What is, objectively, the best alignment? [Archive]

eggynack

2015-08-28, 10:52 PM

On the other hand, good spells are pretty good for like Wizards and Druids.
They mostly need to be sanctified for this to be a factor. I dunno what the wizard list looks like with regards to good spells, but they can cast them no matter their alignment, and while evil druids cannot cast good spells, the quantity of [good] good druid spells is very low. Sanctified spells are, of course, a different matter in both cases, and luminous armor would act as a big incentive for druids to go full good even without the possibility of exalted feats (which are a strong incentive also).

Edit: Just fact checked that druid claim, and it looks like the best [good] druid spell is leonal's roar, or maybe blinding/unearthly beauty. Not especially expansive.

jiriku

2015-08-28, 11:00 PM

It's hard to point at one alignment, simply because there's relatively little mechanical advantage to any of the alignments.

In support of good-aligned wizards, I'd mention that when it comes to planar binding, most of the really powerful evil outsiders have arcane casting, which is really just more of what a wizard can already do. Many of the good outsiders, on the other hand, are powerful divine spellcasters. You can expand your versatility significantly with a long-term bind of something good-aligned with cleric casting or clerical SLAs -- and a good-aligned caster should have a much easier time with that bind, since you've got similar alignment, goals, and modus operandi. But that's a "soft" advantage, based largely in roleplaying and player-DM interaction, not in crunch.

Arguing from the other direction, many powerful demons and all powerful fiendish creatures can use blasphemy, and being evil allows you to walk right through that. However, that benefit only applies if you're an evil character battling numerous powerful fiendish enemies -- a campaign dependent factor that certainly can't be assumed.

OldTrees1

2015-08-28, 11:01 PM

Lawful Evil (actually more like Neutral Evil with lawful and good leanings).

You know how to work the system, usually to the point that it has to come to your defense.
You have more means available to you which means a greater chance at the greater good succeeding.
Oh and Evil rewards in this life while Good rewards in the next life. Guess which life the campaign focuses on?

Sagetim

2015-08-28, 11:15 PM

Only one alignment is completely trustworthy without being naive or stupidly idealistic. Only one alignment can play well with Good and Evil alike. Only one alignment allows you to save orphans with one hand, burn puppies with the other, and still win the party over with your perfect smile. Only one alignment can regularly stab people in the back, yet do it in such a way that they feel like they deserve it. Only one alignment does all this, and does it with incomparable style.

There's only one logical choice, friend.

Yes. Neutral Good. As a Neutral Good character I have smited evil with my fist (no, not with actual smite attempts, just general curb stomping). I have burned enemies out of their places of living. I have accidentally sacrificed the soul of a party member to an arch devil level monster and in doing so set him free upon the world. As a Neutral Good I have seduced drow and red dragons alike with my incomparable versatility in oratory performances. As a neutral good character I have killed kings, raised armies, wiped cities clean of undead, and killed a taint corrupted Nerull. As a Neutral Good character I have posed as an archmage, disarmed the traps in the king's treasury for xp, and leveraged the resulting explosion of artificier levels to make all the magic items that character ever needed. As a Neutral Good character I have seen the mountain top, I have seen the depths, I have been not only to hell, but also to Super hell, I have traversed the factured minds of a single entity and come out with not only my sanity in tact, but his as well. As a Neutral Good character I have worked with the full spectrum of alignments without any problems, save that when someone tried to **** the party over, no matter their alignment, they found out the hard way that it was a bad idea. As a Neutral Good character I have unmade a wyvern to near death, then saved it's life, then diplomancered it into serving me as a mount before I had it get increased intelligence and levels in warblade, whereupon I commanded it to go forth and seduce the wyverns of an enemy army to keep them occupied for about a month.

Neutral Good is the best alignment.

Taveena

2015-08-28, 11:29 PM

Okay, you know that 'objective' means 'not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts', and 'best' means 'of the most excellent or desirable type or quality', and 'desirable' is ENTIRELY subjective? This statement is nonsensical.

The only answer I can give is the one given by the Player Handbook, which states that Lawful Good is the best alignment, that Neutral Good is the best alignment, that Chaotic Good is the best alignment, that Lawful Neutral is the best alignment, that True Neutral is the best alignment, and that Chaotic Neutral is the best alignment. That is the only objective answer that can be given.

Or did you mean to say 'subjective', and confuse it for its antonym? They're fairly similar words.

Psyren

2015-08-28, 11:40 PM

Can't you still cast good spells when evil? I thought you could just not cast Sanctified spells?

Only clerics (and paladins) are outright restricted from aligned spells. Everyone else can cast them, even if doing so repeatedly might have consequences.

eggynack

2015-08-28, 11:54 PM

Only clerics (and paladins) are outright restricted from aligned spells. Everyone else can cast them, even if doing so repeatedly might have consequences.
Druids are held also to those restrictions. Might be others too, though I do not recall what they are if so.

Edit: Notably, there is at least one effectively [good] spell on the druid list that is probably better than leonal's roar, and that is SNA IV for a unicorn. Really great creature right there.

TiaC

2015-08-29, 12:38 AM

Can't you still cast good spells when evil? I thought you could just not cast Sanctified spells?

Actually, nothing says neutral characters can't cast sanctified spells.

Evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells, including ones cast from magic items.

Curmudgeon

2015-08-29, 12:44 AM

Chaotic Evil. You can serve Elder Evils for bonus [Vile] feats. You can take templates like Unseelie Fey (flight, DR, other stuff; always Evil), and Lolth-Touched (+6 STR, +6 CON; Chaotic Evil). And then you get the RP opportunities: slaughter your enemies or make them flee in terror?

Sagetim

2015-08-29, 12:47 AM

Actually, nothing says neutral characters can't cast sanctified spells.

While it may not say it on that page, some of those sanctified spells require a variety of things ranging from having celestial blood to being exalted, to being a virgin.

TiaC

2015-08-29, 01:38 AM

While it may not say it on that page, some of those sanctified spells require a variety of things ranging from having celestial blood to being exalted, to being a virgin.

Assimars can't be neutral? Virgins can't be neutral?

There may be a few you can't cast, but most of them work just fine.

Douglas

2015-08-29, 01:43 AM

Taveena

2015-08-29, 03:04 AM

I'm fairly certain that what he really meant was "what is the game mechanically most powerful alignment".

In which case the answer is 'it depends on what you're trying to do'. If we're talking sheer reality-smacking power, then LG wins just because Pun-Pun uses that LG nature to bribe Pazuzu. If we're talking grapple builds, it's CE, because Black Blood Cultist is so strong. If you're taking Leadership for a melee cohort that'll reduce the saves of your enemies, then you want LE, because Paladin of Tyranny has less prerequisites than Blackguard.

Considering it over the entirety of D&D with the thousands of potential build goals, it's borderline impossible to say.

Curmudgeon

2015-08-29, 03:24 AM

Actually, nothing says neutral characters can't cast sanctified spells.
Page 83 of Book of Exalted Deeds begs to differ.

SANCTIFIED MAGIC
For those willing to utterly devote themselves to good, great power awaits in the form of sanctified magic.
Looks like more than "nothing" there. You can't utterly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utterly?s=t) devote yourself to Good with a non-Good alignment.

TheifofZ

2015-08-29, 03:26 AM

In which case the answer is 'it depends on what you're trying to do'. If we're talking sheer reality-smacking power, then LG wins just because Pun-Pun uses that LG nature to bribe Pazuzu. If we're talking grapple builds, it's CE, because Black Blood Cultist is so strong. If you're taking Leadership for a melee cohort that'll reduce the saves of your enemies, then you want LE, because Paladin of Tyranny has less prerequisites than Blackguard.

Considering it over the entirety of D&D with the thousands of potential build goals, it's borderline impossible to say.

All alignments have mathematical reasons why they're good, with potent cheese to back it up. So really it boils down to "Optimization limitations on a build by build basis, and then personal preference."
And that wasn't hard to say at all.

And to the Sanctified magic argument, I have this to say. According to the rules, the Exalted feats and Sanctified magic are only available to characters who are not just 'generally good', but pure good. As in 'If the good alignment had, within it, a good, neutral, and evil alignment axis, where evil-good was occasionally lying or being kind of a jerk' then an Exalted character that is capable of using exalted feats and sanctified magic is a character who is good-good. They're the paladins in pure shining armor to paladins in shining armor levels of goodness here. A neutral wizard who occasionally kicks a bum and murders random people just because they attacked him? Cannot actually use sanctified magic. Not at all.
It's like saying that a kid's parents promise to get him ice cream if he gets above a 95% on his report card, and then he expects to get ice cream if he manages a 60% instead.

Taveena

2015-08-29, 03:35 AM

I mean... I guess, if you were particularly dedicated, you could run through every single feat, class and prestige class in the game, and tally up which ones have an alignment prerequisite - just to work out which is the most VERSATILE alignment.

Jormengand

2015-08-29, 05:30 AM

Page 83 of Book of Exalted Deeds begs to differ.

Looks like more than "nothing" there. You can't utterly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utterly?s=t) devote yourself to Good with a non-Good alignment.

Right, but all that says is that good people derive great power from them. It doesn't say that neutral people don't, and even if it did, it wouldn't say that neutral people are forbidden from casting them, only from deriving great power from them.

5ColouredWalker

2015-08-29, 06:06 AM

At first, True Neutral seems like the way to go. You can't be smitten
Wait? TN can't fall in love? Since when?
Smote.

LG. It's the alignment that that Pun Pun starts as, and no one can be objectively better than Pun Pun.
Unless you go based off the alignment that Pun Pun ends up, which I think is LE.

ryu

2015-08-29, 06:39 AM

Page 83 of Book of Exalted Deeds begs to differ.

Looks like more than "nothing" there. You can't utterly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utterly?s=t) devote yourself to Good with a non-Good alignment.

Ah but see that quote is irrelevant. It mentions good rather than Good. Those are two entirely different concepts in D&D, used in different places, and with different meanings. Both of those are also different from [Good].

Chronos

2015-08-29, 08:00 AM

One odd asymmetry I've noticed: Holy Word and Word of Chaos both work only on creatures that can hear them, while Dictum and Blasphemy work regardless of hearing. So a deaf Lawful Evil creature is immune to all four.

eggynack

2015-08-29, 10:14 AM

Page 83 of Book of Exalted Deeds begs to differ.

Looks like more than "nothing" there. You can't utterly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utterly?s=t) devote yourself to Good with a non-Good alignment.
Your quote is missing context. The following line says, "These spells require a great sacrifice from the caster in exchange for powerful results." This strongly implies that, for sanctified spells, utterly devoting yourself to good means making this sacrifice, and making the sacrifice is built into the spells themselves.

Jormengand

2015-08-29, 10:22 AM

Wait? TN can't fall in love? Since when?
Smote.

You know, I have a pet peeve for people who try to correct other people, but are actually wrong themselves. I smite, right now this instant, but yesterday I smote, and in the past I have smitten, meaning that right now, someone is being smitten by me, yesterday, someone was smitten by me, and last but not least, people have been smitten by me. However, none of them could have been true neutral, because true neutral people cannot be smitten by people, regardless of whether or not they can be smitten with people.

ZamielVanWeber

2015-08-29, 10:24 AM

Xuldarinar

2015-08-29, 10:36 AM

Chaotic Evil:

You can worship an Elder Evil for bonus feats.
Your motivation can be what ever you wish it to be, from the "greater good" to divine command to what ever pleases you in the moment. More often than not, there are no rules to hold you back.
More classes are restricted from good alignments than are from evil alignments.
Classes that are banned from being chaotic have some variant to them that can be.
Vile feats tend to be more powerful and varied than their good aligned counterparts.
Typically in combat you seek to kill your foe, something that evil provides more tools for (especially when we get into Incarnum).
Evil tends to hold some of the biggest power houses, such as the Ur-priest.
The most numerous alignment is CE. In 3.5 terms, between the far realm and the abyss, you are not running out of potential allies any time soon.

In pathfinder, the only outsider you can become without dying first is a demon, meaning chaotic evil holds the option of never having to die to become a prominent outsider.

heavyfuel

2015-08-29, 10:55 AM

Seems like Evil has the majority so far. Can anyone make a case for Good that doesn't involve the existence of Pazuzu (since he doesn't exist in all settings)?

On a similar note, do Elder Evils exist in all settings as a general rule? Because if they don't, Evil seems to have lost its edge.

And what's with people ITT incorrectly pointing flaws in my grammar?

Okay, you know that 'objective' means 'not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts', and 'best' means 'of the most excellent or desirable type or quality', and 'desirable' is ENTIRELY subjective? This statement is nonsensical.

Or did you mean to say 'subjective', and confuse it for its antonym? They're fairly similar words.

In which case the answer is 'it depends on what you're trying to do'. If we're talking sheer reality-smacking power, then LG wins just because Pun-Pun uses that LG nature to bribe Pazuzu.

"Of the most excellent or desirable type or quality" is only one of the definitions of "Best". For example, dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/best) also defines it as "most advantageous", which isn't subjective.

Wait? TN can't fall in love? Since when?
Smote.

LG. It's the alignment that that Pun Pun starts as, and no one can be objectively better than Pun Pun.
Unless you go based off the alignment that Pun Pun ends up, which I think is LE.

"You can't be smitten" uses the same conjugation as "A book can be written". You wouldn't say "A book can be wrote", so you can't say "You can't be smote"

Also, the argument of both you assumes Pazuzu exists in whichever campaign you're playing, which, AFAIK, is only true for the Forgotten Realms setting.

You know, I have a pet peeve for people who try to correct other people, but are actually wrong themselves. I smite, right now this instant, but yesterday I smote, and in the past I have smitten, meaning that right now, someone is being smitten by me, yesterday, someone was smitten by me, and last but not least, people have been smitten by me. However, none of them could have been true neutral, because true neutral people cannot be smitten by people, regardless of whether or not they can be smitten with people.

I'm fairly certain that what he really meant was "what is the game mechanically most powerful alignment".

Thanks!

Chronos

2015-08-29, 11:21 AM

One argument in favor of good is your allies: A character of any good alignment has natural allies among other alignments, but a character of evil alignment does not. With evil, you have to worry about the Blood War in addition to the Morality War. For that matter, as an evil character, you likely can't even trust those of your own alignment.

Plus, what allies you do have are likely to be more powerful for good: A solar is more powerful than a pit fiend or balor, a gold dragon is more powerful than a red dragon, and so on.

Sagetim

2015-08-29, 11:27 AM

Are we operating under the assumption that beings of the same alignment band together as some kind of club against other alignments? Because I generally assume that alignments represent (for mortals and those without alignment subtypes) how they choose to act most regularly. For beings with alignment subtypes, they have a literally inborn tendency towards something. They are wired to act certain ways, and only gm fiat can allow them the freedom to deviate from that.

In any case, if we're not operating under the assumption that each alignment is acting like some kind of giant club that everyone in the same alignment is banding together...then to say that chaotic evil beings have the largest pool of potential allies is inaccurate, or wishful thinking. Chaotic beings don't feel burdened by rules, which includes ideas like respect, honor, and making deals that you keep to. Evil beings are out for themselves. So when you combine these two things, you're going to have a really hard time trying to have reliable allies in chaotic evil beings. They might choose to be a loyal ally out of a whim, or when they see an advantage for themselves in doing so...but if they see a bigger advantage in betraying you, then their track record (alignment) indicates that they are more likely to do so.

This is why I vote for neutral good. They're flexible (being neither chaotic nor lawful), generally aren't looking to screw people over for their own benefit (good), and if you make a deal with them you can probably rely on them to uphold their end of (not chaotic). Oh, and they can't be Paladins. Which is actually super helpful because paladins seem to suffer the most from people misunderstanding alignments.

Edit:Do note that I'm not saying that evil can't work together ever, just that chaotic evil is going to have the hardest time of it and while there might be the largest numerical pool of potential allies...it's not a pool of reliable potential allies. If you want evil to work together, neutral or lawful evil would give you better generic results.

eggynack

2015-08-29, 11:38 AM

Seems like Evil has the majority so far. Can anyone make a case for Good that doesn't involve the existence of Pazuzu (since he doesn't exist in all settings)?
Sanctified spells are a pretty big one, as they're much better than corrupt spells. Clerics gain perhaps the biggest advantage from this, as they have the ability to spontaneously cast off of the whole list, and druids have a good advantage as well, as the list fills some gaps in their casting (with animate with the spirit being a big bonus). With the marginal value from feats reducing as you gain more and more of them, it's very possible that this diverse list of spells is sufficient incentive to go not-evil. That's in addition to good spells like SNA IV for unicorns on a druid, which is neat. Of course, from there you only need to show advantages of good over neutral, and that's an easier task. Casting luminous armor on yourself is a huge deal, and that can act as sufficient justification in and of itself. Not on a cleric, perhaps, for whom the broader variety of aligned spells makes neutral the likely best option, but druids don't lose much by picking good, and luminous armor overcomes a lot of those losses. That's in addition to exalted feats like exalted wild shape and companion. So, I guess what I'm saying is that the case for good is mostly druids.

Edit: Also, champion of gwynharwyf is very good, especially if you're taking the strict RAW reading that denies access to runescarred berserker.

Jay R

2015-08-29, 11:49 AM

If this question had a clear, unambiguous answer, then all optimizers would long since have gone to that alignment only.

That hasn't happened, so I conclude that it is situation-dependent.

eggynack

2015-08-29, 11:58 AM

If this question had a clear, unambiguous answer, then all optimizers would long since have gone to that alignment only.

That hasn't happened, so I conclude that it is situation-dependent.
I don't think I agree with your premise, that an answer means an answer that everyone uses. After all, not every optimized build descends into pun-pun, and by the same token, not every person wants their character to devote themselves to an elder evil for bonus feats. Oftentimes, optimization takes the form of optimizing a particular concept, or optimizing within certain restrictions, where those restrictions can be either explicit or implicit. I do agree with your conclusion, however. Alignment has a bunch of things attached to it, and those things are usually completely attached to certain classes or systems. Unlike race, where you're usually talking about a set of static advantages that various classes capitalize on to various degrees (though substitution levels do change that), an advantage that exists to one alignment on one class might just be completely non-existent with another class.

Curmudgeon

2015-08-29, 12:35 PM

Your quote is missing context. The following line says, "These spells require a great sacrifice from the caster in exchange for powerful results." This strongly implies that, for sanctified spells, utterly devoting yourself to good means making this sacrifice, and making the sacrifice is built into the spells themselves.
Both of the statements are correct. The sacrifice is required, and utterly devoting yourself to good is also required.

eggynack

2015-08-29, 12:40 PM

Both of the statements are correct. The sacrifice is required, and utterly devoting yourself to good is also required.
But my assertion is that the sacrifice is how you utterly devote yourself to good. That's what devotion looks like for sanctified spells. Besides that, as Jormengand notes, there is no requirement of utter devotion to good. By a strict reading of the rules, while sanctified spells are said to exist if you utterly devote yourself to good, that doesn't necessarily imply that sanctified spells do not exist if you don't utterly devote yourself to good.

Curmudgeon

2015-08-29, 12:44 PM

But my assertion is that the sacrifice is how you utterly devote yourself to good.
That's not utterly devoting yourself; it's only an additional specific requirement.

Nifft

2015-08-29, 12:45 PM

My current alignment is objectively the best.

It's what brought me and my Cohort together, after all, and we're both very happy together.

eggynack

2015-08-29, 12:49 PM

That's not utterly devoting yourself; it's only an additional specific requirement.
I think the most important thing here is that that line is, from a logical perspective, irrelevant. However, on the specific issue of utter devotion, sacrificing of yourself to good seems to represent a total devotion, at least in the moment. Tomorrow, you may utterly devote yourself to evil, but the critical thing is what you're doing at the exact moment you cast the spell. Whether you are or aren't good doesn't matter. All that matters is what you devote to good, and that is defined by the sacrifice you're willing to make to the cause.

Curmudgeon

2015-08-29, 12:55 PM

I think the most important thing here is that that line is, from a logical perspective, irrelevant. However, on the specific issue of utter devotion, sacrificing of yourself to good seems to represent a total devotion, at least in the moment.
"Utterly" is defined as "without exception". If you're lacking the matching alignment, that's an exception.

Extra Anchovies

2015-08-29, 01:03 PM

The BoVD sacrifice rules are one of the easiest ways to get an early-game Wish (and using it for an early-game wish is pretty much the sacrifice rules working as intended), so my vote's for Evil. Most other things balance out, because there are a lot of Good-only and anti-Good options, a lot of Evil-only and anti-Evil options, very few Neutral-only and anti-Neutral options. I think there's more stuff that's Lawful-only than there is that's Chaotic-only, so probably NE or LE is mechanically strongest.

Edit: Also, champion of gwynharwyf is very good, especially if you're taking the strict RAW reading that denies access to runescarred berserker.

I'm not familiar with this. Care to explain?

eggynack

2015-08-29, 01:04 PM

"Utterly" is defined as "without exception". If you're lacking the matching alignment, that's an exception.
"Devote" is defined as, "To give up or appropriate to or concentrate on a particular pursuit..." which means that what you are is irrelevant. All that matters is what you're giving up, and what you're giving up is defined through sacrifice costs. If you give up less, meaning devoting less "utterly", then you receive less "great power". That's all that that line means, and it really doesn't mean much. You're arguing from a surprisingly un-RAW place, I gotta say. I would expect you to go by the stricter rules reading.

Edit:

I'm not familiar with this. Care to explain?
I don't recall the exact specifics of it, but I think it has something to do with the way regional feats and skills changed with the transition to 3.5.

Sagetim

2015-08-29, 01:19 PM

I think the most important thing here is that that line is, from a logical perspective, irrelevant. However, on the specific issue of utter devotion, sacrificing of yourself to good seems to represent a total devotion, at least in the moment. Tomorrow, you may utterly devote yourself to evil, but the critical thing is what you're doing at the exact moment you cast the spell. Whether you are or aren't good doesn't matter. All that matters is what you devote to good, and that is defined by the sacrifice you're willing to make to the cause.

No, that's not what utterly devoted means. If you have utterly devoted yourself to good then it means your character does good things, always does good things, even when they are bad for the character. They cannot remain neutral and be utterly devoted to good, and if making sacrifices of yourself counts, then it also counts for an alignment shift to good. However, before you can even cast a sanctified spell, you need to be utterly devoted to good, evidence of which would come in the form of already being good aligned and most likely include having exalted feats that you have never lost access to. Like needing to meet the prerequisites of a prestige class before you can gain levels of it, sanctified spells have a pre-requisite of being utterly devoted to good (and there are things on your character sheet that indicate this, while just saying it does not).

Utter devotion is not something that has to be necessarily logical. That's okay. Because Sanctified Spells are Magic, they don't have to be logical either. But while we're talking logic, it's unreasonable to assume that a character who does not meet the pre-requisites of a prestige class can take levels of it. By that same logic, it's unreasonable to assume that you can cast spells you don't meet the prerequisites for. Just now, while writing this up, I looked through the book of exalted deeds at other material within it. The Exalted Arcanist is a perfect example of the requirements to cast a sanctified spell, because their entire thing is getting access to them as a spontaneous arcanist.

So, from that prestige class' requirements we can see that it requires Any Good alignment. Neutral cannot apply. That ends the argument right there. It does not require exalted feats to enter, but it does grant exalted bonus feats. Further, it requires access to feats that allow you to metamagic spells into being good aligned or consecrated. The implication being that you need to reflect on your character sheet that your character is devoted to good beyond just being good aligned, to cast sanctified spells. And while that particular implication may just be me reading too far into things, the class requires you to be of good alignment to take any levels of it. That's not an implication, that's not an interpretation, that's a straight out requirement.

eggynack

2015-08-29, 01:29 PM

No, that's not what utterly devoted means. If you have utterly devoted yourself to good then it means your character does good things, always does good things, even when they are bad for the character. They cannot remain neutral and be utterly devoted to good, and if making sacrifices of yourself counts, then it also counts for an alignment shift to good. However, before you can even cast a sanctified spell, you need to be utterly devoted to good, evidence of which would come in the form of already being good aligned and most likely include having exalted feats that you have never lost access to. Like needing to meet the prerequisites of a prestige class before you can gain levels of it, sanctified spells have a pre-requisite of being utterly devoted to good (and there are things on your character sheet that indicate this, while just saying it does not).
Two things. First, I disagree on your definition of "utterly devote." Devoting depends less on what you specifically are, and more on what you sacrifice specifically. You can be neutral and still give up of yourself to good. Such is the nature of devotion. Second, and far more important, that line is in no way a prerequisite. There is no implication from that line that you must utterly devote yourself to good for the power from sanctified spells to be yours. The line only means that said devotion does give you that power. You are reading a lot into the text that is not there at all.

Utter devotion is not something that has to be necessarily logical. That's okay. Because Sanctified Spells are Magic, they don't have to be logical either. But while we're talking logic, it's unreasonable to assume that a character who does not meet the pre-requisites of a prestige class can take levels of it. By that same logic, it's unreasonable to assume that you can cast spells you don't meet the prerequisites for. Just now, while writing this up, I looked through the book of exalted deeds at other material within it. The Exalted Arcanist is a perfect example of the requirements to cast a sanctified spell, because their entire thing is getting access to them as a spontaneous arcanist.

So, from that prestige class' requirements we can see that it requires Any Good alignment. Neutral cannot apply. That ends the argument right there. It does not require exalted feats to enter, but it does grant exalted bonus feats. Further, it requires access to feats that allow you to metamagic spells into being good aligned or consecrated. The implication being that you need to reflect on your character sheet that your character is devoted to good beyond just being good aligned, to cast sanctified spells. And while that particular implication may just be me reading too far into things, the class requires you to be of good alignment to take any levels of it. That's not an implication, that's not an interpretation, that's a straight out requirement.
This is all meaningless for sanctified spells. If sanctified spells said, "Prerequisite: Any good alignment," then that'd mean that you need to be good, but it does not say that. In fact, the specifically defined prerequisite is that you just need to not be evil. Good means you get access to that prestige class, which I guess is an advantage of being good, but it means nothing here.

Curmudgeon

2015-08-29, 01:55 PM

If sanctified spells said, "Prerequisite: Any good alignment," then that'd mean that you need to be good, but it does not say that.
The text does say that, in exactly the line you're claiming doesn't really mean what it states ("utterly devote themselves to good"). There is no mention of that requirement in the individual spells any more than there's a mention of the similar requirement in each Exalted feat; both requirements are stated once as general rules for the category.

eggynack

2015-08-29, 02:02 PM

The text does say that, in exactly the line you're claiming doesn't really mean what it states ("utterly devote themselves to good"). There is no mention of that requirement in the individual spells any more than there's a mention of the similar requirement in each Exalted feat; both requirements are stated once as general rules for the category.
But... it doesn't. That line doesn't imply that characters that do not devote themselves to good can not access this power. You're just reading that into the line because it seems like it should be logically implied by said line. You're hinging your argument on reasoning that is straight up fallacious in the most direct way possible, claiming that, because p implies q, therefore not p implies not q. The prerequisite could have been written into the general rules for sanctified spells, as is the case for the rule against evil characters using sanctified spells, but the line you're pointing to does not operate in any sense as a prerequisite.

Cruiser1

2015-08-29, 02:19 PM

For those willing to utterly devote themselves to good, great power awaits in the form of sanctified magic. These spells require a great sacrifice from the caster in exchange for powerful results.

Page 83 of Book of Exalted Deeds begs to differ.
Looks like more than "nothing" there. You can't utterly devote yourself to Good with a non-Good alignment.
All that statement says is that IF you devote yourself to good, THEN you have access to Sanctified spells. It does NOT say that if you aren't devoted to good, then you do NOT have access to Sanctified spells. This is equivalent to saying IF you are a cat, THEN you are an animal (which does not say that all animals cats). In other words, this whole statement is fluff, and makes no restrictions on who can cast Sanctified spells.

Evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells, including ones cast from magic items.
This is the true crunch statement concerning restrictions on Sanctified spells: Evil characters can NOT cast them. It may not "seem right", but by RAW neutral as well as good characters can cast Sanctified spells.

Taveena

2015-08-29, 04:48 PM

Chaotic Evil:
Typically in combat you seek to kill your foe, something that evil provides more tools for (especially when we get into Incarnum).

Relevant to that... Lawful Evil as an alignment for Incarnum is better than Chaotic Evil. Incarnate Avatar (Law) Double Chakra'd with Incarnate Avatar (Evil) - or, as another reading would have it, Incarnate Avatar (Law and Evil) - clearly provides a more focused build than Incarnate Avatar (Chaos and Evil). LE gives bonus to melee attack and damage. CE gives bonus to RANGED attacks and MELEE damage.

Necrocarnate has no alignment prerequisites besides 'evil', so for Incarnum, at least, barring some switch-hitter build that has high damage but low accuracy at range, and high accuracy but low damage in melee...

... Well. Lawful Evil is the best alignment for Soulborns, and a CE or LE Incarnate loses all their powers, so Neutral Evil has to be the strongest choice. As for Totemist, Any Evil is fine if you want Lamia Belt, and Any Good is ideal for Lammasu Mantle. Though it's worth noting it's VERY easy to get Lamia Belt's Competence bonus to Hide checks, so you're presumably after the extra two claw attacks or spring attack if you're binding it. (Or you want to face as a Totemist, I guess?) Which I guess isn't a TERRIBLE choice for omnimauling, due to the 6 natural attacks granted by Girallon Arms/Lamia Belt combob, but... I guess I'm not entirely certain that that one extra natural attack is strong enough to be unilaterally the 'best'.

Hrugner

2015-08-30, 01:10 AM

Whatever it may be, true neutral will happily emulate it with a UMD check.

Chronos

2015-08-30, 07:12 AM

If you're only concerned about it for purposes of using an item.

Taveena

2015-08-30, 08:27 AM

Nifft

2015-08-30, 08:31 AM

Weird thought, but... arguably Good, because from there, you can fall easily. It's much, much harder to rise from Evil. Regardless of the number of unlocks any given alignment gets, a Good character can immediately go "bored now" and explore new options. An Evil character cannot. Great point.

However, there's a counter-point:

Evil is better because changing alignment from Evil to Good demands a ton of spotlight-time. if you want lots of plot-attention, be Evil.

Taveena

2015-08-30, 08:33 AM

Great point.

However, there's a counter-point:

Evil is better because changing alignment from Evil to Good demands a ton of spotlight-time. if you want lots of plot-attention, be Evil.

I'll be honest, my aim at this point is to give as many contradictory answers as possible.

Adding to the pile: Chaotic Evil is the best alignment, because it means you can be a Tibbit with no strength penalty in cat form.

mostholycerebus

2015-08-30, 12:44 PM

Sagetim

2015-08-30, 12:57 PM

Virtually all long term campaigns have a Lawful component, some government or group running things. Very, very few controlling bodies make 'being evil' illegal or directly punishable, they punish observed actions. Yet, characters that are evil have more fluidity in taking actions that benefit themselves. An evil character can take good actions for selfish purposes and still be evil. But Good characters rarely get away with performing evil actions for a greater good.

Therefore, a Lawful Evil character maximizes their personal gain, minimizes duties to keep their alignment, and operate within campaigns with the least friction.

I disagree...but it may just be that I have DM's who don't punish players for being a little selfish here or there. As a neutral good character I have:

Assisted in the capture of an enemy bandit then turned a blind eye to the cleric turning it into a drider as part of an attack on a bandit camp, simply not told some of the other players what stuff I've identified is and kept it for myself (hello lucky roll staff of power). Dropped fire and more fire on bandits while they were sleeping from carpet back while poorly disguised as a dwarf (thus deflecting the blame for the midnight carpet bombing). Killed a party member by raining fire down on him to keep him from being killed by the monster of the week (wait, is that evil, or just a hard choice?). Set fire to buildings under attack by undead that may have had people in them (they had undead in them). Set fire to suspicious grass because it was suspicious (it happened to have undead in it too). Killed a king because he was a jerk, then placed his not a jerk brother on the throne. Put a beret on a balor before the party used a stone to flesh scroll to restore it from petrified state.

As Lawful Good I have: Punched an old man to death during interrogation (he was the leader of a plot against the king) then delivered his corpse to the castle's mage to cast Speak with Dead on him for proper information extraction. Threatened an old man with reincarnation as a means of giving him a new lifespan...with a lifetime prison sentence to match.

Hecuba

2015-08-30, 01:08 PM

All that statement says is that IF you devote yourself to good, THEN you have access to Sanctified spells. It does NOT say that if you aren't devoted to good, then you do NOT have access to Sanctified spells. This is equivalent to saying IF you are a cat, THEN you are an animal (which does not say that all animals cats). In other words, this whole statement is fluff, and makes no restrictions on who can cast Sanctified spells.

This is the true crunch statement concerning restrictions on Sanctified spells: Evil characters can NOT cast them. It may not "seem right", but by RAW neutral as well as good characters can cast Sanctified spells.

There's no rule that says a dog can't play basketball...

You're trying to use the Air Bud defense in a RAW discussion?

While I will concede that you would be correct under strict formal inference (largely as a result of poor wording on the scope), I'll also point out that you're so far out in the weeds that there are people healing by drowning all around you.

eggynack

2015-08-30, 01:22 PM

There's no rule that says a dog can't play basketball...

You're trying to use the Air Bud defense in a RAW discussion?

While I will concede that you would be correct under strict formal inference (largely as a result of poor wording on the scope), I'll also point out that you're so far out in the weeds that there are people healing by drowning all around you.
That's not what's happening here at all. The rules directly state that those with prepared casting, as long as they're not evil, have the capacity to do this. That sets the broad structure for the rules of sanctified spells. From that point, the onus is on the rules to set specific limitations on sanctified spells, or else said limitations don't exist.

In other words, I'm not saying that there's no rule that says a dog can't play basketball. I'm saying that there's no rule that says a good wizard can't cast fireball. You, on the other hand, seem to be claiming that good wizards can't cast fireball, even with no such rule in place. Calling upon the, "The rules don't say you can't," fallacy has its limits, and this is one of them.

DMVerdandi

2015-08-30, 04:09 PM

Air Bud Defense

My first gut-buster of the day:smallbiggrin:

------
Anyway, on to the topic at hand. Best alignment is Definitely going to be on the neutral spectrum. Personally, I would say either neutral good, neutral evil, or true neutral.

Neutral good
because if you decide to be good, you aren't letting any code of ethics outside of altruism affect your behavior. Laws are good, but people aren't made to obey laws, laws are made to help people, and when they don't, you need not obey.

Secondly because being too anarchic in one's mindset doesn't allow for the benefits of society to actualize in the individual or the group. Some rule is just, simply because it controls individuals who need to be.

Thirdly, to help others is to create friendships, associations, and contacts that can further increase your own strength, and to make them happy is to solidify those relationships.

Neutral Evil
Because if you decide to be evil, no fetters to your behavior exist at all. While you can work within a legal structure, you aren't dependent on it to get what you want, and you aren't so hell bent against the system that you can't use it when you need it.

Being evil doesn't mean you don't pay your taxes, and it doesn't mean you have to destroy social order, or dominate it. You can, but the choice is yours. This alignment is perfect freedom of choice REGARDLESS of the feelings of others, but it doesn't mean that you can't understand and consider them. You can! You can even be a nice guy! But, if there is something you want, take it, and do it in a way that gives you 100% success regardless of how it is achieved.

If you have to burn someone's cottage down to do it? Make it happen.
If you have to lie to the town guard and place the blame on your good neighbor, so that you don't get caught? Do it.
If you then kill the town guard, wear his clothing to get into the guard keep, steal some documents that tell you where the prisoner you had to rescue is located within the dungeon, make it happen.

You can save the day being neutral evil, or completely ruin it. The choice is yours.

Everyone else has waxed poetic about true neutral, so...

Anlashok

2015-08-30, 04:22 PM

because if you decide to be good, you aren't letting any code of ethics outside of altruism affect your behavior. Laws are good, but people aren't made to obey laws, laws are made to help people, and when they don't, you need not obey.

A lawful alignment doesn't require you to obey the law though.

Would also argue your bottom definition describes CE almost as well as it describes NE.

Sagetim

2015-08-30, 06:14 PM

5ColouredWalker

2015-08-30, 08:52 PM

Ahem. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPEeaxI0OPU)

I... Ahh... What did I just watch? Other than something funny.

DMVerdandi

2015-08-30, 10:38 PM

Ahem. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPEeaxI0OPU)

I have to concur, that for most beings neutral good, true neutral, or neutral evil is the best way to go.

:smalltongue:
HAHAHA! exactly.

Snowbluff

2015-08-30, 10:47 PM

UGH, fine. It's time for the truth.

Snowbluff is best waifu anime geographical feature crystal gem alignment.

Falcos

2015-08-30, 11:10 PM

CE or LE. Extreme alignments give the most protection to the potentially deadly Word of Chaos/Dictum/Blasphemy/Holy Word spells. Also, except for corrupted/sanctified spells generally evil magic is more potent than good magic simply because evil has more tools (undead creation and Mindrape for example).

While I'm by no means unilaterally stating that my preferred alignment is the best (It's True Neutral), I did feel the need to chip in with a counterpoint to this argument: Word of Balance says hi. (As does Words of the Kami, for that matter)

Psyren

2015-08-31, 09:33 AM

That's not what's happening here at all. The rules directly state that those with prepared casting, as long as they're not evil, have the capacity to do this. That sets the broad structure for the rules of sanctified spells. From that point, the onus is on the rules to set specific limitations on sanctified spells, or else said limitations don't exist.

In other words, I'm not saying that there's no rule that says a dog can't play basketball. I'm saying that there's no rule that says a good wizard can't cast fireball. You, on the other hand, seem to be claiming that good wizards can't cast fireball, even with no such rule in place. Calling upon the, "The rules don't say you can't," fallacy has its limits, and this is one of them.

I agree that Air Bud fallacy tends to get misused on these boards but I'm with Curmudgeon on this one. The default assumption is already that not every spellcaster with the slots available can use sanctified spells, therefore all limitations are indeed taken into account when asking "well then, who can use them?" Comparing it to a wizard casting fireball, which is not assumed to be specially limited in the same way, is specious.

eggynack

2015-08-31, 09:51 AM

I agree that Air Bud fallacy tends to get misused on these boards but I'm with Curmudgeon on this one. The default assumption is already that not every spellcaster with the slots available can use sanctified spells, therefore all limitations are indeed taken into account when asking "well then, who can use them?" Comparing it to a wizard casting fireball, which is not assumed to be specially limited in the same way, is specious.
From where are you deriving this default assumption, or indeed any assumption, about what constitutes the limits on sanctified spells? Sanctified spells are specially limited in the exact and specific ways they're detailed to be specially limited. That's just how the rules work. So, let's leave behind the fireball example, and instead use an example directly using sanctified spells. You have a wizard, and a perfectly good wizard at that, trying to cast ayailla's radiant burst. However, tragically, the wizard really likes eating chocolate. I would assert that the rules don't say that a chocolate loving character can't cast this spell. Should I instead take this limitation into account when considering who can cast this spell? After all, you've asserted that all limitations are taken into account, and chocolate loving is a subset of all possible limitations.

Segev

2015-08-31, 10:08 AM

At least in the case of the Incarnate class, NE seems to be the most optimal in terms of options. There are more Evil-aligned soulmelds than any other alignment, even before you count the Necrocarnum ones, and they tend to be as good as if not better than their other-alignment counterparts.

You can make a case for others in specific builds - if you need a particular bonus to a particular sub-stat (AC, to hit, damage, etc.) more than the one granted by the Evil version of some soulmelds - but by and large, NE is going to get you the most versatile and potent Incarnate you can find.

ryu

2015-08-31, 10:32 AM

Psyren

2015-08-31, 10:39 AM

From where are you deriving this default assumption, or indeed any assumption, about what constitutes the limits on sanctified spells?

I derived it from the fact that "utterly devotes themselves to good" is crystal clear as far as intent. You could certainly infer "but folks who don't utterly devote themselves to good can also cast these spells I guess" but I find that to be a rather disingenuous reading.

Jormengand

2015-08-31, 10:44 AM

ryu

2015-08-31, 10:48 AM

Psyren

2015-08-31, 10:53 AM

"A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." I guess that means sorcerers don't, then?

"A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list."

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make but a little further reading would have saved you some effort.

eggynack

2015-08-31, 11:14 AM

I derived it from the fact that "utterly devotes themselves to good" is crystal clear as far as intent. You could certainly infer "but folks who don't utterly devote themselves to good can also cast these spells I guess" but I find that to be a rather disingenuous reading.
So now we're in, "The rules intend to say I can't," mode, rather than, "This isn't how the rules operate, because Air Bud reasoning is intrinsically fallacious," mode. Except, first, intent has limited to no bearing on how the rules actually operate, and second, I disagree with your assertion that this is necessarily the intent of that passage. There are two separate modifiers in that sentence, after all, both "utterly" and "great". To me, this implies that those who go all in on sanctified spells, paying sacrifice costs left and right, are devoting themselves utterly, and thus get this great power from sanctified spells. Meanwhile, any expenditure less than utter will yield slightly fewer sanctified spells, and thus slightly less than great power. It's a sliding scale, in other words, from reasonable devotion to utter devotion, and from power to great power.

Is this the only way to read the intent of the text? Of course not. Intent is notoriously difficult to come to a unified conclusion on, and perhaps even more difficult to prove. Which is why I think that the truly disingenuous reading is the one that thinks it has some higher claim over the intent of the authors, and bases itself on that intent. Intent is murky, at best, which is why we rely on the rules as they are written. It isn't disingenuous at all to take the words as they are, as a result, and in this case grant sanctified spells to neutral folk.

Moreover, the available evidence strongly implies that the intent was for neutrals to have access to sanctified spells. After all, it would have been trivial to write "Non-good characters cannot cast sanctified spells," where they ultimately wrote, "Evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells." Your claim would have this be a mistake, one so blatant so as to be absurd, or otherwise be assumed to be generally redundant rules text beside the initial "requirement" of utter devotion to good, eschewing any sort of clarity in favor of players having to read the text incredibly closely. As before, this cannot be said to be perfect evidence of intent, but thinking that the argument against that intent is somehow airtight is ludicrous on its face.

Jormengand

2015-08-31, 11:32 AM

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make

If you'd quoted my entire post, you would have found out:

Just because X can doesn't mean not-X can't.

but a little further reading would have saved you some effort.

Oh, but it wouldn't have saved me any effort.

Psyren

2015-08-31, 11:51 AM

So now we're in, "The rules intend to say I can't," mode, rather than, "This isn't how the rules operate, because Air Bud reasoning is intrinsically fallacious," mode. Except, first, intent has limited to no bearing on how the rules actually operate, and second, I disagree with your assertion that this is necessarily the intent of that passage. There are two separate modifiers in that sentence, after all, both "utterly" and "great". To me, this implies that those who go all in on sanctified spells, paying sacrifice costs left and right, are devoting themselves utterly, and thus get this great power from sanctified spells. Meanwhile, any expenditure less than utter will yield slightly fewer sanctified spells, and thus slightly less than great power. It's a sliding scale, in other words, from reasonable devotion to utter devotion, and from power to great power.

Is this the only way to read the intent of the text? Of course not. Intent is notoriously difficult to come to a unified conclusion on, and perhaps even more difficult to prove. Which is why I think that the truly disingenuous reading is the one that thinks it has some higher claim over the intent of the authors, and bases itself on that intent. Intent is murky, at best, which is why we rely on the rules as they are written. It isn't disingenuous at all to take the words as they are, as a result, and in this case grant sanctified spells to neutral folk.

Moreover, the available evidence strongly implies that the intent was for neutrals to have access to sanctified spells. After all, it would have been trivial to write "Non-good characters cannot cast sanctified spells," where they ultimately wrote, "Evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells." Your claim would have this be a mistake, one so blatant so as to be absurd, or otherwise be assumed to be generally redundant rules text beside the initial "requirement" of utter devotion to good, eschewing any sort of clarity in favor of players having to read the text incredibly closely. As before, this cannot be said to be perfect evidence of intent, but thinking that the argument against that intent is somehow airtight is ludicrous on its face.

"How the rules actually operate" to use your phrasing, is that they tell you what you can do. Or in this case, who can do what. If a rule somewhere does not say you can do something, then you can't do it. Since there is a rule saying X can do Y, the onus falls to you to prove that "not-X" can also do Y.

The fact that there is a complementary rule saying "Evil characters can't X" is not carte blanche for neutral characters to be treated as though they are utterly devoted to good.

If you'd quoted my entire post, you would have found out:

Oh, but it wouldn't have saved me any effort.

Right, but I responded to that, so it still seemed like reiterating it was a waste of time.

My main point though was that your analogy made no sense. There is a separate sorcerer rule saying sorcerers can cast spells from the sorcerer/wizard list, so the fact that the wizard rule doesn't say this is wholly irrelevant.

Jormengand

2015-08-31, 11:57 AM

Okay, the point is:

wizards, druids, rangers, and paladins can all prepare sanctified spells, clerics... can spontaneously cast any sanctified spell.

Unless a provision such as "Evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells, including ones cast from magic items" would prevent a character casting such a spell, they can do so as long as they are a wizard, druid, ranger, paladin or cleric. That's because there is an affirmative statement allowing such characters to do so. There is no negative statement preventing you from doing so if neutral, only a positive one saying that good characters can do so. The burden is on you to show why a neutral character can't cast sanctified spells, just as it is on you to explain why a neutral character cannot cast fireball if you wanted to argue that.

Psyren

2015-08-31, 12:00 PM

Okay, the point is:

Unless a provision such as "Evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells, including ones cast from magic items" would prevent a character casting such a spell, they can do so as long as they are a wizard, druid, ranger, paladin or cleric. That's because there is an affirmative statement allowing such characters to do so. There is no negative statement preventing you from doing so if neutral, only a positive one saying that good characters can do so. The burden is on you to show why a neutral character can't cast sanctified spells, just as it is on you to explain why a neutral character cannot cast fireball if you wanted to argue that.

Being a ranger, paladin etc. is not mutually exclusive with being utterly devoted to good. Therefore, since both conditions are provided, a sanctified spell-user would need to meet both unless something elsewhere says they can ignore one.

eggynack

2015-08-31, 12:03 PM

"How the rules actually operate" to use your phrasing, is that they tell you what you can do. Or in this case, who can do what. If a rule somewhere does not say you can do something, then you can't do it. Since there is a rule saying X can do Y, the onus falls to you to prove that "not-X" can also do Y.

Well, that part's simple. The rules strictly define the set of creatures capable of casting sanctified spells as those with prepared casting (though within the given alignment set of non-evil). Spellcasters prepare the spells as they do any other spells, and that's permission giving right there. From that point, where all casters can prepare these spells, the game lays out specific limitations, those being that spontaneous casters and evil creatures cannot use sanctified spells. Thus, we have a range, and exceptions to that range, and neutral folk are not among those exceptions.

The fact that there is a complementary rule saying "Evil characters can't X" is not carte blanche for neutral characters to be treated as though they are utterly devoted to good.
All it is is an indicator, just as your quote is an indicator, of intent. You're trying to call upon a text citation to establish intent, but there exists other text that works to establish the opposite intent. Neither sentence is a strict rules answer to the question being posed, but rather a general indicator of what the authors were trying to do.

Edit:
Being a ranger, paladin etc. is not mutually exclusive with being utterly devoted to good. Therefore, since both conditions are provided, a sanctified spell-user would need to meet both unless something elsewhere says they can ignore one.
It doesn't matter if they're mutually exclusive. What matters is that the second is not a condition. It only really indicates that utter devotion is sufficient, rather than necessary, and it doesn't even do that given that further restrictions mean that just being a character devoted to good doesn't automatically mean sanctified spells.

Psyren

2015-08-31, 12:17 PM

It doesn't matter if they're mutually exclusive. What matters is that the second is not a condition.

That's the part you need to prove. "X can do this" is a condition, just like "wizards can cast spells from the sorcerer/wizard list," to borrow helpfully from Jormengand, is also a condition - Fighters do not have this line, therefore they can't do this. You need to prove that it's not a condition.

Jormengand

2015-08-31, 01:39 PM

That's the part you need to prove. "X can do this" is a condition, just like "wizards can cast spells from the sorcerer/wizard list," to borrow helpfully from Jormengand, is also a condition - Fighters do not have this line, therefore they can't do this. You need to prove that it's not a condition.

By that logic, one needs to be a wizard and a sorcerer to cast wiz/sor spells, because they're both conditions. Anyone who is a wizard, druid, ranger, paladin or cleric can use sanctified spells. Also, on an unrelated note, for those willing to utterly devote themselves to good, great power awaits in their form.

eggynack

2015-08-31, 02:04 PM

That's the part you need to prove. "X can do this" is a condition, just like "wizards can cast spells from the sorcerer/wizard list," to borrow helpfully from Jormengand, is also a condition - Fighters do not have this line, therefore they can't do this. You need to prove that it's not a condition.
Whether it's a condition or not, it's by logical definition not a necessary condition. The full list of prerequisites are, by strict definition, both necessary and sufficient to acquire the thing they're prerequisites for, and this line indicates that the thing in question is neither necessary nor sufficient (with the latter largely being a consequence of the presence of other conditions). Necessary conditions show up elsewhere in the passage, like the one about evil characters not being able to use these spells, and this isn't one of them.

5ColouredWalker

2015-08-31, 06:21 PM

I'd like to take a moment to extend the intent argument somewhat. Were good taken to imply Good instead of good, as Psyren states, that means that LG and CG characters couldn't cast the spells, as they're partially devoted to Law and Chaos as well as Good, preventing them from being 'utterly' devoted to good.

Just a thought I found a amusing.

Psyren

2015-08-31, 08:45 PM

By that logic, one needs to be a wizard and a sorcerer to cast wiz/sor spells, because they're both conditions. Anyone who is a wizard, druid, ranger, paladin or cleric can use sanctified spells. Also, on an unrelated note, for those willing to utterly devote themselves to good, great power awaits in their form.

So by your logic, Fighters, Warlocks and Scouts can use them too? After all, they meet the second condition, so why should the first matter?

Whether it's a condition or not, it's by logical definition not a necessary condition. The full list of prerequisites are, by strict definition, both necessary and sufficient to acquire the thing they're prerequisites for, and this line indicates that the thing in question is neither necessary nor sufficient (with the latter largely being a consequence of the presence of other conditions). Necessary conditions show up elsewhere in the passage, like the one about evil characters not being able to use these spells, and this isn't one of them.

The evil character statement is merely reminder text. It does not contradict either of the passages to come before.

I'd like to take a moment to extend the intent argument somewhat. Were good taken to imply Good instead of good, as Psyren states, that means that LG and CG characters couldn't cast the spells, as they're partially devoted to Law and Chaos as well as Good, preventing them from being 'utterly' devoted to good.

Just a thought I found a amusing.

That's a perversion, not an extension. It's a different axis - by your logic, Archons are less good than Guardinals, LG solars are less good than NG ones etc.

It's like saying you can't travel North anywhere on the planet except at the Greenwich Meridian.

5ColouredWalker

2015-08-31, 08:51 PM

It's like saying you can't travel North anywhere on the planet except at the Greenwich Meridian.

Sure you can, you head North. The world is a sphere not a plane, which is why whenever start on the north pole and take a step, you've technically only travelled South, regardless of facing.

Also, just sharing it as an amusing thought.

Psyren

2015-08-31, 08:52 PM

Sure you can, you head North. The world is a sphere not a plane, which is why whenever start on the north pole and take a step, you've technically only travelled South, regardless of facing.

...Yes, that was my point :smalltongue:

(I should have used that blue text everyone is on about.)

eggynack

2015-08-31, 08:58 PM

So by your logic, Fighters, Warlocks and Scouts can use them too? After all, they meet the second condition, so why should the first matter?
Mostly just because of the part from the second paragraph, "Spellcasters prepare sanctified spells just as they do regular spells." This is a strict definition of the operation of sanctified spells, and preclude the use of sanctified spells by characters that do not prepare spells. This is, in fact, the primary condition associated with sanctified spells.

The evil character statement is merely reminder text. It does not contradict either of the passages to come before.
I agree that it doesn't contradict anything. Wasn't saying it does. However, the difference between that line and your cited line is that the line about evil characters has rules impact, rooted in logic, while your line doesn't really mean anything in the grand scheme of things. Once the text gives broad permission to prepared casters to make use of these spells, and the text does in fact do so, it is up to the text to restrict that permission, and it never does so. That's the point, and rather wholly the point.

Psyren

2015-08-31, 09:07 PM

Mostly just because of the part from the second paragraph, "Spellcasters prepare sanctified spells just as they do regular spells." This is a strict definition of the operation of sanctified spells, and preclude the use of sanctified spells by characters that do not prepare spells. This is, in fact, the primary condition associated with sanctified spells.

Ah, but by your logic, that particular provision only applies to "spellcasters." Fighters are not spellcasters, so they can simply meet the one condition (devote themselves to good) and use sanctified spells without preparing them at all! After all, nothing in the text says they can't!

I agree that it doesn't contradict anything. Wasn't saying it does. However, the difference between that line and your cited line is that the line about evil characters has rules impact, rooted in logic, while your line doesn't really mean anything in the grand scheme of things. Once the text gives broad permission to prepared casters to make use of these spells, and the text does in fact do so, it is up to the text to restrict that permission, and it never does so. That's the point, and rather wholly the point.

You're right, the text does not restrict fighters in any way. Sanctified Spells ahoy.

eggynack

2015-08-31, 09:16 PM

Ah, but by your logic, that particular provision only applies to "spellcasters." Fighters are not spellcasters, so they can simply meet the one condition (devote themselves to good) and use sanctified spells without preparing them at all! After all, nothing in the text says they can't!

That's not really my logic at all. My logic is a simple refutation of the idea that p->q implies that ~p->~q. The rules need to say that you can do something in order for you to be able to do that thing, and from that point, the game needs to place restrictions on your ability to do that thing in order for such restrictions to exist. So, for example, fighters cannot shoot lasers out of their eyes. However, if the game allowed fighters specifically to shoot lasers out of their eyes at anyone within a mile, then you'd be able to shoot lasers at anyone within half a mile unless the text specifically said you were unable to for some reason. See, the thing is, this "The rules don't say you can't," fallacy is a real thing. It just doesn't apply here.

5ColouredWalker

2015-08-31, 09:22 PM

...Yes, that was my point :smalltongue:

Well then you're making an invalid point, because the Alignment Chart isn't a sphere, it's a 2D object. You can't head CE until you end up in LG land.

And it makes sense, if you're devoting yourself to law, that's time taken away from devoting yourself to good. It's quite easily to extend your reading of 'Utterly Devoted to Good' meaning Good Only, and take it to be NG only.
I wouldn't do that though, but I wouldn't even allow NG to use them unless they were attempting to use them for good purpose and presently devoting themselves to good. However, I agree with eggynack, and would allow Neutral casters to use them as well, though the process of doing so would likely cause an alignment shift.

Psyren

2015-08-31, 09:29 PM

That's not really my logic at all. My logic is a simple refutation of the idea that p->q implies that ~p->~q. The rules need to say that you can do something in order for you to be able to do that thing, and from that point, the game needs to place restrictions on your ability to do that thing in order for such restrictions to exist. So, for example, fighters cannot shoot lasers out of their eyes. However, if the game allowed fighters specifically to shoot lasers out of their eyes at anyone within a mile, then you'd be able to shoot lasers at anyone within half a mile unless the text specifically said you were unable to for some reason. See, the thing is, this "The rules don't say you can't," fallacy is a real thing. It just doesn't apply here.

Which is why I'm saying it did place those restrictions, by specifying devotion to goodness as a condition.

Even if I were to agree with you that Neutral characters could do this, I'd say it would only be true for the ones who are in the process of turning good - devoting themselves.

Well then you're making an invalid point, because the Alignment Chart isn't a sphere, it's a 2D object. You can't head CE until you end up in LG land.

Isn't it? LG, CG and NG are all paths to Exalted Good, per BoED. I would argue that you can head to the "north pole" of Goodness from any of them.

5ColouredWalker

2015-08-31, 09:36 PM

Isn't it? LG, CG and NG are all paths to Exalted Good, per BoED. I would argue that you can head to the "north pole" of Goodness from any of them.

No, diagrams of the chart in non chart form tend to show them as two overlapping hour glasses.... Or like a pool table with 68 holes.

The logic still stands. In this instance, it'd be a case of being able to be Exalted Gooder.

Even if I were to agree with you that Neutral characters could do this, I'd say it would only be true for the ones who are in the process of turning good - devoting themselves.

And that'd still be an allowance of Neutral characters to cast the spell, and I've a feeling it'd be on those sort of terms Eggynack would allow them, considering there the same terms I would.

eggynack

2015-08-31, 09:37 PM

Which is why I'm saying it did place those restrictions, by specifying devotion to goodness as a condition.

Even if I were to agree with you that Neutral characters could do this, I'd say it would only be true for the ones who are in the process of turning good - devoting themselves.
Except, whether you call the devotion to goodness a condition or not, it is definitely not a restriction. It's not phrased as a restriction, in any sense, and the logic doesn't support it being a restriction. You can look at the text however you want, but it's not going to suddenly start acting as a restriction.

Psyren

2015-08-31, 09:55 PM

No, diagrams of the chart in non chart form tend to show them as two overlapping hour glasses.... Or like a pool table with 68 holes.

The diagram is irrelevant in this case - all three of the top squares can be Highest Good (i.e. Exalted), and thus "utterly." There is only one North Pole. no matter which longitude you walk up to get there.

(Well okay, there's the magnetic one, but hush, I'm doing a thing.)

And that'd still be an allowance of Neutral characters to cast the spell, and I've a feeling it'd be on those sort of terms Eggynack would allow them, considering there the same terms I would.

They can't "utterly devote themselves to good" and stay neutral for long though. So at best the N is transient. This also fits with Eggy's claim that it is not a restriction. Even if you say it's not, your alignment will shift in short order so it's academic at best.

eggynack

2015-08-31, 10:01 PM

And that'd still be an allowance of Neutral characters to cast the spell, and I've a feeling it'd be on those sort of terms Eggynack would allow them, considering there the same terms I would.
Nah, I actually think the stuff I've been saying, which includes the idea that it's just not a restriction, which in turn means that a neutral character can cast sanctified spells no matter what. I mean, sanctified spells naturally make you more good, because I'm pretty sure that they're intrinsically a good act, but it's a thing you can counteract to stay at neutral. If you want to talk really silly stuff, consider the fact that corrupt spells don't even have the restriction against good characters using them.

Psyren

2015-08-31, 10:03 PM

Nah, I actually think the stuff I've been saying, which includes the idea that it's just not a restriction, which in turn means that a neutral character can cast sanctified spells no matter what. I mean, sanctified spells naturally make you more good, because I'm pretty sure that they're intrinsically a good act, but it's a thing you can counteract to stay at neutral. If you want to talk really silly stuff, consider the fact that corrupt spells don't even have the restriction against good characters using them.

If you "counteract it to stay at neutral," in what way have you "utterly devoted yourself to good?" Now those are beyond a doubt mutually exclusive.

5ColouredWalker

2015-08-31, 10:11 PM

If you "counteract it to stay at neutral," in what way have you "utterly devoted yourself to good?" Now those are beyond a doubt mutually exclusive.

Remember they use good, not Good. If you believe that balance is a good thing and you need to stay neutral, you could cast it, the way it was written.

I wouldn't let that one fly though.

The diagram is irrelevant in this case - all three of the top squares can be Highest Good (i.e. Exalted), and thus "utterly."

Utterly=Completely. You can Be L EG, but then you're still lawful, and thus not utterly.

I'm saying this mostly to point out that while you've twisted fluff into a requirement of must be good, that's merely because you chose to stop there naturally. You can extend it quite easily another step, and it makes sense.
However, since this is going in circles, I will drop the point.

Anlashok

2015-08-31, 10:15 PM

Utterly=Completely. You can Be L EG, but then you're still lawful, and thus not utterly.

I don't think it works that way. In fact I think there's a passage somewhere that makes the point that there's no less or more good (or evil in reverse) of the alignments. Especially since Neutral doesn't even imply purity in the first place, just neutrality on the law-chaos axis.

eggynack

2015-08-31, 10:16 PM

If you "counteract it to stay at neutral," in what way have you "utterly devoted yourself to good?" Now those are beyond a doubt mutually exclusive.
You haven't, I suppose. Or, I mean, I could argue that you devoted yourself to good to the extent demanded by the class of spells, because your devotion is defined by the amount you sacrifice, and said devotion strictly defines what you get in return (or it should, but now we're in game design territory), but whatever. Point is, that line still isn't a restriction. You're not going to magically get me to start accepting your premise that it is a restriction just by assuming that it is one.

Troacctid

2015-08-31, 10:34 PM

Curmudgeon

2015-08-31, 10:37 PM

Remember they use good, not Good.
They nearly always write that way, capitalizing only in headers or at the beginning of sentences. It's the reader community which adds the capitalization. From the SRD here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment):
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

eggynack

2015-08-31, 11:04 PM

The sacrifice component of a sanctified spell represents an act of Good. You can't cast them if you're not willing to give up a piece of your own self. Casting such a spell is, in itself, an act of devotion towards Good.

The book says Good casters cast them. It's not because Neutral caster can't cast them, it's because they don't. If they did, they wouldn't be Neutral anymore.
You're definitely doing a good act by casting these spells, but that doesn't mean that every casting suddenly shunts you up the alignment totem pole. A single good act is rarely going to be enough to change your alignment, in the same way that a single evil act is rarely going to be enough to change your alignment. Moreover, sanctified spells don't even feel all that significant to me, as good acts go. After all, you're giving yourself to good, but you're getting stuff in return.

Even if the overall amount of good in the universe increases through casting the spell, it's trivial to consider a character that couldn't possibly care less about that fact, and is just fine paying whatever price exists for a fancy bonus to AC. Said character could be perfectly willing to pay the same price to the forces of neutrality or evil, as long as they get that effect. Or, maybe they care somewhat that it's going to good, but it's not their main motive. Point is, an evil character might care about paying Good for their cool toys, but a neutral character would be unlikely to mind, and that doesn't strike me as a massive shift over to the side of the angels.

Psyren

2015-08-31, 11:13 PM

You haven't, I suppose. Or, I mean, I could argue that you devoted yourself to good to the extent demanded by the class of spells, because your devotion is defined by the amount you sacrifice, and said devotion strictly defines what you get in return (or it should, but now we're in game design territory), but whatever. Point is, that line still isn't a restriction. You're not going to magically get me to start accepting your premise that it is a restriction just by assuming that it is one.

So long as you don't magically expect me to believe that "counteracting goodness" and "utterly devoting oneself to good" are in any way possible for the same character barring some kind of extreme schizophrenia on their part.

You're definitely doing a good act by casting these spells, but that doesn't mean that every casting suddenly shunts you up the alignment totem pole. A single good act is rarely going to be enough to change your alignment, in the same way that a single evil act is rarely going to be enough to change your alignment. Moreover, sanctified spells don't even feel all that significant to me, as good acts go. After all, you're giving yourself to good, but you're getting stuff in return.

If your character's goal is to game the cosmic system by staying totem-pole-neutral, he shouldn't be surprised when his ability to use said spells gets shut off.

Templarkommando

2015-08-31, 11:21 PM

One of the things that has bugged me for a long time is that alignments are generally subjective in nature. To one person a particular act falls in line with a Lawful Good alignment but to another it doesn't. The objective I would use here from an RP standpoint, is that the best alignment is the one that lets you play the character that you want to play. This is why I generally play Chaotic Good Fighters that are actually wannabe Paladins because you get dumb rules instituted by DMs, and I just want to play a martial character that has the ideals I want to play.

Troacctid

2015-08-31, 11:23 PM

You're definitely doing a good act by casting these spells, but that doesn't mean that every casting suddenly shunts you up the alignment totem pole. A single good act is rarely going to be enough to change your alignment, in the same way that a single evil act is rarely going to be enough to change your alignment. Moreover, sanctified spells don't even feel all that significant to me, as good acts go. After all, you're giving yourself to good, but you're getting stuff in return.

Even if the overall amount of good in the universe increases through casting the spell, it's trivial to consider a character that couldn't possibly care less about that fact, and is just fine paying whatever price exists for a fancy bonus to AC. Said character could be perfectly willing to pay the same price to the forces of neutrality or evil, as long as they get that effect. Or, maybe they care somewhat that it's going to good, but it's not their main motive. Point is, an evil character might care about paying Good for their cool toys, but a neutral character would be unlikely to mind, and that doesn't strike me as a massive shift over to the side of the angels.

That's the case for most [Good] spells, but Sanctified spells are a cut above your standard Holy Smites and Protections from Evil.

Good spells don’t have any redemptive influence on those who cast them, for better or worse. An evil wizard who dabbles in a few good spells, most likely to help him achieve selfish ends, does not usually decide to abandon his evil ways because he’s been purified by the touch of the holy. On the other hand, there are certain spells whose sanctified nature demands a concrete, physical sacrifice from the caster (see Sanctified Magic in Chapter 6). No character can draw upon such holy magic without being changed for the better as a result.

Maybe it doesn't automatically shift your alignment, but it does explicitly push you in that direction.

eggynack

2015-08-31, 11:30 PM

So long as you don't magically expect me to believe that "counteracting goodness" and "utterly devoting oneself to good" are in any way possible for the same character barring some kind of extreme schizophrenia on their part.
I see it more as part of the definition associated with devoting yourself to good. Again, it's all about the sacrifice, and whether you end up sacrificing yourself to evil tomorrow, or even in the next six seconds, you're still utterly devoting yourself to good in that one moment by making your sacrifice. What you believe in doesn't matter to what you're willing to sacrifice, and so you don't have to be schizophrenic to do both.

I mean, one could argue that you're necessarily not devoting everything to good if you're also casting corrupt spells, because there's some stuff over there that you're sacrificing to evil, but then again, that's also true if you, y'know do completely neutral things with your spells. For example, let's say that a caster has two spell slots. The first, he uses for luminous armor, and the second, he uses for, I dunno, silence. Well, that character isn't devoting as much to good as he theoretically would be able to were he to cast luminous armor twice, so there's an amount beyond what he's devoting that he could devote, so he's not devoting himself utterly. There's no substantial difference, in terms of what's being devoted to good, between using that second slot for silence and using it for, say, lahm's finger darts. What you devote to evil does not change the amount you devote to good.

Anyway, that's the essence of the argument I would use in support of this idea, that utter devotion to good does not strictly mean being good, or even that you don't sometimes use corrupt spells. It doesn't really matter to the overall argument, however. Whether these things are mutually exclusive or not has no impact on how the rules operate, because the line you are working with is, again, not a restriction. We could have more of a back and forth about this utter devotion versus counteracting goodness thing, but it's not going to make the essence of your claim not be rooted in a logical fallacy.

If your character's goal is to game the cosmic system by staying totem-pole-neutral, he shouldn't be surprised when his ability to use said spells gets shut off.
I don't see what game there is to it. He's just a guy that happens to be neutral, and who, perfectly by the rules, has the ability to use these spells. Our noble neutral here isn't trickily rules lawyering himself into these spells. He's paying a price for goods and services that has been laid out by the forces of good, and the forces of good are cool with dealing with him because he's not evil. If his ability to use the spells gets shut off, then it'll be because he accidentally went too far down the path of evil, and wound up hitting that alignment.

Edit:
That's the case for most [Good] spells, but Sanctified spells are a cut above your standard Holy Smites and Protections from Evil.

Maybe it doesn't automatically shift your alignment, but it does explicitly push you in that direction.
I can agree with that. But, that's why this style of neutral character would typically be more of a, "Fighting for good sometimes and evil other times, to maintain balance," type, than a, "Staying strictly in the middle at all times," type. Not that you necessarily have to run it that way. I think that there's some room here for a few types of character.

Psyren

2015-08-31, 11:37 PM

Anyway, that's the essence of the argument I would use in support of this idea, that utter devotion to good does not strictly mean being good, or even that you don't sometimes use corrupt spells.

Then our differences are pretty clearly irreconcilable and there's no point in continuing.

eggynack

2015-08-31, 11:47 PM

Then our differences are pretty clearly irreconcilable and there's no point in continuing.
I don't see why. "Devote" has a clear definition, and it is, "To give up or appropriate to or concentrate on a particular pursuit, occupation, purpose, cause, etc." You don't have to give a crap about something to give up things to it, or concentrate on it. All that matters is your actions, particularly the action of handing things over. Besides that, again, this is all pretty secondary. Whether you agree with the assertion you quoted or not, the fact remains that it's the closest thing to irrelevant. You don't need to be utterly devoted to good to cast sanctified spells, so it doesn't matter what being utterly devoted to good does or doesn't conflict with.

Psyren

2015-08-31, 11:52 PM

I don't see why.

The part I bolded was for exactly that reason, so you could see why.

And yes, the definition is clear: "give all or a large part of one's time or resources to (a person, activity, or cause)." The qualifier "utterly" means you use the first one. To believe you can do that without changing your alignment means our very definitions of what alignment is are, as I said before, impossible to reconcile. Utterly.

eggynack

2015-09-01, 12:18 AM

The part I bolded was for exactly that reason, so you could see why.

And yes, the definition is clear: "give all or a large part of one's time or resources to (a person, activity, or cause)." The qualifier "utterly" means you use the first one. To believe you can do that without changing your alignment means our very definitions of what alignment is are, as I said before, impossible to reconcile. Utterly.
However, first, I think that my argument that such a requirement, taken by strictest definition, is impossible on its face is a fair one, or at least not a requirement met by any caster using non-sanctified spells. Second, the fact that you get something in return for this devotion means that your incentive could lie somewhere besides belief in the cause. If you were just handing over stuff to the forces of good, free of charge, then I'd agree that such a sacrifice would not be in keeping with someone that doesn't believe in the core ideals, but as long as you can get cool spells for making the deal, that can trivially be the reason for making said deal. If you pay someone enough, then they'll often devote their time to your cause whether they believe in it or not. And, finally, whether our positions on this particular issue are reconcilable or not, that doesn't mean that our positions on the overall issue, whether neutrals can cast sanctified spells, have to be irreconcilable.

DarkSonic1337

2015-09-01, 12:40 AM

I recall a certain character who utterly devoted himself to good without enjoying, or even particularly caring for good.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m374ilfc7T1r4jpm5o1_500.jpg

But to be fair, he's not exactly neutral. In fact...he's downright chaotic evil at the end.

ben-zayb

2015-09-01, 01:47 AM

So let me see if I got this right: One side uses an argument similar to how a strictly parsed simple If-Then script actually works, while the other side argues that Denying the Antecedent / Affirming the Consequent are what the former side suggests, but that these are still as fallacious in D&D logic as they are in formal logic. Is that it?

Anyway, to answer the actual topic: Good characters IIRC (or was that for Exalted only?) are not willing to do evil deeds for the greater goo, while Evil characters have no such restriction. Evil characters are the type to go though all the hoops just to do things that they can't normally do while evil, such as casting Sanctified spells. Dominating yourself (or a minion, who then dominates you as ordered) to follow a strict order of instructions that will enable you to willingly don a Helm of Opposite Alignment yet remove it at just the right time is a possible option for Evil characters. So basically, any evil, if only to give you the most amount of options.

torrasque666

2015-09-01, 03:07 AM

cleearly its the extreme alignments. after all, thats the requirement fir the best class, soulborn.

TiaC

2015-09-01, 03:16 AM

Obviously, the best alignment is True Neutral with four Rituals of Alignment from Savage Species used on you to give you every alignment subtype. (Isn't there some prestige class that protects you from attacks that only affect a subset of alignments?)

Anthrowhale

2015-09-01, 12:20 PM

Getting back to the orgiinal question, there are a number of powerful options with alignment dependent effects:

Red Wizard: LN, TN, CN, LE, NE, CE. Caster level 40 at character level 10.

Initiate of Mystra: LE, LN, LG, TN, NG, CG. Casting spells inside your AMF at level 11.

Vow of Poverty: LG, NG, CG. +1 exalted feat/2 levels. Combine with embrace/shun the dark chaos for tons of feats of your choice.

Hathran: LG, LN, NG. Caster level 40 for Holy Word at character level 12.

Serving Elder Evil: LE, NE, CE, 5 vile feats. Combine with embrace/shun the dark chaos for tons of feats of your choice.

Ur-priest: LE, NE, CE, early access to L7,L8,L9 spells at character levels 12,13,14.

Paladin variants: LE, LG, CG, CE. +chr to saves

Overall, I'd probably go with LG due to IoM + Hathran + save bonuses + possibly extra feats being so powerful. But, there are clearly some quite powerful alternates.

Sacrieur

2015-09-01, 02:45 PM

Alignments describe characters. They do not define them.

There is no, "You can't do that, your alignment is LG."

There's a, "If you do that, you'll move more towards the neutral alignment."

Taveena

2015-09-02, 06:22 AM

Isn't it? LG, CG and NG are all paths to Exalted Good, per BoED. I would argue that you can head to the "north pole" of Goodness from any of them.

I'm certainly inclined to agree here. The thing is that a character who is DEDICATED to Law and Good may in fact have less time to devote to Good... but a character who USES Law, for whom their modus operandi is using and modifying existing systems towards Good, is no less devoted to Good than someone who focuses on DESTROYING existing systems for Good. You may as well argue that a Neutral Good character cannot be Good either, because they are using alternately Lawful or Chaotic acts, and thereby not focusing on Good solely either!

Paladins are Lawful, but they are not dedicated to Law, only to Good. They just use Lawful and Neutral means because they believe that is the best way.

It Sat Rap

2015-09-02, 06:36 AM

The best alignment you can have is the one you have the most fun to play with. :smallsmile:

Sorry for that platitude. :smallbiggrin:

eggynack

2015-09-02, 09:03 AM

Alignments describe characters. They do not define them.

There is no, "You can't do that, your alignment is LG."

There's a, "If you do that, you'll move more towards the neutral alignment."
That's the case up to a point, but alignment absolutely does have mechanical impact on the game.

Xuldarinar

2015-09-02, 09:15 AM

Im just going to throw this one out there:

What about unaligned? or any condition that would make it so you, technically, lack an alignment for that matter.

Extra Anchovies

2015-09-02, 09:16 AM

What, TN? Unless there's a way to not have an alignment at all, in which case an explanation of how to do so would be nice.

Xuldarinar

2015-09-02, 09:21 AM

What, TN? Unless there's a way to not have an alignment at all, in which case an explanation of how to do so would be nice.

Im unfamiliar with how in 3.5 without just replacing the alignment system such as with taint, which I would assume to be the primary subject matter in terms of edition, but that doesn't mean there isn't a way there. But for an example, there is at least one way in pathfinder. The unchained Oracle's Curse, which provides the following at 5th level:

At 5th level, you have no alignment. You can become a member of any class, even one with an alignment requirement, and can never lose your membership because of a change in alignment. If you violate the code of ethics of any of your classes, you might still lose access to certain features of such classes, subject to GM discretion. Attempts to detect your alignment don't return any results. If a class restricts you from casting spells with an alignment descriptor, you can cast such spells without restrictions or repercussions. If you're the target of a spell or effect that is based on alignment, you're treated as the most favorable alignment when determining the spell's effect on you. Any effects that alter alignment have no effect on you.

Sacrieur

2015-09-02, 09:58 AM

That's the case up to a point, but alignment absolutely does have mechanical impact on the game.

Sure, the quintessential paladin's code of conduct gives a penalty for behaving in a certain way.

But that doesn't mean you paladin can't do that, it means that he receives a penalty for doing that.

eggynack

2015-09-02, 10:02 AM

Sure, the quintessential paladin's code of conduct gives a penalty for behaving in a certain way.

But that doesn't mean you paladin can't do that, it means that he receives a penalty for doing that.
You're kinda ignoring a lot of the stuff that's been discussed in this thread. Like, say, the fact that an evil caster absolutely does not have access to sanctified spells, and to take things from the other direction, that a good cleric can't cast animate dead. Moreover, even looking at your example, you're taking things in the wrong direction. Yes, a paladin can go evil, but the inverse is not true. An evil character, in other words, cannot go paladin. Now, granted, that's not exactly a big loss, but what that represents is a lack of access to certain resources on the basis of alignment.

Sagetim

2015-09-02, 10:17 AM

You're kinda ignoring a lot of the stuff that's been discussed in this thread. Like, say, the fact that an evil caster absolutely does not have access to sanctified spells, and to take things from the other direction, that a good cleric can't cast animate dead. Moreover, even looking at your example, you're taking things in the wrong direction. Yes, a paladin can go evil, but the inverse is not true. An evil character, in other words, cannot go paladin. Now, granted, that's not exactly a big loss, but what that represents is a lack of access to certain resources on the basis of alignment.

An evil character cannot go paladin? Well, not while remaining evil, sure. But there's always the example of that succubus paladin from ye olde wizards articles. It's not so much a matter of 'this can never happen' but more 'it's up to the DM if it's possible'. This is where your mileage may vary, some DM's will say that paladins have to always be super lawful good, pure, and cannot sway from their path or they fall forever or some such thing. From what I've seen, those DM's are usually *******s who try to nitpick anyone playing a paladin into falling for even the most minor of things. Other DM's will say 'no, you've been an evil alignment, so no matter how redeemed you might get, there's no god that has paladins who is going to want you as one of theirs.' Which is fair...most of the gods in dnd aren't exactly...nice. A lot of them are *******s really. Especially in forgotten realms. And then there are DM's who would say 'well, this character has redeemed themselves so far and so well that they qualify to be a paladin and have become one'.

But in any case it would require redemption first. It would require not being of evil alignment anymore. So (barring Unearthed Arcana's alternate paladins) there is no way for an evil character to go paladin while still remaining evil. But the potential exists for formerly evil characters to become paladins.

eggynack

2015-09-02, 10:33 AM

An evil character cannot go paladin? Well, not while remaining evil, sure. But there's always the example of that succubus paladin from ye olde wizards articles. It's not so much a matter of 'this can never happen' but more 'it's up to the DM if it's possible'. This is where your mileage may vary, some DM's will say that paladins have to always be super lawful good, pure, and cannot sway from their path or they fall forever or some such thing. From what I've seen, those DM's are usually *******s who try to nitpick anyone playing a paladin into falling for even the most minor of things. Other DM's will say 'no, you've been an evil alignment, so no matter how redeemed you might get, there's no god that has paladins who is going to want you as one of theirs.' Which is fair...most of the gods in dnd aren't exactly...nice. A lot of them are *******s really. Especially in forgotten realms. And then there are DM's who would say 'well, this character has redeemed themselves so far and so well that they qualify to be a paladin and have become one'.

But in any case it would require redemption first. It would require not being of evil alignment anymore. So (barring Unearthed Arcana's alternate paladins) there is no way for an evil character to go paladin while still remaining evil. But the potential exists for formerly evil characters to become paladins.
Sure, I guess. It seems almost like a semantic argument, rather than an actually impactful one. Unlike with many factors of optimization, alignment can be swapped without any mechanical impetus, but that doesn't make it stop being a factor of optimization, especially when changing parity usually denies access to whatever you were gaining from your old alignment. Not always though, I suppose, as you can, for example, go monk/barbarian by changing alignments between classes. So, this doesn't really eliminate the question as much as it just complicates it, though I'd assert that the struggle intrinsic in swapping alignments makes, "First go evil, pick up this stuff, then swap to good," a really tricky plan.

Segev

2015-09-02, 10:52 AM

For a while, I've had a concept of a "wild boy" who was raised by proverbial wolves in the wilderness, and thus had a level of barbarian at a very young age. He was eventually discovered and taken in by a monestary, where the monks taught him civilized behavior, to read, to think coherently, and to meditate. His vicious, wild, destructive behavior when they first took him in shames him now.

He still has a level of Barbarian, but he is loath, due to his now Lawful alignment, to ever dip into that well of feral rage in which he once wallowed. If he ever does, he fears he'll never regain control of himself.

Mechanically, he was CN with maybe a risk of turning CE until the monks took him in, and he's now LN to LG, somewhere in there.