Good aligned undead support?

[CyberThread]

Was there ever any good aligned support for a player to use ((not just unbound and stuff that only a Dm can really use), I am fully open to anything published in dragon magazine.

I am doing a death master, but one that is well job to put them back in the grave rather then serve evil, and can use ancestors and heroes to help me fight them and stuff like that.

[Steward]

How do you feel about the Deathless, featured in Book of Exalted Deeds and more extensively in Eberron?

[Talionis]

I also think the Malconvoker in complete scoundrel is designed to be a good summoner dabbling in Evil stuff.

[CyberThread]

deathless is a DM tool, nothing around it can realty be used by a player.

[The Viscount]

Could you explain what you mean by good undead support?

As a Death Master, you are unfortunately rather explicitly devoted to Orcus and must be evil. If you simply want to be a good aligned, or at least non-evil necromancer type, it's very possible. Undead are all technically evil aligned, save the good lich in LM, but if you control them you can still use them for good ends, much like a Malconvoker.

[KillingAScarab]

Undead are all technically evil aligned, save the good lich in LM...Is the Libris Mortis good lich an update to the good lich entry found in Monster Compendium: Monsters of Faerûn? That actually encompassed two templates: Archlich and Baelnorn, and I'm curious if Baelnorn ever got a 3.5 version.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah. As far as Good Aligned Undead Support there's not a lot of actually good options I can think of.

Deathless is, as mentioned basically a DM template.

The Risen Martyr PrC is... bad. Pretty danged bad. You're trapped on it. It's not that powerful. It's capstone is that you die forever and can never be brought back. But it is pretty much a Good Aligned Undead. It's just not a good one.

Been a while since I cracked it open, but I think Ghostwalk might have some options for it as I don't recall the various undead stuff in there being necessarily Evil. But I also don't remember Ghostwalk being very good. WHich might be why I haven't cracked it open in years.

Otherwise I can't really come up with stuff. I mean the monster class Undead from Libris Mortis can be any alignment, sure. But you're still "Evil", feed off negative energy, harmed by Positive energy, inflict Fear in everyone, have those urges like the need to feed on mortals as a Vampire, etc.

[OctoberRaven]

Could always be a cleric of Wee Jas (assuming you're using the Greyhawk pantheon mind). There's even good reason for being familiar with using undead: What better way to protect a cemetary from grave robbers than having a Wight or two on patrol?

[Matticussama]

If you're willing to use Pathfinder material, the White Necromancer out of Kobold Quarterly #19 provides exactly this. If you don't want to use the class itself, you can always apply its main class feature White Necromancy to another Necromancer class. Basically, all undead creation spells lose the [Evil] descriptor, all undead created by the White Necromancer are neutral instead of evil, and instead of treating the undead as slaves the White Necromancer makes a diplomacy check to convince the undead to help them.

[The Viscount]

Is the Libris Mortis good lich an update to the good lich entry found in Monster Compendium: Monsters of Faerûn? That actually encompassed two templates: Archlich and Baelnorn, and I'm curious if Baelnorn ever got a 3.5 version.

Oddly enough, there is an update for Monsters of Faerûn, but they made no changes to Baelnorn. I suppose that means it works fully well as a 3.5 monster. I had forgotten about them.

[Story]

I think Necropolitans can be good aligned (and they're by far the best way for PCs to play undead). But the alignment system is heavily open to interpretation, so your DM may rule differently.

[Jack_Simth]

Undead are all technically evil aligned, save the good lich in LMActually, no. The Ghost (core, even) can be any alignment. They do all show up under Detect Evil, though.

A Neutral cleric of a neutral deity could cast [evil] spells and use them for good ends. An Arcanist could be good aligned and still use Evil spells like Animate Dead.

[Fable Wright]

Could always be a cleric of Wee Jas (assuming you're using the Greyhawk pantheon mind). There's even good reason for being familiar with using undead: What better way to protect a cemetary from grave robbers than having a Wight or two on patrol?

Why Wee Jas? IIRC, Osiris is a Good aligned God of the Dead. Not sure if he condones undead creation, and he apparently doesn't like Dread Necromancers, but it's something.

[ArcturusV]

I dunno about Good Aligned Necropolitans. I mean, possible I suppose, but isn't the ritual they undergo to become one is so unspeakably evil. I mean, sure, doesn't REQUIRE an Evil alignment. But I think most reasonable DMs would say "Okay, if you're willing to do unspeakable evil rituals for power... you're evil." and that would be a hell of a stain to redeem yourself from. Not like just saying "I'm sorry" and giving a beggar a Platinum Piece is gonna make you shiny good after that.

Again, probably a RAW/RAI conflict. It doesn't have to be. But I can't imagine any DM I know of looking at Necropolitan and going "Hmm... requires an evil ritual... sure, you can be a good aligned Necropolitan". Least not without a major, long running Redemptionist Campaign.

[sir_argenon]

in hyperconscious, there is the fantastic psianimate dead power, which has no alignment restriction and is basically a stronger animate dead, psionic style.

[Jeff the Green]

Most undead can be good. "Always <alignment>" doesn't actually mean always. It means the overwhelming majority is <alignment>. Liches have to do something evil to become liches, but they don't have to be evil. Necropolitans can be any alignment. Vampires may have a very difficult time being good, but they can certainly feed on cattle to do so.

[killem2]

Most undead can be good. "Always <alignment>" doesn't actually mean always. It means the overwhelming majority is <alignment>. Liches have to do something evil to become liches, but they don't have to be evil. Necropolitans can be any alignment. Vampires may have a very difficult time being good, but they can certainly feed on cattle to do so.

That's what I thought the "Usually" was for?

[Blaknic]

"Usually" means, to me, that it is rare for it not to be a certain way, but not unheard of. People will say "Wait, aren't you supposed to be evil?", but you respond with a comment about your circumstance, and be, well, not accepted, but....

"Always Evil" means to me that you better have a darn good reason to be different. Nobody has heard of a good whatever-you-are, and won't believe you if you tell them. Somebody could kill you on sight, on the assumption that you are evil, and nobody would blink twice. A good member of an "Always Evil" race needs a backstory about the length of a short campaign. In fact, a redemption campaign is probably in order just to get the Good aligned whatever-you-are.

As far as good aligned undead support, sorry. Profaning the rest of the dead is evil, and playing a Good person who goes around animating fallen corpses makes about as much sense as playing a lawful thief.

[Jeff the Green]

"Usually" means, to me, that it is rare for it not to be a certain way, but not unheard of. People will say "Wait, aren't you supposed to be evil?", but you respond with a comment about your circumstance, and be, well, not accepted, but....

"Always Evil" means to me that you better have a darn good reason to be different. Nobody has heard of a good whatever-you-are, and won't believe you if you tell them. Somebody could kill you on sight, on the assumption that you are evil, and nobody would blink twice. A good member of an "Always Evil" race needs a backstory about the length of a short campaign. In fact, a redemption campaign is probably in order just to get the Good aligned whatever-you-are.

That's a bit more extreme than is justified. Always, Usually, and Often are described in the rules:


Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.

Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creatures’ origin. For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian.

Often: The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40–50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common.


As far as good aligned undead support, sorry. Profaning the rest of the dead is evil, and playing a Good person who goes around animating fallen corpses makes about as much sense as playing a lawful thief.

This is absolutely not true. Casting [Evil] spells (such as animate dead) is an evil act, but it's a minor one. It's entirely possible to be a Good wizard or sorcerer and animate the dead for good causes. Similarly, a Dread Necromancer loses nothing if he becomes Good except the ability to take more levels in it.

Also, a lawful thief is absolutely possible. Don Corleone is absolutely Lawful, as is any other thief or criminal with a personal ethical code. Law has nothing to do with following temporal laws.

[Blaknic]

I had forgotten about the Monster Manual entry- my bad there. I will admit that my definition of "always" is a bit extreme, but I am a bit tired of seeing players flaunt Evil abilities while running around claiming to be champions of Good. There is an example of a good aligned succubus somewhere (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) that I like- she foregoes her Evil abilities in order to be good. I am still, however, opposed to the idea of Good aligned necromancers, RAW or no. The idea of somebody running around desecrating graves and creating unholy abominations in the name of Good just feels wrong to me. In the name of necessity, I can understand, but that smells more Neutral than Good to me.

Nice Godfather reference, and I will give that following a code of honor pr other personal morality is lawful- the example of a Lawful thief being wrong is an incorrect example. However, being Good or Evil is not about a personal standard or code of honor, it is more about Good or Evil. If you murder helpless fae, you are not doing Good. If you burn orphanages, you are not doing Good. If you are in the habit of raising corpses, you are still not doing Good, no matter why. (insert quote about good intentions, hell, etc.)

A wizard who relies on power gotten by sneaking into graveyards and raising the dead is, in my mind, Evil. If said Wizard raises the dead in a pinch, but doesn't make it a regular event, that can, and should, be forgiven as necessary. But doing something wrong once is not the same as habitually and constantly doing Evil.

[killem2]

A wizard who relies on power gotten by sneaking into graveyards and raising the dead is, in my mind, Evil. If said Wizard raises the dead in a pinch, but doesn't make it a regular event, that can, and should, be forgiven as necessary. But doing something wrong once is not the same as habitually and constantly doing Evil.

Unlawful I would say, quite chaotic, but evil? Depends on what he does with the dead.

Wizard as RAW http://www.forumula1.com/forum/images/smilies/evil5.gif, do not get to be label or change to evil, simply from using spells with the evil descriptor.

[Amoren]

But I liked my Lawful Good Bone Knight Cleric. :D

Although to be fair, he never reanimated bodies that did not agree to being reanimated after death while they were in life, and then he always awakened those undead he reanimated so that they had free choice. And his deity/nation had a very odd utopia helped sustained by undead workers...

[OctoberRaven]

Why Wee Jas? IIRC, Osiris is a Good aligned God of the Dead. Not sure if he condones undead creation, and he apparently doesn't like Dread Necromancers, but it's something.

Well, Wee Jas is part of the default Greyhawk setting, is worshiped by necromancers, and I'm pretty sure her clerics channel negative energy by default.

If you're using RL religions, though, Osiris would be a good choice.

[ArcturusV]

Eh. The whole "Raising the dead makes you evil?" question is really a roving target based on setting specific details. In most setting I'd see, it's an Evil act, and relying on it should move your alignment towards Evil. Reasons:

Most (Not going to say all because I'm sure there's an example I can't remember right now) spells which create undead are actually labeled with the "Evil" tag. Note that in DnD games, Evil is not really subjective or open to debate, it's a real, solid force. Spells with "Evil" tags are powered by that force and that force is known to be a corrupting essence. Good reasons or not, it is seductive, charming, and going to talk you into doing bad things if you let it. Good people know this and avoid Evil powers like the plague they are.

Undead themselves typically act in a similar manner. Not even going against Good/Evil discussions about binding souls and raising the dead from their eternal rests, etc. The Undead are typically described as being powered by the energies of pure evil. As long as the undead exists there is a conduit from where the Undead is, to a realm of pure evil, that is leaking out Pure Evil at the location of the undead. Their existence is spreading evil like a plague.

Course, some of this doesn't apply depending on setting particulars. Also things like the "Effectively undead but not" stuff like the Deathless Type. Also I seem to recall Dry Liches aren't powered by the evil energies, so maybe them.

[Jeff the Green]

A wizard who relies on power gotten by sneaking into graveyards and raising the dead is, in my mind, Evil.

That's not true, at least under the rules, either.


An antihero might have some great tragedy or dark secret in her past, or she might make use of evil means toward an ultimately good end. In D&D, such a character is probably neither good nor evil but a flexible neutral. A cleric of St. Cuthbert who launches an inquisition to purge evil from the land, killing innocents in the process; a devotee of Wee Jas who animates undead in order to fight villains even more evil; a ranger hunting down all the agents, evil or otherwise, of the baron who burned down his childhood(emphasis added)

[nobodez]

Quick question: if you reincarnate someone, can you turn their old body into an undead creature without penalty?

[Jeff the Green]

Quick question: if you reincarnate someone, can you turn their old body into an undead creature without penalty?

I can't think of any reason why not, except that the druid who cast reincarnate might be mad at you. That would actually be pretty cool, though. Repeatedly killing yourself and then reincarnating (mitigating with Thought Bottle or similar), followed by raising your former bodies.

[ArcturusV]

Don't see why you can't. Though yeah, the druid who helped you do it might get kinda pissed. They're all into the Natural Order and such after all, and I'm pretty sure "Army of Undead" doesn't smack of their Natural Order.

Course, I suppose if you have a sadistic typical DM that depending on what body part you used for the Reincarnation is likely to come back and bite you in the ass as a penalty to the undead.

"Oh, you used a finger? -2 to anything that uses that hand" "Oh, you cut off an ear? -1 Dex and -2 Listen." "Cut off a toe? -5 to balance checks"

[Thurbane]

I dunno about Good Aligned Necropolitans. I mean, possible I suppose, but isn't the ritual they undergo to become one is so unspeakably evil. I mean, sure, doesn't REQUIRE an Evil alignment. But I think most reasonable DMs would say "Okay, if you're willing to do unspeakable evil rituals for power... you're evil." and that would be a hell of a stain to redeem yourself from. Not like just saying "I'm sorry" and giving a beggar a Platinum Piece is gonna make you shiny good after that.

Again, probably a RAW/RAI conflict. It doesn't have to be. But I can't imagine any DM I know of looking at Necropolitan and going "Hmm... requires an evil ritual... sure, you can be a good aligned Necropolitan". Least not without a major, long running Redemptionist Campaign.
A DM could re-fluff a variant necropolitan into a Deathless rather than Undead...

[ArcturusV]

Well, that is what the Risen Martyr PrC is for. Which as I mentioned is pretty terribad. But it is there. It is basically "Good aligned undead with no LA", same realm as necropolitan is.

Again, it's a thing I'd expect out of most DMs. They're generally not the sort to go "Hmm... this already exists. Here, I'll kitbash something to do what something else already does".

An option perhaps. But it would be kitbashing. And when you open up to kitbashing there's lots of better options. Even easier ones like just saying Undead aren't Evil but can be any alignment and effected by energy types depending on alignment/choice in the case of neutrals.

Course there's also the Saint Template. Not necessarily undead. Though Martyrdom is usually a pre-req for it. So thematically "undead" though not by Rules. And Saint would be a much better option than Risen Martyr. Though due to LA probably not as good as a Deathless Necropolitan Kitbash.

[Jeff the Green]

I dunno about Good Aligned Necropolitans. I mean, possible I suppose, but isn't the ritual they undergo to become one is so unspeakably evil. I mean, sure, doesn't REQUIRE an Evil alignment. But I think most reasonable DMs would say "Okay, if you're willing to do unspeakable evil rituals for power... you're evil." and that would be a hell of a stain to redeem yourself from. Not like just saying "I'm sorry" and giving a beggar a Platinum Piece is gonna make you shiny good after that.

I just saw this. The Ritual of Crucimigration isn't all that evil. It involves cursed nails (which may or may not be the result of an [Evil] spell; bestow curse isn't) and calling out the names of evil gods, but no indication that said gods play any role in it. It's torturous, but only to the petitioner. I can imagine a cleric of Ilmater undergoing the Ritual as an act of devotion and to serve his god for longer than he would otherwise be able to.

[Jack_Simth]

This is absolutely not true. Casting [Evil] spells (such as animate dead) is an evil act, but it's a minor one. Sort of. It's not specified in raw how evil an act casting an [Evil] spell is. If your DM says it's minor, then it's minor. If your DM says it's major, then it's major. But to my knowledge there's not specific rules text that can really be used to argue with your DM in that regards.

[Jeff the Green]

Sort of. It's not specified in raw how evil an act casting an [Evil] spell is. If your DM says it's minor, then it's minor. If your DM says it's major, then it's major. But to my knowledge there's not specific rules text that can really be used to argue with your DM in that regards.


Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose.

Given how BoVD treats all Evil creatures as baby eating, drug addicted, kinky abominations, this is a pretty good indication that casting [Evil] spells is not a major evil act.

[graymachine]

The first thing you need to do is sit down with your DM, crack open the front of Libris Mortis, and figure out how undead work in this campaign. There is a section at the start that recommends DMs decide the nature of the undead state, presenting a setup where undead are inherently evil and one where they are not; if the DM decides that they are inherently evil, then the rest is moot, unless you can convince them to let you be Deathless.

[nobodez]

Don't see why you can't. Though yeah, the druid who helped you do it might get kinda pissed. They're all into the Natural Order and such after all, and I'm pretty sure "Army of Undead" doesn't smack of their Natural Order.

Course, I suppose if you have a sadistic typical DM that depending on what body part you used for the Reincarnation is likely to come back and bite you in the ass as a penalty to the undead.

"Oh, you used a finger? -2 to anything that uses that hand" "Oh, you cut off an ear? -1 Dex and -2 Listen." "Cut off a toe? -5 to balance checks"

Why are you cutting anything off?

Of course, if you do cut anything off, use the genitals. It's not like the undead need it.

[ArcturusV]

Because you need a body part as a material component for Reincarnation. The body part is used up. So if you wanted cadavers to Undeadify, you'd have to cut off something rather than just use the body wholesale. So you're lopping something off. Ears and Fingers are popular choices in my experience.

[nobodez]

Because you need a body part as a material component for Reincarnation. The body part is used up. So if you wanted cadavers to Undeadify, you'd have to cut off something rather than just use the body wholesale. So you're lopping something off. Ears and Fingers are popular choices in my experience.

Um, no, you don't. The only Material Component listed in the spell is the "Rare oils and unguents worth a total of least 1,000 gp, spread over the remains". It doesn't say that the remains themselves are used up during the spell, just that the oils and unguents are (as per standard for Material Components).

[OctoberRaven]

Why are you cutting anything off?

Of course, if you do cut anything off, use the genitals. It's not like the undead need it.

:roach: "That's not what Tsukiko told me!"
:roach: "Too soon, man, too soon."

[ArcturusV]

I was thinking of the text of the spell stating:

"The conditions of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature's body still exists, it can be reincarnated but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature's body at the time of death. The magic of the spell creates an entirely new young adult body for the soul to inhabit from the natural elements at hand."

So it's less the component, and more the Target. And materials at hand get used up which I'd think would include obvious materials like body parts. I guess it doesn't actually have to use up the body part/corpse. But... I kinda doubt it? Why reinvent the body from random non-humanoid parts when you got easy humanoid parts at hand?

*shrug* Open to DM determination I suppose.

[TuggyNE]

I was thinking of the text of the spell stating:

"The conditions of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature's body still exists, it can be reincarnated but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature's body at the time of death. The magic of the spell creates an entirely new young adult body for the soul to inhabit from the natural elements at hand."

So it's less the component, and more the Target. And materials at hand get used up which I'd think would include obvious materials like body parts. I guess it doesn't actually have to use up the body part/corpse. But... I kinda doubt it? Why reinvent the body from random non-humanoid parts when you got easy humanoid parts at hand?

*shrug* Open to DM determination I suppose.

The target is just there to distinguish the soul for the spell's magic; it isn't otherwise affected. If it were, it would need to be mentioned as such.

Similarly, casting barkskin on a target ally does not take a little bit of flesh from them to form the thickened skin.

[CIDE]

Curst template is a template that fits any alignment.

[Jack_Simth]

Curst template is a template that fits any alignment.

Depending on which version you have, yes.

[Coidzor]

I dunno about Good Aligned Necropolitans. I mean, possible I suppose, but isn't the ritual they undergo to become one is so unspeakably evil.

They willingly subject themselves to crucifixion as part of the ritual of crucimigration, but it's more "glossed over" and less "unspeakably evil," from my recollection of the two sentences on the subject. Where I read about their presentation they were presented as thoroughly neutral (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H06kpn2C3Fk).


I mean, sure, doesn't REQUIRE an Evil alignment. But I think most reasonable DMs would say "Okay, if you're willing to do unspeakable evil rituals for power... you're evil." and that would be a hell of a stain to redeem yourself from. Not like just saying "I'm sorry" and giving a beggar a Platinum Piece is gonna make you shiny good after that.

The ritual isn't for power as I recall. It's done for citizenship in, what, Moil? Some planar metropolis where you have to be posthumous to be a citizen.

Liches on the other hand, yeah, that's about power and stated to be evil except for the exceptions that offer a non-evil path to lichdom. Like the neutral path that automatically turns Dread Necromancers into Liches.


Reasons:

Most (Not going to say all because I'm sure there's an example I can't remember right now) spells which create undead are actually labeled with the "Evil" tag. Note that in DnD games, Evil is not really subjective or open to debate, it's a real, solid force. Spells with "Evil" tags are powered by that force and that force is known to be a corrupting essence. Good reasons or not, it is seductive, charming, and going to talk you into doing bad things if you let it. Good people know this and avoid Evil powers like the plague they are.

Undead themselves typically act in a similar manner. Not even going against Good/Evil discussions about binding souls and raising the dead from their eternal rests, etc. The Undead are typically described as being powered by the energies of pure evil. As long as the undead exists there is a conduit from where the Undead is, to a realm of pure evil, that is leaking out Pure Evil at the location of the undead. Their existence is spreading evil like a plague.

So Negative Energy is Pure Evil, but channeling Negative Energy is not evil unless you use it to animate dead or create undead? So do you houserule so that Inflict (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/inflictLightWounds.htm)is evil?

Undead and negative energy are rather shoddily and spottily represented in the ethical framework of the alignment system, which is a large part of the reason why the Tome of Necromancy (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19527634/Tome_of_Necromancy) is a thing. Regardless of one's stance on the power level of their homebrew, they tackled the problem of the consistency of the morality of undeath pretty well.


That's a bit more extreme than is justified. Always, Usually, and Often are described in the rules:

That's alignment for you. That it's defined in the rules is also often forgotten or never learned.


I had forgotten about the Monster Manual entry- my bad there. I will admit that my definition of "always" is a bit extreme, but I am a bit tired of seeing players flaunt Evil abilities while running around claiming to be champions of Good.

Sounds like you've got a player-DM disconnect that needs to be discussed more than anything else. :smalltongue: They're Playing With Fire and you're Crawling Darkness, maybe. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19527634/Tome_of_Necromancy)


If you're willing to use Pathfinder material, the White Necromancer out of Kobold Quarterly #19 provides exactly this. If you don't want to use the class itself, you can always apply its main class feature White Necromancy to another Necromancer class. Basically, all undead creation spells lose the [Evil] descriptor, all undead created by the White Necromancer are neutral instead of evil, and instead of treating the undead as slaves the White Necromancer makes a diplomacy check to convince the undead to help them.

So what's the deal with mindless undead then? :smallconfused:

Mindless undead seem to more usually be treated as automatons because that's basically what they are and undead with minds either are slaves (due to being controlled with rebuking) or have been convinced to be allies anyway.

I guess I'll have to check it out sometime.

I like the Redeemer of Regrets (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9994058&postcount=14) homebrew myself.

edit:


Don't see why you can't. Though yeah, the druid who helped you do it might get kinda pissed. They're all into the Natural Order and such after all, and I'm pretty sure "Army of Undead" doesn't smack of their Natural Order.

Course, I suppose if you have a sadistic typical DM that depending on what body part you used for the Reincarnation is likely to come back and bite you in the ass as a penalty to the undead.

"Oh, you used a finger? -2 to anything that uses that hand" "Oh, you cut off an ear? -1 Dex and -2 Listen." "Cut off a toe? -5 to balance checks"

If your DMs are the Fun Police, maybe you should find new ones.

[CaladanMoonblad]

...A good member of an "Always Evil" race needs a backstory about the length of a short campaign. In fact, a redemption campaign is probably in order just to get the Good aligned whatever-you-are....

Not really.

Backstory 1
"I woke up not knowing who I was, or why I don't bleed, but the first person I spoke to screamed in horror at my grizzled state." (Amnesia as Undead)

Backstory 2
"After I tried on the circlet, my eyes were opened to the guilt of my existence, and I endeavored to change my ways..." (Circlet of Opposite Alignment, with failed Will save)


So... pretty simple really.

[RogueDM]

This may not be exactly up your alley, but the Bone Collector PrC from Ghostwalk keeps with the rather morose theme while being a force of good. Doesn't require being undead, but rather having been killed or KO'ed by undead. So being killed by zombies and returned as intelligent undead to then hunt zombies... would be an interesting build... Oooh, I might steal that. *Rolls Sleight of Hand check*

On the subject of races, I can only echo the sentiments above that even an "always" evil race can be played good provided a permissive DM and some decent character background. Personally, I'd allow it. *Puts zombie hunting zombie cleric/BC in handy haversack*

[killem2]

Sort of. It's not specified in raw how evil an act casting an [Evil] spell is. If your DM says it's minor, then it's minor. If your DM says it's major, then it's major. But to my knowledge there's not specific rules text that can really be used to argue with your DM in that regards.

For the arcane, you most certainly can argue with your dm. :)


Yes, they can. Wizards themselves said that clearly in Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, on page 98. I quote the relevant part.


(Remember that wizards of any alignment can cast spells with the evil descriptor without ill effects.)

The spell in question is dread word, which, iirc, allows you to use the very Dark Speech. It doesn't get any more evil than that. And yet, as said by WotC themselves, a lawful good wizard can cast it without repercussion. Sure, the spell effect itself will probably effect him, but not the fact that he is casting an [Evil] spell.

[buttcyst]

in the ghostwalk book, there is a ghost melee class, also a spellcaster class, neither of which change your alignment and both of which allow free multiclassing back into whatever class you were when you were alive... including paladin. I was doing some random reading a few days ago and stumbled on this, pretty neat

[Jack_Simth]

For the arcane, you most certainly can argue with your dm. :)Not on a rules basis. There's no specific game-mechanical effects (other than the obvious ones) for an Arcanist casting an [Evil] spell. There's likewise no specific game-mechanical effects (other than the obvious ones) for an Arcanist hitting an orphanage full of human toddlers with a Fireball. There's likewise no specific game-mechanical effects (other than the obvious ones) for an Arcanist who drops a Wall of Stone to stop that flash flood that was going to kill an orphanage full of human toddlers. Whether or not any given act will shift your alignment is, as always (well... except for things like a Helm of Opposite Alignment...), up to the DM.

If the DM hasn't thought up a 'why' for Animate Dead having the [evil] descriptor, then he's probably going to consider it a minor evil act. If the DM has decided that animating a corpse drags a soul back from the afterlife to be imprisoned in a cage of rotting meat and tortured for power while the poor soul gets to watch the body obey every whim of the necromancer, then he's probably going to consider creating undead to be a particularly evil abomination and your alignment will shift quickly if you use the spell a lot.

[killem2]

Not on a rules basis. There's no specific game-mechanical effects (other than the obvious ones) for an Arcanist casting an [Evil] spell. There's likewise no specific game-mechanical effects (other than the obvious ones) for an Arcanist hitting an orphanage full of human toddlers with a Fireball. There's likewise no specific game-mechanical effects (other than the obvious ones) for an Arcanist who drops a Wall of Stone to stop that flash flood that was going to kill an orphanage full of human toddlers. Whether or not any given act will shift your alignment is, as always (well... except for things like a Helm of Opposite Alignment...), up to the DM.

If the DM hasn't thought up a 'why' for Animate Dead having the [evil] descriptor, then he's probably going to consider it a minor evil act. If the DM has decided that animating a corpse drags a soul back from the afterlife to be imprisoned in a cage of rotting meat and tortured for power while the poor soul gets to watch the body obey every whim of the necromancer, then he's probably going to consider creating undead to be a particularly evil abomination and your alignment will shift quickly if you use the spell a lot.

I quoted a RAW entry. I mean if your DM wants to change the RAW fine, but that's a different issue all together :).

[TuggyNE]

I quoted a RAW entry. I mean if your DM wants to change the RAW fine, but that's a different issue all together :).

What RAW states that "ill effects" includes an alignment change with no mechanical impact on your character's capabilities? It might be potentially unwanted, sure, but it's not something like "loses casting and class features" or "can't use X for 24 hours" or whatever.

[Jack_Simth]

I quoted a RAW entry. I mean if your DM wants to change the RAW fine, but that's a different issue all together :).
You quoted a rule. I don't see it as being applicable to the matter at hand. I can quote rules too:

If you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

The trick is quoting ones that are widely regarded as applying to the matter at hand (the AoO one doesn't, as near as I can tell, neither does the one you used about Arcanists and Evil spells). Tell me: For an arcanist, where is an alignment shift defined as an ill effect? Besides: I haven't even necessarily said an alignment shift would necessarily happen. Just that the magnitude of the moral aspect of the act of casting an Evil spell isn't specified and is thus anything the DM wants. It's not a house rule to say casting Deathwatch is a major evil act. It's not a house rule to say casting Deathwatch is a minor evil act. Just like how evil an act kicking a puppy is. Just like how evil an act murdering an orphan is.