there?

I'm pretty sure Stealing would be, in DnD Alignment Terms, Evil. Not Chaotic. I mean we often end up interpreting Chaotic as "Screw the Rules!", thus we see lawbreaking in terms of our own laws as "Chaotic" actions unless they cross into the realm of comic book villains (Blatant Murder, Extortion, etc).

But when we read what they actually define the Law vs Chaos axis as, things like theft aren't really a factor of it. The Chaos side is defined more as a side of personal freedom and expression more than anything else.

Whereas on the Good vs Evil axis, Evil is defined as doing things which benefit yourself primarily, regardless of how it impacts others. Where as Good is defined in terms of group well being and such.

With how it's defined like that, Stealing Power would be an obviously evil thing to do, rather than Chaotic. Which is in part why the Ur-Priest alignment restriction makes sense.

Granted, when it comes down to brass tacks, and how alignments are played at the table, it's usually down to DM fiat in how they are interpreted, particularly in terms of Chaos and Evil, rather than how the rules as written defines them. Particularly because to some people the various actions that would fit into a category don't make sense for them to fit into that category. For example a well intentioned, but fascist, tyrannical dictatorship would actually be Lawful Good in there. Very structured and ordered, concerned with the good of the people, etc. Even as they invoke images of things we typically think of as evil. Where as a savage tribe where might is the law and basically whoever is the Alpha in the pack makes the rules to their own benefit would be Chaotic Evil, even though we tend to see such behavior as animalistic, and as such try to call it True Neutral.

Not saying either way is necessarily wrong. But pointing out that's where the disconnect comes from.

Which is why we use the BoED even less than the BoVD, since at least the latter acknowledges that there is such a thing as moral ambiguity, and at least attempts to fit with preexisting metrics of alignment.

To put it simply, the BoED is the only book which claims stealing as evil, rather than a mild Chaotic act. It's why Rogues can be LG.

So, for purposes of this discussion, the BoED does not exist, seeing as how even the writers did not seem certain of what they were writing. We see it all the time in White Wolf books, where the writer of one book did not communicate well at all with the writer of another book. It conflicts with the rest of the setting, ergo RAW takes precedence.

[Fates]

There are very few classes who, by their very nature, are evil. Even assassins aren't necessarily.

Eh-hem, to quote our dear Ernest G. Gygax:

"Assassins are evil in alignment (perforce, as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for the purpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal)."

So...I suppose that almost every PC ever should probably be evil-aligned.

[Urpriest]

Regardless, this concept doesn't work. Asmodeus isn't a god in 3.5, that's a 4e thing. The closest 3.5 has is the hinty stuff in Planescape-related sources about Asmodeus being associated with older and more primal forces of evil. It's definitely not the sort of thing most characters would know about, and having a character who serves as direct evidence for it would be right out.

[Fates]

Regardless, this concept doesn't work. Asmodeus isn't a god in 3.5, that's a 4e thing. The closest 3.5 has is the hinty stuff in Planescape-related sources about Asmodeus being associated with older and more primal forces of evil. It's definitely not the sort of thing most characters would know about, and having a character who serves as direct evidence for it would be right out.

I'm fairly certain that the BoVD mentions that the Daedric Princes* Archfiends are capable of granting spells to clerics, and so would most likely apply for Ur-Priest stealings.

*I need to play less Skyrim.

[CIDE]

Eh-hem, to quote our dear Ernest G. Gygax:

"Assassins are evil in alignment (perforce, as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for the purpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal)."

So...I suppose that almost every PC ever should probably be evil-aligned.


WHERE IS THE LIKE BUTTON?!

Then again I have had at least one character that disliked killing and did not do so for personal wealth or gain but rather for the better fortune of those less fortunate than himself. Even to the point of avoiding fights whenever possible. Or y'know...one or two Tyler Durden types.

[Fates]

WHERE IS THE LIKE BUTTON?!

Then again I have had at least one character that disliked killing and did not do so for personal wealth or gain but rather for the better fortune of those less fortunate than himself. Even to the point of avoiding fights whenever possible. Or y'know...one or two Tyler Durden types.

Ha, thank you.

Yeah, I know it can happen. Vow of Poverty exists for a reason, after all. Still, I've seen the boundaries of the alignment chart bent so far it defies the laws of physics, particularly when loot is in the picture.

[Urpriest]

I'm fairly certain that the BoVD mentions that the Daedric Princes* Archfiends are capable of granting spells to clerics, and so would most likely apply for Ur-Priest stealings.

*I need to play less Skyrim.

They do grant spells, but BoVD also mentions that they do this by acting as a conduit for divine energy from elsewhere. They don't actually have divine power to grant. I don't see any problem with an ur-priest stealing spells that would be granted to clerics of Asmodeus, but the idea of a character "stealing Asmodeus's divine power" just confuses matters and propagates a misunderstanding that I find especially pernicious. It's sort of like someone houseruling that a weapon can have Flaming, for example, before being +1. Sure, it's not going to break your game, but it increases the number of people in the world who believe that's an actual rule.

[Arundel]

There is, however, a rule in place directly in the Cleric Class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm) that you radiate the alignment of your deity. So a Lawful-Neutral cleric of a Lawful-Evil deity detects as Lawful-Evil. A Neutral-Good Cleric of a Chaotic-Good deity registers as Chaotic Good. And so on.

So how does that work if you devote yourself to a concept? What does a cleric of carpeting radiate?

Do I radiate shag?

Can I worship bears and radiate bears?

[Karnith]

So how does that work if you devote yourself to a concept? What does a cleric of carpeting radiate?

Do I radiate shag?

Can I worship bears and radiate bears?
You only get an aura if you worship a good, evil, lawful, or chaotic deity, or if one of your domains is Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic. Per the SRD:

Aura (Ex)

A cleric of a chaotic, evil, good, or lawful deity has a particularly powerful aura corresponding to the deity’s alignment (see the detect evil spell for details). Clerics who don’t worship a specific deity but choose the Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law domain have a similarly powerful aura of the corresponding alignment.

[Jack_Simth]

So how does that work if you devote yourself to a concept? What does a cleric of carpeting radiate?

Do I radiate shag?

Can I worship bears and radiate bears?
In the case of a cause-cleric or philosophy cleric, it explicitly only applies if you get an alignment domain.

[ArcturusV]

To put it simply, the BoED is the only book which claims stealing as evil, rather than a mild Chaotic act. It's why Rogues can be LG.

I don't even think stealing is necessarily Chaotic in and of itself. And thus has no interaction with the Law vs Chaos axis.

Since I like examples, Example Ho.

The typical Chaotic Good who steals is portrayed as Robin Hood. An outlaw who waylays officials, stealing their riches to redistribute to the poor. Note that as Lawful in DnD however also mentions that you don't have to pander to something you see an an illegitimate authority (Such as Prince John and Nottingham in Robin Hood, as they were usurpers, not legitimate authorities), this isn't even necessarily Chaotic Good. A Lawful Good paladin could easy do the Robin Hood schtick against Robin Hood's enemies without worrying about any chaotic actions at all. Much less evil.

What separates the Chaotic Good thief, from the Lawful Good thief, is more a case of personal outlook than anything else. The Chaotic Good thief sees the system as inherently corrupt, oppressive, etc. They are righting a wrong that exists with the very concept of Privileged and Rulers. They have no qualms about what they are doing, and honestly are just looking to help the poor and don't typically think about what happens after that.

The Lawful Good thief however takes a different view. The actions are the same, robbing the corrupt tax man, giving to the poor and starving. They have a longer view of the thing however. They recognize that the system itself is not corrupt, but the people involved. The situation will never be solved until the corrupt figureheads are replaced with rightful, honorable rulers who have the interest of the people at heart. Helping the poor is a stop gap, but their primary goal is to fix the cause, not the symptom as the Chaotic Good type would. When given a choice between beheading the Sheriff of Nottingham or getting some loot to the poor, they will tend to choose the former, knowing that will end the strife once and for all, and seek to find a legitimate authority to step in and sort things out.

Granted, personal interpretation based on various passages in the rulebooks I have read. I also see it as pretty reasonable stuff, and because of that I've almost never had a problem with things like the Paladin Player falling in game.

... other than the guy who played his Paladin as an "Acceptable Losses" sort of guy. Seriously, he used a child as a human shield against an enemy. Not even kidding. And he got pissy with me when I said he fell...

[Andezzar]

I disagree with your examples. Stealing (unless you remove inconsequential items) is hurting the former possessor. There is no distinction if the possessor is good or evil. Later giving that item to the poor does not change that fact. Those are two separate acts.

I agree though with the motivation of both thieves.

The paladin player must have been joking. Then again Paladins doing what they are supposed to do by fluff can't exist by RAW.

[hamishspence]

Which is why we use the BoED even less than the BoVD, since at least the latter acknowledges that there is such a thing as moral ambiguity, and at least attempts to fit with preexisting metrics of alignment.

To put it simply, the BoED is the only book which claims stealing as evil, rather than a mild Chaotic act. It's why Rogues can be LG.

On which page does BoED state this?

BoVD has "Any child can tell you that stealing is wrong" but BoED as far as I remember says nothing specific about it.

Now, a case can be made that taking stolen goods from a thief, in order to return them to those the thief has robbed, does not qualify as stealing- since the word "stealing" implies that the person had a right to those goods in the first place.

[Jeff the Green]

BoVD has "Any child can tell you that stealing is wrong" but BoED as far as I remember says nothing specific about it.

Which, I feel I should point out, is not the same thing as "stealing is evil." Any child can also tell you that the sky is green; doesn't make it so.

(Also, it's not true. Kids are horribly amoral; for a long time they have the opinion that it's not wrong as long as they don't get caught.)

[hamishspence]

Probably depends on how thoroughly they are indoctrinated, and how young.

I'd probably agree that it should be put in with lying as "dangerous, but not automatically evil"

[ArcturusV]

Except Good/Evil on the part of the "victim" is already established as mattering for if the action is good/evil.

I mean it's under the section on Violence in Exalted Deeds, but the concept and the reasons are broad enough to apply to anything. Doing something that could be considered "Evil" to an Evil being, with just cause, is not an evil act. It's good.

Killing a killer, good. Stealing from a tyrant, good. Killing someone just because they ping evil on your Evil-dar? No. That's even called out in the section there.

[hamishspence]

With a few exceptions, such as torture, and "harming/destroying soul".

Maybe these go beyond the point where there can ever be "just cause"?

[OutlawJT]

Unless I am remembering the class incorrectly your core concept for Ur-Priest won't work. They don't steal all their spells from a single deity. They can't because it would draw too much attention to one spot. Instead, they steal a little of their divine power from deity A, a little from deity B, then from deity C, and so on. So, you couldn't steal all of your power from Asmodeus. They steal their power from deities at random wherever there is unspent divine power already sent into the world and hence unchecked by it's patron deity. I always viewed it as Ur-Priests siphoning off the energy of unused spells of clerics.

Also, while I agree with most of the people posting that the evil requirement shouldn't be necessary (but something should take it's place if removed) I have doubts picturing any good aligned person becoming an Ur-Priest knowing they could be stealing from any deity, including the good ones. I wouldn't outright forbid it (as I would a lawful character becoming an Ur-Priest) but it would take one heck of an argument and backstory to convince me.

[Larkas]

Unless I am remembering the class incorrectly your core concept for Ur-Priest won't work. They don't steal all their spells from a single deity. They can't because it would draw too much attention to one spot. Instead, they steal a little of their divine power from deity A, a little from deity B, then from deity C, and so on. So, you couldn't steal all of your power from Asmodeus. They steal their power from deities at random wherever there is unspent divine power already sent into the world and hence unchecked by it's patron deity. I always viewed it as Ur-Priests siphoning off the energy of unused spells of clerics.

Also, while I agree with most of the people posting that the evil requirement shouldn't be necessary (but something should take it's place if removed) I have doubts picturing any good aligned person becoming an Ur-Priest knowing they could be stealing from any deity, including the good ones. I wouldn't outright forbid it (as I would a lawful character becoming an Ur-Priest) but it would take one heck of an argument and backstory to convince me.

Uhhhh... Does a good person necessarily need to worship any god at all? I've already argued a few posts back that it isn't necessarily the case. Athar members can be of any alignment.

[hamishspence]

I wouldn't outright forbid it (as I would a lawful character becoming an Ur-Priest) but it would take one heck of an argument and backstory to convince me.

I don't see that much problem with LE Ur-Priests. After all, there do exist LE thieves. They often end up running Thieves Guilds.