[PF] Coven Hex

[Blyte]

the current version, like quite a few hexes, seems inherently evil.

just trying to think of an alternate allowing good witches to form a coven, minus the "hag".

I guess a simple fix would be removing the actual hag member requirement.

would it be overpowered to allow the originating member, to draw other witches to a common patron? I guess acting as leadership for witches, becoming the head witch/warlock?

edit:
a little back story.. my character encountered a shrine to a long forgotten diety, and gained favor from him. he decided to switch to him as a patron(healing), and now my lawful good witch(warlock) wants to try and form some type of alternative priesthood to this forgotten diety and become a coven(cult) leader.

[watchwood]

You could use to downtime rules to buy several more witches as apprentices or something, and form your own coven.

[Akolbi]

Doesn't it say that the witch acts as a hag for the purpose of forming a coven? I would think you could just find other good witches with the same hex.

[Dalebert]

See my recent thread called Why no good hags? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=319406)

The language should be clearer. It says you are considered a hag for joining a hag coven and then says you need at least one hag. That implies you're all set if you have the hex. However, if you actually look into hag covens under the creature "hags", it says it takes three hags to form a coven. So when it says you need at least one hag, it appears to mean that you need one "real" hag. The other two could be witches with the coven hex.

It's really up to the DM. Hags are all described as being the very stereotype of pure evil. If your DM isn't into having all of his NPCs be generic stereotypes, then there may be some good, or at least more neutral, hags out there. As long as we're being inspired by fairy tales, maybe a few have had life-changing experiences with a hero who was kind to them despite how evil they were and they turned over a new life. *shrug*

I'm really bored with this other cliche of ugliness always being associated with evil. In real life, I find it's often the other way around. Often the beautiful are incredibly shallow. Seems like the truly hideous would occasionally try to prove their worth in non-shallow ways, i.e. decide to be very good.

[Spuddles]

See my recent thread called Why no good hags? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=319406)

The language should be clearer. It says you are considered a hag for joining a hag coven and then says you need at least one hag. That implies you're all set if you have the hex. However, if you actually look into hag covens under the creature "hags", it says it takes three hags to form a coven. So when it says you need at least one hag, it appears to mean that you need one "real" hag. The other two could be witches with the coven hex.

It's really up to the DM. Hags are all described as being the very stereotype of pure evil. If your DM isn't into having all of his NPCs be generic stereotypes, then there may be some good, or at least more neutral, hags out there. As long as we're being inspired by fairy tales, maybe a few have had life-changing experiences with a hero who was kind to them despite how evil they were and they turned over a new life. *shrug*

I'm really bored with this other cliche of ugliness always being associated with evil. In real life, I find it's often the other way around. Often the beautiful are incredibly shallow. Seems like the truly hideous would occasionally try to prove their worth in non-shallow ways, i.e. decide to be very good.

Shallowness isnt evil.

[Blyte]

yes, it does imply that you require an *actual bonified hag*, not someone who "counts as a hag".

even if you had alternative good hags, this would never allow a PC witch to be the coven leader. he/she would always be outclassed by the true hag, and quite replaceable.

so, once again, do you think it would be OP to allow a PC to use it like leadership for incorporating NPC fledgling witches under him/her?

[Dalebert]

Shallowness isnt evil.

Not saying it is, but it's one of many things that can be the seed. Think of Snow White's stepmother who wanted Snow White killed because the mirror said she was prettier than the stepmother.

Someone's got a sig that I see frequently that says selfishness isn't evil. It says selfish is neutral. I have a beef with that. It's all about degrees. Generosity is often seen as a good non-neutral trait and selfishness is the opposite. Someone can be selfish enough that they don't risk their life to help others, or a little more selfish that they let someone die because saving them would have taken a small amount of effort that they weren't willing to put forth, or enough that they don't tell the party about some treasure they found, or enough to steal some treasure, or enough to kill someone to take their stuph, or because they're in love with someone and the other person is in their way. Selfishness is an evil trait. You could just say your character isn't selfish enough to be considered evil but is just neutral-selfish.

By the same reasoning, Snow White's stepmother was shallow to a degree that made her evil. Her self-worth was exclusively defined by being the prettiest.

[Blyte]

Not saying it is

you definitely implied it. but I'd agree that all those celebrity magazine subscribers are evil to the core.

[Grollub]

I'd slap a helm of opposite alignment on a hag, then take it as a cohort thru leadership...

find another witch ..

baaam coven!