Unseelie Template Question

[sage20500]

I'm getting ready to roll a Chaotic Neutral Barbarian brawler type character, can I still use this template on her? The way it was explained in the entry neither of her parents had to be the original unseelie, it could be one of her grandparents etc... does using this template inherently mean my PC has to become evil, or am I allowed to have her become Chaotic Neutral?

[OldTrees1]

Heritage:
RAW:You need to be a living creature
Fluff Weak interpretation: For you to have the template you need a parent that is a Fey or has the template.
Fluff Strong interpretation: For you to have the template you need a parent that is a Fey or both parents had the template.

Alignment:
Are you a PC? If so then your race has no impact on your alignment (Savage Species)
Are you a creature? If so then your racial alignment is a tendency not absolute (Monster Manual)

[sage20500]

Ok, thank you a lot for answering this, when I was looking this up online almost every example character I found was some kind of evil so I wasn't sure if i could still make it work. This fixes everything for me, now to find some kind of good aligned fey I can use as a back story for how I got nymphs kiss prior to starting at level 4 that could cast magic relatively well... I'm thinking of nixie right now.

(The casting of magic is mainly an explanation for how my character was able to get rid of the magical brands that were placed on her before she escaped from being a slave.)

[Harlot]

I think I have to disagree on the alignment issue: In the template it is specifically stated, that the alignment of an unseelie fey is always evil.
http://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/unseeliefey.shtml

It's the same with other tempaltes: Vampire = always evil, celestial = always good, half-dragon = based on the alignment of the associated dragon.

It is true that alignment and race are not connected, but though a template doesn't change the race (or base creature) it may often change the creature type, from say, humanoid , to for instance a fey, fiend, dragon or undead. And the creature type may sometimes influence the alignment, as stated with the unseelie fey template.

So IMO you absolutely cannot by RAW be both unseelie fey and neutral.

[geekintheground]

creature type doesnt effect alignment though. there are good/neutral/evil dragons, good and evil undead, good/neutral/evil fey, etc. the only one that DOES effect it is animal and thats just because they have an int of 1-2.

[Red Fel]

I'm getting ready to roll a Chaotic Neutral Barbarian brawler type character, can I still use this template on her? The way it was explained in the entry neither of her parents had to be the original unseelie, it could be one of her grandparents etc... does using this template inherently mean my PC has to become evil, or am I allowed to have her become Chaotic Neutral?

Okay, I see two questions.

First: Does it have to be one of her parents or grandparents? RAW answer: No. It only requires a living creature. Frankly, it doesn't even say it's an inherited template; it could theoretically be used as an applied one, which requires no genetics at all. RAI: Unseelie Fey is probably intended to be an inherited template. That means it's probably genetic, so you should probably have something about your parents or grandparents in there.
Second: Does it mean she has to become Evil? On the one hand, PCs are capable of moral decisions, and therefore can choose to ignore their racial tendencies. On the other, take for example the Vampire (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) template, which contains the text, "Vampires are always evil, which causes characters of certain classes to lose some class abilities." So, the template can effectively override your alignment choices as a PC. On the other hand, remember that "alignment is not a straitjacket." "Always Evil" really means that about 99% of a given race is Evil. (See e.g. Eludecia (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a), the Succubus Paladin.)
Bottom line? Ask your DM.

[OldTrees1]

I think I have to disagree on the alignment issue: In the template it is specifically stated, that the alignment of an unseelie fey is always evil.
http://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/unseeliefey.shtml

It's the same with other tempaltes: Vampire = always evil, celestial = always good, half-dragon = based on the alignment of the associated dragon.

It is true that alignment and race are not connected, but though a template doesn't change the race (or base creature) it may often change the creature type, from say, humanoid , to for instance a fey, fiend, dragon or undead. And the creature type may sometimes influence the alignment, as stated with the unseelie fey template.

So IMO you absolutely cannot by RAW be both unseelie fey and neutral.

RAW:
Monster Manual says that "Always X" is not absolute.
Savage Species says that the PCs are not bound by alignment tendencies (Savage Species, pg 102, Alignment Interactions, 1st and 2nd paragraphs). This is explicit proof for Races and Inherited Templates. In another area of Savage Species, it says that PCs get a will save when faced with a potential alignment change from changing their race/template composition.

So RAW: PCs choose their alignments, DMs can change PC's alignments, and WotC is staying out of it.

[Harlot]

Thanks for clarifying, OldTrees1.

I as DM I still would not allow it.
I tend to use templates etc. exactly as written in order not to warp the game too much from the RAW/RAI, the latter here being that the Unseelie Fey are supposed to be evil. If you have a choice, alignment is stated as 'Any'.

I do realise that sticking to exactly whats written here, somewhat sets me off from a lot of other gamers at Gitpg, but each to his own - so yes, ask your DM ...

I handle it like this: If a template is written as evil, I'd ask of the PC (or myself for that matter! Currently playing a Starelf Unseelie Fey Warlock - a combo I recommend.) to start out as evil but ofcourse allow for change during the campaign according to the gameplay and character development. So it would not be static, but it most definately would be the starting point.

[Divide by Zero]

I handle it like this: If a template is written as evil, I'd ask of the PC (or myself for that matter! Currently playing a Starelf Unseelie Fey Warlock - a combo I recommend.) to start out as evil but ofcourse allow for change during the campaign according to the gameplay and character development. So it would not be static, but it most definately would be the starting point.

Why not let them write it into their backstory instead? It seems like heavy-handed DMing to force a player to start out with a concept that YOU want.

[Harlot]

Why not let them write it into their backstory instead? It seems like heavy-handed DMing to force a player to start out with a concept that YOU want.

I am not quite sure I understand you. If the player chooses to build his character using a template that specifically sets the alignment as evil, then that is surely his choice? If he does not want to be (start out!) evil, he shouldn't use the template at all.

Ignoring the stated alignment of a template to harvest all of the benefits while still qualifying for feats or PrC's or whatever that require quite an opposite/other alignment (which is EXACTLY what the OP is trying to achieve here) is not OK by me.

If a player wants all of the advantages of any given template up front, at least he should work for quite a while to get rid of the disadvantages. That is why I do not like the 'backstory' solution. It is unbalanced.

It may be rather heavyhanded, I'll admit to that.
I have sadly experienced quite a few games where a very loose approach to the use of templates, monsters as characters etc. has severely unbalanced the game. I am strongly opposed to it.

OldTrees1 explained that it is appearently doable by RAW and should be up to the DM.
I wouldn't allow it, others would allow that and more.
Which is why through trial and error most DMs and players eventually end up getting their HEA.

[OldTrees1]

I am not quite sure I understand you. If the player chooses to build his character using a template that specifically sets the alignment as evil, then that is surely his choice? If he does not want to be (start out!) evil, he shouldn't use the template at all.

Ignoring the stated alignment of a template to harvest all of the benefits while still qualifying for feats or PrC's or whatever that require quite an opposite/other alignment (which is EXACTLY what the OP is trying to achieve here) is not OK by me.

If a player wants all of the advantages of any given template up front, at least he should work for quite a while to get rid of the disadvantages. That is why I do not like the 'backstory' solution. It is unbalanced.

It may be rather heavyhanded, I'll admit to that.
I have sadly experienced quite a few games where a very loose approach to the use of templates, monsters as characters etc. has severely unbalanced the game. I am strongly opposed to it.

OldTrees1 explained that it is appearently doable by RAW and should be up to the DM.
I wouldn't allow it, others would allow that and more.
Which is why through trial and error most DMs and players eventually end up getting their HEA.

Your way is more restrictive than the norm but that does not invalidate it.

I would like to explain how I see the RAI of the matter so you can give your feedback on if you prefer your rule over my interpretation of RAI. (This can be taken as an argument about RAW but that is not my intent today)

The way I see it, the authors gave each generic creature(non unique statblock) an alignment probability distribution. They did this using race stat blocks and templates that alter the race stat block. In the alignment section of the race stat block they used (poorly chosen) keyword quantifiers (often, usually, always) that they defined later in the same book. Then they ruled templates alter the race stat block. So the Alignment section of a template alters the Alignment section of the race stat block, not the Alignment of an individual. This means the (poorly chosen) keyword quantifiers are intended to be referenced with both races and templates.

In practice this means the player wanting to play a non-good Unicorn("always" good) would have the same rules as the player wanting to play a non-evil Vampire("always" evil).

Sidenote: One reason I reject rigorous alignment interpretations at my table is that I have needed redeemable monsters in order to prevent desensitized jaded hack and slash. All DMs have some changes they need to adopt to accommodate the players they deal with. Your restrictions sound similar.

[VoxRationis]

RAW:
Monster Manual says that "Always X" is not absolute.
Savage Species says that the PCs are not bound by alignment tendencies (Savage Species, pg 102, Alignment Interactions, 1st and 2nd paragraphs). This is explicit proof for Races and Inherited Templates.

So RAW: PCs choose their alignments, DMs can change PC's alignments, and WotC is staying out of it.

I notice that people here tend to spit on Savage Species except when it can help justify their special snowflake monster characters. In any case, of COURSE it would say that; if it didn't, it would be much harder to sell the book because 90% of the content would be barred to people who didn't want to play evil characters.
In any case, while the RAW mechanical description of the template doesn't talk about inheritance, the description immediately before that talks a lot about how inheritance is a key part of it. Ignoring descriptive text just because it doesn't have a bolded colon right before it is ignoring a part of the game just as much as conveniently ignoring, for example, that cold iron bypasses fey DR. While DMs are free to change that sort of thing, they're also free to change the mechanical aspects of the game via house rules, so that's not an actual point of difference between description and mechanics.
That said, to my recollection, the template's description talks about how the fey point of ancestry is often some distance in the past, so I don't think your immediate parents would have to be pure fey; they'd just have the template too.

[OldTrees1]

I notice that people here tend to spit on Savage Species except when it can help justify their special snowflake monster characters. In any case, of COURSE it would say that; if it didn't, it would be much harder to sell the book because 90% of the content would be barred to people who didn't want to play evil characters.
In any case, while the RAW mechanical description of the template doesn't talk about inheritance, the description immediately before that talks a lot about how inheritance is a key part of it. Ignoring descriptive text just because it doesn't have a bolded colon right before it is ignoring a part of the game just as much as conveniently ignoring, for example, that cold iron bypasses fey DR. While DMs are free to change that sort of thing, they're also free to change the mechanical aspects of the game via house rules, so that's not an actual point of difference between description and mechanics.
That said, to my recollection, the template's description talks about how the fey point of ancestry is often some distance in the past, so I don't think your immediate parents would have to be pure fey; they'd just have the template too.
1) I have not noticed people spitting on Savage Species any more than they spit on anything else with good intentions and poor execution. (Savage Species's Monster Classes have Fixes just as Fighter has Fixes)
2) Savage Species is mostly just repeating what was in the Monster Manual(the primary source on monsters).


Sidenote: It appears (from your word choice) like you were under the false impression that someone argued against inheritance being necessary.

[Sith_Happens]

"Always [alignment]" means that the creature is actually born that alignment, but does not prohibit alignment changes later in life. These are simply obscenely rare and (according to the article on Eludicea) a constant uphill battle to not revert to one's "natural" alignment.

[torrasque666]

Sidenote: It appears (from your word choice) like you were under the false impression that someone argued against inheritance being necessary.
Well there was this bit:
Okay, I see two questions.

First: Does it have to be one of her parents or grandparents?

RAW answer: No. It only requires a living creature. Frankly, it doesn't even say it's an inherited template; it could theoretically be used as an applied one, which requires no genetics at all.
RAI: Unseelie Fey is probably intended to be an inherited template. That means it's probably genetic, so you should probably have something about your parents or grandparents in there.



Emphasis mine.

[OldTrees1]

Well there was this bit:



Okay, I see two questions.

First: Does it have to be one of her parents or grandparents?
RAW answer: No. It only requires a living creature. Frankly, it doesn't even say it's an inherited template; it could theoretically be used as an applied one, which requires no genetics at all.
RAI: Unseelie Fey is probably intended to be an inherited template. That means it's probably genetic, so you should probably have something about your parents or grandparents in there.

Emphasis mine.

Emphasis mine.

Usually when someone mentions both RAW and RAI, they are in the RAI > RAW camp.

[Red Fel]

Emphasis mine.

Usually when someone mentions both RAW and RAI, they are in the RAI > RAW camp.

And then there was this bit:
Bottom line? Ask your DM.

I'm not in the "RAI > RAW" camp. I'm in the "Ask your DM" camp.

I recognize that sometimes RAW is ambiguous, or just plain absurd. When it is, I turn to the RAI, but I don't rely on it. Why? Because unless I'm DMing, I'm not the ultimate arbiter of the rules. As such, I refer to RAI as "persuasive, but not binding authority." That is, it's a reasonable basis for an appeal to the DM.

When I am DMing, the same rule applies. I am receptive to RAI-based arguments, but similarly receptive to RAW-based ones.

When I mention both RAW and RAI, I'm not saying it because I necessarily favor one over the other. (If I did favor one, I'd say so.) I'm mentioning both because I think you need both to form an informed opinion and craft an effective appeal to your DM.

[OldTrees1]

And then there was this bit:

I'm not in the "RAI > RAW" camp. I'm in the "Ask your DM" camp.

My mistake. Although the "Ask your DM" camp is not a separate camp and is in fact the vast majority of all players.

[Red Fel]

My mistake. Although the "Ask your DM" camp is not a separate camp and is in fact the vast majority of all players.

It's a great camp, to be fair. We have arts and crafts every Wednesday, and a high ropes course!

Why, this one time, at Ask Your DM Camp...

[Harlot]

"Always [alignment]" means that the creature is actually born that alignment, but does not prohibit alignment changes later in life. These are simply obscenely rare and (according to the article on Eludicea) a constant uphill battle to not revert to one's "natural" alignment.

Oh, nice, totally supports my view of the world.
*happy sigh*

On that note: Come to the RAW side. We have cookies!

[Thurbane]

Ugh...alignment issues. Always guaranteed to be sticky. Drow TWF Rangers and Succubi Paladins ahoy! :smalltongue:

FWIW, I'm firmly in the "if you don't want to be evil, don't pick an 'always evil' template" camp.

Besides which, Unseelie Fey is badly written, and more than a little OP for LA +0 (in the average game). Of course, if you're an Unseelie Fey Barbarian alongside Codzilla and Batman Wizards, then it's not much of an issue.