PDA

View Full Version : have any of you killed a pc because



Pages : [1] 2

denthor
2015-12-08, 05:08 PM
I ran a 1/2 orc wizard others at the table purposely killed the character stating 1/2 orcs are not a wizard class. You wasted good rolls.

Geddy2112
2015-12-08, 05:15 PM
What in the actual F?

I would never play with people like that, ever. They killed your character for not being an ideal class build?! And not just that they gave you flak during character creation, but they actually incited PvP, and killed your character because it was not optimized....That is far beyond being a powergaming munchkin, that is just being a jerk.

Keltest
2015-12-08, 05:18 PM
What in the actual F?

I would never play with people like that, ever. They killed your character for not being an ideal class build?! And not just that they gave you flak during character creation, but they actually incited PvP, and killed your character because it was not optimized....That is far beyond being a powergaming munchkin, that is just being a jerk.

Indeed. I hope you left the table after that. They don't deserve to play with anybody.

Âmesang
2015-12-08, 05:19 PM
That's stupid. That's really, really stupid. Half-orcs may not be the most optimized class for wizards, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be wizards. Hell, the unusualness of the situation makes me want to know why the half-orc's a wizard! I'd say that offers some great potential for an interesting backstory!

In my last group's "last" session we killed a PC because his character had gone insane and the player himself was moving away (his father, another player, had his character coincidentally get shifted to the Elemental Plane of Earth). As such the majority of the party decided to send off the character… by killing him. :smallannoyed:

I just find it distasteful to kill off someone's character purposefully, whether as a player or as a referee, and my character… who's chaotic-evil, oddly enough… had all of the tools necessary to un-insane the guy (always keep a scroll of limited wish hanging around). All the party had to do was restrain the guy and it'd be done. They even argued that my character shouldn't care one way or another because she's chaotic-evil, however she's an intelligent (though not necessarily wise) chaotic-evil — why in the world would anyone just throw away a useful tool/meatshield like that?

(The whole time I was suggesting that once un-insaned the player's character could, after some scrying, be shifted over to the Elemental Plane of Earth to track down his father's player, giving, what I believed, would be a much more noble send-off for both of 'em. Ah, well.)

Knaight
2015-12-08, 05:24 PM
I've GMed games which had a bit of friendly fire, but this is ridiculous even by those standards. PCs dying because other PCs fled to save their own necks? Sure. PCs dying because it was hit them and finish off a deadly enemy or let the deadly enemy escape? Sure. A PC dying because the player was annoyed at the other player who fled to save their own neck and abandoned their previous character? Sure. All of these were games GMed as a teenager, none of these were high points, the players were generally younger teenagers, and even in that dynamic this sort of thing stands out as completely out of hand.

DaveSonOfDave
2015-12-08, 05:29 PM
Things like this are why I make it very clear that I don't allow PvP whenever I DM. It becomes too easy for other people to ruin the experience of the other players for the pettiest of reasons.

Blackhawk748
2015-12-08, 05:42 PM
............ *goes to get his +1 Jerkbane Greataxe*

TheTeaMustFlow
2015-12-08, 06:18 PM
............ *goes to get his +1 Jerkbane Greataxe*

Now that would be a nice thing to have.

TheIronGolem
2015-12-08, 07:48 PM
I ran a 1/2 orc wizard others at the table purposely killed the character stating 1/2 orcs are not a wizard class. You wasted good rolls.

If your DM actually allowed this to happen, he owes you a free resurrection. Along with an apology, which those other players also owe you. They wasted your good rolls, not you.

Amphetryon
2015-12-08, 07:57 PM
Things like this are why I make it very clear that I don't allow PvP whenever I DM. It becomes too easy for other people to ruin the experience of the other players for the pettiest of reasons.

OTOH, I have seen Players use a DM's "no PvP" rule to be gigantic jerkwaffles to various members of the party, or to dig their heels in and refuse to follow the rest of the group unless they get their way.

MrStabby
2015-12-08, 08:04 PM
So there was a PVP that killed off the players after they just straight up attacked someone because they thought they had a shiny sword and wanted it in one of my games. The two paladins and cleric of helm in the party were not impressed. When that character "resisted arrest" they killed him.

Theodred theOld
2015-12-08, 11:04 PM
I generally don't allow PvP when I DM, allowing described conflicts instead and calling for a simple opposed roll when necessary to resolve a conflict. That being said, I do enjoy setting the players against each other now and again, especially if they don't realize that it's happening. In a low (2-5) level campaign I presented a set of 5 artifacts to be collected. After collecting the first and finding that it provided a +2 to dex they eagerly set off after the next figuring that each player would get a nice boost to there primary stat. After collecting the second (+2 str) they discovered that if one character held both of the artifacts the effect became +4 to each stat. I spent the rest of that session grinning while they each argued that they should hold the stones. Many grapple checks and sleight of hand rolls ensued.

Broken Crown
2015-12-08, 11:39 PM
Even as a sadistic DM, I see my job as less, "Kill the PCs," and more, "Present the PCs with opportunities to die if they do something stupid."

In any group of four or more players, I can nearly always count on someone choosing the latter option.

But I've never had a game turn out like the one the OP described, not would I run (or participate in) a game for players like the OP describes. My mind boggles at the depths of psychopathy on display there. What train of logic are those people riding?

"We don't want suboptimal characters in this party."
-> "Half-orcs are suboptimal wizards."
-> "We don't want a half-orc wizard in this party."
-> "We are going to kill our half-orc wizard, thus weakening our party (most suboptimal characters not being active liabilities)."
-> "By weakening our party, our characters are behaving in a suboptimal fashion."
-> "By our own logic, our characters, too, ought to die."

I hope the DM immediately provided them with an encounter where having an extra half-orc wizard might have saved them from a TPK.

Âmesang
2015-12-08, 11:51 PM
I'm thinking of the old adage that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link… which immediately makes me imagine the party dangling by the chain and instead of strengthening the weakest link, removing it entirely… causing the entire chain to split in two as the party falls to their doom.

"Oh crap crap crap — we didn't think this through!"

themaque
2015-12-08, 11:56 PM
Once we where all playing fairly straight D&D characters, except for one guy. He was this huge hulking monstrosity. This big brutish near monster who looked horrible and smelled bad. He comes into town, starts drinking and causing a ruckus.

The wizard casts sleep, they lock him in the wood shed and call the local authority claiming to have captured a monster. The player decided to make someone else.

So in this essence they "Killed" the character because they ignored the flashing PC symbol above his head and acted like... well most adventurers honestly. I felt bad for the guy but he wasn't upset made something more in theme with the party and we all had fun that campaign. There where still ways to redeem and keep that weirder character but he just chose not to take them.

If you are playing a group with Warhammer Dwarves suddenly introducing an Elf will have some problems. However, that's where communication of expectations comes into play.

OP the group you are playing with are just JERKS. Killing someone for playing a non-optimized class/race combo? That's just horrible.

Malifice
2015-12-09, 12:10 AM
I ran a 1/2 orc wizard others at the table purposely killed the character stating 1/2 orcs are not a wizard class. You wasted good rolls.

What?

Please tell me your party is comprised of evilly aligned racists?

Also, what DM repurcussions were there?

TheFamilarRaven
2015-12-09, 01:07 AM
My advice: Tell them they're right. That half-orc wizards are sub-optimal and that your character deserved to be killed by the party, and that you'll come up with a better optimized character. Then show up to the next session with Pun-Pun, and laugh as they try to kill you.

Bonus points if you kill all of them for being sub-optimal

cobaltstarfire
2015-12-09, 01:14 AM
OTOH, I have seen Players use a DM's "no PvP" rule to be gigantic jerkwaffles to various members of the party, or to dig their heels in and refuse to follow the rest of the group unless they get their way.

Why not just uninvite a player like that rather than put up with those kinds of shenanigans?

OP, that stinks are there nicer players around that you can join?

snacksmoto
2015-12-09, 01:33 AM
I ran a 1/2 orc wizard others at the table purposely killed the character stating 1/2 orcs are not a wizard class.

It sounds as if they've acquired that skill in the class COMPLETELY UNCOOL. If they had such opinions on "correct" characters, it should have been discussed and resolved long, long before Session One even started. I would suggest finding a new group and never return to play with players such as those.

At the table I'm at, I would judge that I am the most "dickish" and have initiated the only PvP incident (via reasonable confusion) so far. That being said, the situation logically and organically led my character to that confused conclusion.
It was an overnight encounter while my character was asleep. We get jumped by a small pack of wolves and our Druid was on watch. He kicks our third character awake before shapechanging into a wolf. The third character takes a round to wake up and promptly kicks my character awake while yelling that we're being attacked by wolves. My character takes a round to wake up. Several lucky rolls between the other two had dispatched the last of wolf pack just as it came to my character's turn in initiative. My character, still kind of disorientated, dagger in hand, leaps at what he believes is a remaining wolf... the shapechanged Druid. The Druid reverts to normal allowing my character to immediately realize his mistake. With profuse character apologies and my character expending a cure light wounds spell, the party begins the day.

MesiDoomstalker
2015-12-09, 01:34 AM
Had some similar issues when trying to run a Warforged Wizard. And then more issues when I didn't take Magic Missile. I don't play with those people anymore. Niether should you.

Knaight
2015-12-09, 02:07 AM
I'm thinking of the old adage that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link… which immediately makes me imagine the party dangling by the chain and instead of strengthening the weakest link, removing it entirely… causing the entire chain to split in two as the party falls to their doom.

"Oh crap crap crap — we didn't think this through!"

I'm thinking there's one functional link in this whole chain, and it's the OP. You know that whole stereotype about D&D players being antisocial and incapable of behaving reasonably? The rest of this group sounds like Exhibit A in that.

Malifice
2015-12-09, 02:28 AM
I played in a fantastic rolemaster campaign (every weekend for over 5 years) that featured only evil PC's. There was plently of PvP in that campaign.

I recall my Warrior Mage being attacked by a fellow PC's Chaos Lord (in a tavern) and turned into a plow horse (while having his spine severed) on account of an 'E' physical alteration crit.

Of course we were mature enough to treat it all as a bit of fun.

In the right group it can add an element to the campaign that can be quite fun. In the OP's example (in the absence of any other qualifiers) it sounds like a bunch of tools and some very lackluster DMing.

Milodiah
2015-12-09, 02:49 AM
I would have interpreted this as a statement that the group ran on survival-of-the-fittest rules, come to the Playground, asked for the best goddamn wizard build possible, and destroyed the universe with it.

Then stared at the GM and players, stating "I thought it was the rule here that if something's less optimized than you, you kill it just to prove a point."

Then flipped them all the bird and walked out.

noob
2015-12-09, 05:37 AM
You know no matter your race choice as long as your LA is 0 you make a great wizard since you only need 19 int and everything in excess is not needed for being the best guy of the universe even if you take straight wizard 20(and even if you waste some levels in dips in classes who does not progress spell-casting you stay really good)
Being optimized is needed only if you are not T1.

Marlowe
2015-12-09, 07:57 AM
I once, back in 2nd edition, killed the party Thief because he was sneakthieving from the other party members and then planting the items on other other party members deliberately to provoke pointless fights for his own amusement. While we were low level and on the run in enemy-held territory.

Come to think of it, we were generally horrible players to each other back in the day--mainly because none of us actually wanted to be playing D&D. It was simply a system that everyone could play at a very basic level and was played only when nobody wanted to organize a game of something people actually liked. It wasn't until 3.0 came along that people started playing D&D for the sake of playing D&D.

However, the OPs little story would have been considered intolerably jerkish even by our standards.

Joe the Rat
2015-12-09, 09:11 AM
Yeah, no. Unless someone is going out of their way to be a roadblock to the party, or is completely inappropriate for the game (Stereotypes R Us, MaxOp grinder, etc), there's no reason to gank someone. Hell, this is something that should be discussed at table before dice start spinning.

Playing against type can be a challenge, but it can also be a ton of fun. Goliath Rogues are just so wrong, and so awesome.

The only time I've seen other PC's deliberately killed (or otherwise removed) by the players was when that player wanted to change characters. This gave an in-game rationale for a switch, and was done per that player's wishes.

GloatingSwine
2015-12-09, 10:59 AM
Once we where all playing fairly straight D&D characters, except for one guy. He was this huge hulking monstrosity. This big brutish near monster who looked horrible and smelled bad. He comes into town, starts drinking and causing a ruckus.

The wizard casts sleep, they lock him in the wood shed and call the local authority claiming to have captured a monster. The player decided to make someone else.

So in this essence they "Killed" the character because they ignored the flashing PC symbol above his head and acted like... well most adventurers honestly. I felt bad for the guy but he wasn't upset made something more in theme with the party and we all had fun that campaign. There where still ways to redeem and keep that weirder character but he just chose not to take them.


Surely the DM could have dealt with that along the lines of "the town mayor/magistrate/guard captain refuses to get out of bed to deal with this nonsense, come back in the morning" at which point the hulking wotsit wakes up with a hangover and points out that he's broken no laws and paid for all his drinks, several of everyone else in the tavern's drinks and he didn't even start that bar fight anyway.

And then drop the adventure hook on them that means they all have to travel together now.

Milodiah
2015-12-09, 11:43 AM
Playing against type can be a challenge, but it can also be a ton of fun. Goliath Rogues are just so wrong, and so awesome.


Reppin' that dwarf bard my entire 3.5 career.


Plus in AD&D 2e a grey elf nobleman.

The Fury
2015-12-09, 01:07 PM
............ *goes to get his +1 Jerkbane Greataxe*

H-hey... watch where you're pointing that thing.

To people that actually know me, it might come as a shock that I don't like PvP. That said I have killed other PCs as a player, it's not something I'm proud of though. Certainly never for being poorly optimized-- I'd have to make my character kill themselves if that were the case.

The most notorious killin' other players thing I did would have to be taking part in a plot to kill half our party. The plan was to off them immediately after a climactic battle, and it worked great. Except there was a big falling out afterward and the campaign ended. Like I said, I'm actually ashamed of doing that though.

JonU
2015-12-09, 03:15 PM
Had a game once where I played a Necromancer. No matter how hard I tried to show our Cleric that I was using them for good purposes, he always would attack me or my minions (even ones i turned during battle). Finally, I got tired of it and just lagged behind the group and pitched in where I could since I knew staying in the group was going to cause issues. I had talked to the guy out of game and said if I could come up with proof that they were used for good he would be ok with it, yet the numerous examples I gave were never good enough. By the time we got to the final boss (this campaign had lots of undead) I was sick and tired of the shenanigans. Everyone else had finally accepted that I was doing good except him. So I made came to the final conclusion of what needed to e done. I pulled the DM off to the side and explained what I was about to do. When we went in to the fight, I just sat out of the fight until the guy was being attacked by the undead in the room. I immediately started casting and eventually the guy died. He couldn't figure out why the undead wouldn't die, but then neither could the rest of the group. I had simply told the GM that the next big fight we had, I was going to heal the undead attacking the cleric with priority going to the last one he hit. Once the fight started, I did my thing telling the DM how much "damage" I did. When the other people asked what I was doing I gave a description of the spell and the DM had them make their spot checks. One guy new exactly what was going on from the description, but since he failed the roll he couldn't say a word, but he was laughing the whole time. They finally figured out what happened after the fight, but by that time my character was long gone and the campaign was over. I don't like doing pvp, but I was tired of his crap after about 5 weeks of playing 6 hours a week and not getting anywhere despite doing what he said I needed to for him to trust me.

That's the only time I killed another player on purpose. I've done things by accident that have resulted in people being seriously maimed, but usually the only person I get killed is myself. Like playing a character witha -1 str bonus and no skills in swim. The campaign started on a boat for two weeks in game; you can figure out what happened there.

AdmiralCheez
2015-12-09, 03:31 PM
I've never killed another player, but one time my assassin was bribed by another PC to not save the paladin as she clung onto the cliff ledge above a lava pit.

(She was later rescued by the wizard, and the two of them had some very strong things to say to us. All in-game, of course.)

Segev
2015-12-09, 05:47 PM
I've HAD a PC killed by a player who didn't like me, personally, and was looking for an excuse. So my character using trap the soul to stop the BBEG that had leveled our hometown and would do so again, and which we'd proven we couldn't capture and hold any other way...this samurai deemed "irredeemably evil" and worthy of instant death. Worse, apparently, than anything the BBEG (who we'd once had at our mercy, and just let go because we couldn't hold her prisoner and killing her would be wrong according to this samurai) had done.

He then freed the BBEG from the gem. Because it was "the right thing to do."

The Glyphstone
2015-12-09, 06:23 PM
I'm more shocked that a SAMURAI was capable of killing a full-caster that could cast Trap the Soul. They are the walking punchlines of 'melee can't have nice things', after all.

Blue Duke
2015-12-09, 06:27 PM
I've killed a total of two Player characters - once it was a Jedi Versus my Mando merc (using a siths saber that i looted who knows how long back and Order 66's call on the darkside rules to effectively wield the saber) because the jedi in the party had routinely force persuaded/mindscrewed my mando. the other time it was an air pirates thing and the captain decided to attack a french pirate hunter IN PORT with an unarmed airship....my ex-Royal Air Navy officer draw his pistol and executed the captain for stupidity. laughs were had after the air pirate thing but i stopped playing with the saga group because they were kind of jerks....i've never killed for being suboptimal or anything out of game because crap game/Real Life/rules seperation !.



Not that i am one to judge optimizaton as i build and play for fluff....

BootStrapTommy
2015-12-09, 06:54 PM
I ran a 1/2 orc wizard others at the table purposely killed the character stating 1/2 orcs are not a wizard class. You wasted good rolls.Is this serious? Like this actually happened? You actually play with that kind of subhumans? You know these kind of people and actually call them your friends?

Blackhawk748
2015-12-09, 07:47 PM
I'm more shocked that a SAMURAI was capable of killing a full-caster that could cast Trap the Soul. They are the walking punchlines of 'melee can't have nice things', after all.

*pauses in sharpening his axe* It was obviously an OA Samurai, also did this guy mistake Samurai for Paladin? Cuz a Samurai would totally kill the crap out of someone who destroyed his home, its the honorable thing to do.

*returns to sharpening axe*

denthor
2015-12-09, 08:08 PM
Is this serious? Like this actually happened? You actually play with that kind of subhumans? You know these kind of people and actually call them your friends?

Yes i games with them one of the four is in real life dead the other three decided they wanted to go take over another game on a different night. Even the DM is glad they're not there

Âmesang
2015-12-09, 08:43 PM
It was obviously an OA Samurai, also did this guy mistake Samurai for Paladin? Cuz a Samurai would totally kill the crap out of someone who destroyed his home, its the honorable thing to do.
Lawful Stupid™ — It's not just for paladins anymore!

Segev
2015-12-09, 09:45 PM
I'm more shocked that a SAMURAI was capable of killing a full-caster that could cast Trap the Soul. They are the walking punchlines of 'melee can't have nice things', after all.

Shouldn't have been able to, but the player bullied the DM into not allowing the caster to "cheese" out of it with his prepared contingent teleport. The DM has since been very sorry about how he handled the whole thing, and would do it differently if it ever came up again. The player in question is... well, let's just say that he was on the extreme end of the kind of player 4e was meant to appease.

BootStrapTommy
2015-12-09, 11:28 PM
*pauses in sharpening his axe* It was obviously an OA Samurai, also did this guy mistake Samurai for Paladin? Cuz a Samurai would totally kill the crap out of someone who destroyed his home, its the honorable thing to do.

*returns to sharpening axe* Personally, when I wanna Samurai, I gesalt the OA with the CW. The result is actually *decent*.

In a campaign a few months back I TPK'd the party. Bided my time the entire campaign, turned on the party during the BBEG fight. I was the cleric. Without their healbot, they fell apart.

The_Snark
2015-12-10, 03:53 AM
I once saw a player attempt to kill a freshly-introduced PC on the basis that they'd rolled terrible stats and the player would be better off rolling up a new character. The new character's player was not on board with this plan, but he went ahead with it anyway; the rest of the party ended up killing his PC instead (from their perspective, he'd gone crazy and started trying to kill strangers and set things on fire).

In retrospect, it was pretty obvious that said player had gotten bored of the game and was acting out. Things turned out okay in the end - he left without too many hard feelings, the PC with bad stats survived, and the party sort of bonded over the experience - but it was a pretty boneheaded move, and ended up wasting most of a session.

Malifice
2015-12-10, 04:06 AM
Had a game once where I played a Necromancer. No matter how hard I tried to show our Cleric that I was using them for good purposes, he always would attack me or my minions (even ones i turned during battle). Finally, I got tired of it and just lagged behind the group and pitched in where I could since I knew staying in the group was going to cause issues. I had talked to the guy out of game and said if I could come up with proof that they were used for good he would be ok with it, yet the numerous examples I gave were never good enough. By the time we got to the final boss (this campaign had lots of undead) I was sick and tired of the shenanigans. Everyone else had finally accepted that I was doing good except him. So I made came to the final conclusion of what needed to e done. I pulled the DM off to the side and explained what I was about to do. When we went in to the fight, I just sat out of the fight until the guy was being attacked by the undead in the room. I immediately started casting and eventually the guy died. He couldn't figure out why the undead wouldn't die, but then neither could the rest of the group. I had simply told the GM that the next big fight we had, I was going to heal the undead attacking the cleric with priority going to the last one he hit. Once the fight started, I did my thing telling the DM how much "damage" I did. When the other people asked what I was doing I gave a description of the spell and the DM had them make their spot checks. One guy new exactly what was going on from the description, but since he failed the roll he couldn't say a word, but he was laughing the whole time. They finally figured out what happened after the fight, but by that time my character was long gone and the campaign was over. I don't like doing pvp, but I was tired of his crap after about 5 weeks of playing 6 hours a week and not getting anywhere despite doing what he said I needed to for him to trust me.

That's the only time I killed another player on purpose. I've done things by accident that have resulted in people being seriously maimed, but usually the only person I get killed is myself. Like playing a character witha -1 str bonus and no skills in swim. The campaign started on a boat for two weeks in game; you can figure out what happened there.

Hahaha. You betrayed and murdered a friend to prove... you were not evil?

Looks like he was right all along doesnt it?

Sir Chuckles
2015-12-10, 07:57 AM
There's a Halfling Knight and an Awakened Skeleton Swashbuckler in my sig.
The mere suggestion of killing a PC because they're not optimal, to me, feels like a direct threat.

nedz
2015-12-10, 08:08 AM
Yes i games with them one of the four is in real life dead the other three decided they wanted to go take over another game on a different night. Even the DM is glad they're not there

Hmm, it did sound like an OOC issue with them. I thought it possibly meant that they just didn't like you, but it seems their issues are broader than that.

sktarq
2015-12-10, 03:30 PM
The opposite yes-but never for being unoptimized (fun note spell tries to auto correct the word unoptimized to optimized)

I have killed PC's for being optimized as a DM and left them to die as a player (brilliant at combat but only that to the point where they would kill us by court system)-sure I kinda put him in the dangerous place and left him but I didn't swing the sword.

I generally see "optimized" characters as risk if not a direct threat to the fun of the group (mostly because the type of player who does this often doesn't mix well with those who do not and can be real jerks...like the OP's "friends")-and have taken actions to protect the fun of the rest of the party.

Keltest
2015-12-10, 04:12 PM
The opposite yes-but never for being unoptimized (fun note spell tries to auto correct the word unoptimized to optimized)

I have killed PC's for being optimized as a DM and left them to die as a player (brilliant at combat but only that to the point where they would kill us by court system)-sure I kinda put him in the dangerous place and left him but I didn't swing the sword.

I generally see "optimized" characters as risk if not a direct threat to the fun of the group (mostly because the type of player who does this often doesn't mix well with those who do not and can be real jerks...like the OP's "friends")-and have taken actions to protect the fun of the rest of the party.

For the record, there is a difference between optimizing and power gaming. Optimizing is picking the race with an int bonus rather than a penalty when playing a wizard. Power gaming is doing the above, plus getting another 4 int points out of it at level one by sacrificing the ability to wiggle your ears or some such nonsense.

CantigThimble
2015-12-10, 04:56 PM
The only time I ever killed a fellow PC was when he reincarnation rolled a race he hated so he decided to spend another 1000 gold to try again. :smalltongue:

themaque
2015-12-10, 07:54 PM
I have killed PC's for being optimized as a DM and left them to die as a player (brilliant at combat but only that to the point where they would kill us by court system)-sure I kinda put him in the dangerous place and left him but I didn't swing the sword.


I can't help but think of Nolan's batman..

"I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you... I'M BATMAN!"

Optimizing isn't itself a bad thing. It's just when you min/max yourself to being useless in all other fields.

Had a player who min/maxed himself to have just a STUPID hiding skill at lvl 1. I said that's fine I suppsoe but that was ALL he could do. If he wasn't able to sneak up on something he was useless.

I also warned him all his skill was about hiding in shadows. Ran into one thing with darkvision and he dropped faster than a politician's promise after election day.

He wanted to complain but the entire table said "He warned you from day 1 this could happen."

Marlowe
2015-12-10, 08:10 PM
No matter how hard I tried to show our Cleric that I was using them for good purposes, he always would attack me or my minions (even ones i turned during battle)...Everyone else had finally accepted that I was doing good except him.


Hahaha. You betrayed and murdered a friend to prove... you were not evil?

Looks like he was right all along doesnt it?


Consistently attacking an ally and sabotaging his class features, thus imperiling the group as a whole. Doing so even after the rest of the group had reached a consensus as to the reverse approach. Doing the above simply because you disagreed with their profession.

You have an odd definition of "friend".

Malifice
2015-12-10, 09:36 PM
Consistently attacking an ally and sabotaging his class features, thus imperiling the group as a whole. Doing so even after the rest of the group had reached a consensus as to the reverse approach. Doing the above simply because you disagreed with their profession.

You have an odd definition of "friend".

You dont betray and murder a person because he opposes necromancy, and thinks youre evil for practicing it, as a means of proving that you are in fact a good person. All it does is prove him right!

I dont care if the dude was (in character) a real PITA. Murdering him for being a PITA? I mean come on! I would rub the 'G' off your character sheet and insert a big fat E on it (which I would also do in response to animating the dead also, but thats a different story).

If you're a good person, you (in character) thank him for his assistance to date, and simply ask him to leave the (in game) party wishing him the best.

If 'good' aligned PC's are going around betraying and murdering people over ideological differences in your campagins, then we have very different ideas of what 'good' means.

Keltest
2015-12-10, 09:44 PM
You dont betray and murder a person because he opposes necromancy, and thinks youre evil for practicing it, as a means of proving that you are in fact a good person. All it does is prove him right!

I dont care if the dude was (in character) a real PITA. Murdering him for being a PITA? I mean come on! I would rub the 'G' off your character sheet and insert a big fat E on it (which I would also do in response to animating the dead also, but thats a different story).

If you're a good person, you (in character) thank him for his assistance to date, and simply ask him to leave the (in game) party wishing him the best.

If 'good' aligned PC's are going around betraying and murdering people over ideological differences in your campagins, then we have very different ideas of what 'good' means.

He wasn't doing it to prove he was a good person though. He was just sick of the crap he had to put up with and got pushed past the point of reason.

Marlowe
2015-12-10, 09:55 PM
The incredibly stupid and the incredibly powerful have one thing in common: instead of altering their point of view to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their point of view.

sktarq
2015-12-10, 10:22 PM
For the record, there is a difference between optimizing and power gaming. Optimizing is picking the race with an int bonus rather than a penalty when playing a wizard. Power gaming is doing the above, plus getting another 4 int points out of it at level one by sacrificing the ability to wiggle your ears or some such nonsense.

The powergaming aspect generaly happens when an optimized character is allowed to continue to a problematic degree.

Want to play a Fighter and choose a 1/2 Orc for the Str Bonus. . . I'm fine with but when the numbers take over everything then I take issue.

Malifice
2015-12-10, 11:55 PM
He wasn't doing it to prove he was a good person though. He was just sick of the crap he had to put up with and got pushed past the point of reason.

Yeah...so the PC proved he was in fact evil.

This was a premeditated case of treachery and murder!

The priest of the god of good had an issue with me desecrating the corpses of people, and raising them as evil undead monsters (an act expressly called out to be evil for the past few editions). He used to lecture me about it all the time, and even would attack those evil undead monsters trying to put them to rest... which really annoyed me. He kept complaining to the party (and to me) that I was an evil monster for doing it.

Eventally I got sick of being called evil, having my plans foiled and my undead slain by this do-gooder, so I carefully betrated and murdered him.

That should show him I'm not evil.

I mean... really?

Talakeal
2015-12-11, 12:41 AM
You know, I have been in situations like this several times. I have murdered plenty of other PCs, but they all had it coming.

As a friend of mine once said, I don't start trouble, but I sure finish it.


I dont care if the dude was (in character) a real PITA. Murdering him for being a PITA? I mean come on! I would rub the 'G' off your character sheet and insert a big fat E on it (which I would also do in response to animating the dead also, but thats a different story).

I hate to taint another thread with the endless debate about undeath and evil, but I would like to point out that the RAW on the necromancer class clearly states that you can maintain a neutral alignment and still regularly summon the undead.


Also, even if it does prove the player right, this is a game, its not like he murdered him in real life. Its kind of like a boy who cried wolf sort of thing, if someone gets labeled as something often enough eventually they might just give into it. His reasoning was probably less "proving he wasn't evil", but one day having enough of the conflict and just saying "OK, have it your way. I am evil. Now let me show you what evil people do to those who continuously harass them..."

Malifice
2015-12-11, 12:49 AM
I hate to taint another thread with the endless debate about undeath and evil, but I would like to point out that the RAW on the necromancer class clearly states that you can maintain a neutral alignment and still regularly summon the undead.

Read the post I stated. It was referring to the betrayal and murder of a goodly priest, friend and ally being an evil act, not the animating of the dead.

And youre wrong anyway (in 5E). The 5E PHB clearly states that frequent animating of the dead is only done by evil people. Im not rearguing that here; its not the place for it.

In my campaigns animating the dead is not a good act. Its frequent use gets an E whacked on your character sheet.


Also, even if it does prove the player right, this is a game, its not like he murdered him in real life.

Dude what? Strawman a bit?

Talakeal
2015-12-11, 01:03 AM
Read the post I stated. It was referring to the betrayal and murder of a goodly priest, friend and ally being an evil act, not the animating of the dead.

And youre wrong anyway (in 5E). The 5E PHB clearly states that frequent animating of the dead is only done by evil people. Im not rearguing that here; its not the place for it.

In my campaigns animating the dead is not a good act. Its frequent use gets an E whacked on your character sheet.

Dude what? Strawman a bit?

....Strawman? I know people throw that word around a lot on the internet, but I don't think I have ever seen the term used in such a manner before.

My point was that Player A was making Player B miserable, so Player B decided to take revenge on him in the game. Its not about proving him right or wrong, its about paying him back for being a jerk.


(which I would also do in response to animating the dead also, but that's a different story).


Although, I do apologize, for some reason I assume most stories on this forum are talking about 3.5 as that seems to be by far the most common game around, and when he said "Necromancer" my mind immediately went to dread necromancer. I guess it would be an acceptable ruling in 5E (although I would still have some pretty nasty words for a DM who grabbed my character sheet and started changing things on it without talking to me about it first :P)

Malifice
2015-12-11, 01:20 AM
My point was that Player A was making Player B miserable, so Player B decided to take revenge on him in the game. Its not about proving him right or wrong, its about paying him back for being a jerk.

No mate, Character A (a good aligned Priest) had issues with Character B (a necromancer) in game. He voiced his concerns that the character (not the player) was using evil and sacreligious methods. He also destroyed the undead at every opportunity (i.e. he was playing his character). He attempted to explain to the necromancer player why his character was acting this way to no avail.

Character B then got so annoyed with the actions of character B, he betrayed and murdered the goodly priest.

Im not saying the player is evil. Its the character who is evil. A goodly priest murdering evil necromancer in fact. You need to draw a line of demarcation between the real world and the game bro.

Its the DM's fault as much as it is the players. Allowing a good priest and an evil necromancer in the party is going to cause problems. The priests player was left with few options here (he was clearly convinced that undead and necromancers are evil, which based on all available evidence - the necromancer betrayed and murdered him - was actually true) and his religious beliefs probably forbade him from dealing with either necromancers or undead. I dont know how mature the players or group were, but (from the sounds of it as they were unable to sort the issue out in a mature manner) he or she made a series of errors here (allowing the two in the same party, not helping to resolve the issue, and sitting by as a PC betrayed and murdered a fellow PC).

Its no different to allowing a CE Antipaladin into a party of LG paladins. By social contract youre all players (and all equally entitled to play the charracter you want to), but 'in game' its just not going to work and its prioritising one persons fun over other players (barring a very mature group).


Although, I do apologize, for some reason I assume most stories on this forum are talking about 3.5 as that seems to be by far the most common game around, and when he said "Necromancer" my mind immediately went to dread necromancer. I guess it would be an acceptable ruling in 5E (although I would still have some pretty nasty words for a DM who grabbed my character sheet and started changing things on it without talking to me about it first :P)

If your necromancer betrays and murders a goodly priest in response to him destroying your evil undead monstrosities, then I would have no hesitiation in whacking an 'E' on your character sheet.

Maybe thats just me though. I hope not, but hey.

Talakeal
2015-12-11, 01:24 AM
Its the DM's fault as much as it is the players. Allowing a good priest and an evil necromancer in the party is going to cause problems. The priests player was left with few options here (he was clearly convinced that undead and necromancers are evil, which may be true) and his religious beliefs probably forbade him from dealing with either necromancers or undead. I dont know how mature the players or group were, but (from the sounds of it as they were unable to sort the issue out in a mature manner) he or she made a series of errors here (allowing the two in the same party, not helping to resolve the issue, and sitting by as a PC betrayed and murdered a fellow PC).

I agree with you there, the DM should have had a talk with everyone before the game started about making characters that get along.

Disagreeing philosophically with other people is one thing, but if you are actively hindering another player in a life or death combat you are crossing a line.

If things got the that point one or both characters need to either change their ways or leave the party imo, it should never get the point where people are actively turning on one another and murdering one another.

The_Snark
2015-12-11, 01:28 AM
Eventally I got sick of being called evil, having my plans foiled and my undead slain by this do-gooder, so I carefully betrated and murdered him.

That should show him I'm not evil.

I read that as "ugh, if I'm going to be treated like I'm evil, might as well earn the label" rather than "this will prove I'm not evil".

I'd agree that it's an evil act, but I think the 'good' priest might well be in danger of an alignment change too, considering they were attacking an allied (at the time) and good-aligned (at the time) character. Sure, raising the dead was probably against the tenets of his faith, but killing people over religious differences is not good.

Malifice
2015-12-11, 01:46 AM
Disagreeing philosophically with other people is one thing, but if you are actively hindering another player in a life or death combat you are crossing a line.

I disagree. I freqwuently make 'in character' decisions that are far from optimal and endanger other PC's.

I had a Warblade once that loathed the Gods to the point he refused healing from divine casters. A Paladin I once played refused to accept the +2 bonus from flanking (he refused to stab someone in the back), refused to attack an unarmed foe (magic, freaky ninja skills and claws count as weapons!), refused to attack a prone, held or stunned foe etc.

I have no issue with a priest raising his objections to an evil necromancer being introduced to the party, or refusing to travel with him (or have anything to do with him for that matter). Priests tend to have very strong views on desectation of the dead! It could create intresting conflict if the two were forced to work together for some reason. I cant see the two willingly working together though.


If things got the that point one or both characters need to either change their ways or leave the party imo, it should never get the point where people are actively turning on one another and murdering one another.

Depends on the maturity of the players. I played in a thoroughly evil Rolemaster campaign for 5 years. Went through 20 odd characters in that time (around 15 were killed by other PC's). It was a blast.

Talakeal
2015-12-11, 01:59 AM
I disagree. I frequently make 'in character' decisions that are far from optimal and endanger other PC's.

I had a Warblade once that loathed the Gods to the point he refused healing from divine casters. A Paladin I once played refused to accept the +2 bonus from flanking (he refused to stab someone in the back), refused to attack an unarmed foe (magic, freaky ninja skills and claws count as weapons!), refused to attack a prone, held or stunned foe etc.

I have no issue with a priest raising his objections to an evil necromancer being introduced to the party, or refusing to travel with him (or have anything to do with him for that matter). Priests tend to have very strong views on desectation of the dead! It could create intresting conflict if the two were forced to work together for some reason. I cant see the two willingly working together though.



Depends on the maturity of the players. I played in a thoroughly evil Rolemaster campaign for 5 years. Went through 20 odd characters in that time (around 15 were killed by other PC's). It was a blast.

Let me rephrase that, it should not be a surprise in combat.

Telling people you have certain limitations or expect certain codes of behavior from your allies is one thing, but springing it on them in the middle of battle when people's lives are on the line and they have already dedicated precious resources to their code of action is a very dangerous and real form of betrayal.



Its funny, I once had a witch hunter who refused to allow any magical spell to be cast upon him. The DM hated that character because I always had delay the party by refusing to accept magical healing. I was discussing that character with another DM the other day and I was told flat out "If you aren't going to allow allies to cast spell on you then you are effectively not being playing the game," which I thought was a very puzzling over reaction to something which rarely ever even comes up (our current party doesn't even have a spell caster, and the casters in our last two parties almost never cast any healing or buffing spells, but it didn't seem to "ruin the game".

Malifice
2015-12-11, 02:45 AM
I read that as "ugh, if I'm going to be treated like I'm evil, might as well earn the label" rather than "this will prove I'm not evil".

I'd agree that it's an evil act, but I think the 'good' priest might well be in danger of an alignment change too, considering they were attacking an allied (at the time) and good-aligned (at the time) character. Sure, raising the dead was probably against the tenets of his faith, but killing people over religious differences is not good.

The post isnt clear that the good priest attacked (actually tried to kill) the necromancer.

And the priest assumed the necromancer was evil. He was... you know.. a necromancer... in additon to being the kind of guy who thinks betraying and murdering people is a valid solution to them getting in his way. In most editions of DnD casting animate dead is an evil act. It has the evil descriptor in 3.P, and it creates [always neutral evil] baby eating undead monsters, and further involves the desecration of dead bodies (itself frowned on at the least by most good and neutral aligned religions). I doubt many mature DM's regard casting an spell that is evil by its very nature to create an evil monster as a good (or even morally neutral) act.

Seriously. Imagine your DM introducing a DMPC necromancer into a good aligned party. No good aligned person would agree to it unless literally forced into such an alliance. And would you trust him? Not a chance in hell. This is the kind of bloke who if given a chance would desecrate the corpse of a good upstanding and pious family man, raising him from the dead (into undeath) as a horrifying monster, torturing his very spirit and binding it into his service as his slave.

You might me able to justify such an abhorrent act to fight a greater evil (the Empires alliance with the Vampire counts vs Chaos in Warhammer) but its still a vile and evil act.


Let me rephrase that, it should not be a surprise in combat.

Telling people you have certain limitations or expect certain codes of behavior from your allies is one thing, but springing it on them in the middle of battle when people's lives are on the line and they have already dedicated precious resources to their code of action is a very dangerous and real form of betrayal.

I dont think the priest sat quietly by and waited till combat erupted to voice his concerns man.

From the sounds of the OP I infer he was very opposed to the necromancer and the creation of undead (the casting of evil spells to create evil monsters) from the start. To the point the player in question even tried to discuss the issue with the player of the necromancer out of game.


Its funny, I once had a witch hunter who refused to allow any magical spell to be cast upon him. The DM hated that character because I always had delay the party by refusing to accept magical healing. I was discussing that character with another DM the other day and I was told flat out "If you aren't going to allow allies to cast spell on you then you are effectively not being playing the game," which I thought was a very puzzling over reaction to something which rarely ever even comes up (our current party doesn't even have a spell caster, and the casters in our last two parties almost never cast any healing or buffing spells, but it didn't seem to "ruin the game".

I would likely get up and walk out of that game. There is no good reason for the DM to not accomodate such a character flaw. It adds to the story, and creates a compelling character. He could consider providing you with non-magical sources of healing (healing salves that restore HP and cost the same as potions etc), or a similar solution if it was bogging down the game for the other players.

DMs that pick on character flaws or realistic portrayal of PC's irritate me no end. You know the type; as soon as you get into town you strip off your full plate (who wouldnt) to go shopping or have a drink at the pub and this is the exact instant that a half dozen assassins spring from the shadows to murder you. Or your character makes a point of not wearing his helm (he fnids them uncomfortable) and the DM uses this to constantly go for called shots to the head. In my view. you should be rewarded for fleshing out a character with detail and enriching the story, and not punished for it.

It also irks me when PC's (and monsters) always use the most optimal tactics available. I often have my monsters do in character stuff to their detriment. Goblins attacking other goblins due to a feud they had last night over a roast haunch of dwarf (to emphasis goblin treachery), or a dragon wasting a turn to brag about how awesome it is instead of toasting the party because; hubris. In 5e I can award inspiration or flat out advantage for such acts by players so the problem is ameliorated somewhat. Same deal when PC's accept a new PC into the party no questions asked, but show an incredible level of suspicion against DMPC's (or are happy to murder NPC's for trivial insults or sheer financial gain, but for some reason are 100 percent loyal to the other PCs)

Talakeal
2015-12-11, 03:13 AM
DMs that pick on character flaws or realistic portrayal of PC's irritate me no end. You know the type; as soon as you get into town you strip off your full plate (who wouldnt) to go shopping or have a drink at the pub and this is the exact instant that a half dozen assassins spring from the shadows to murder you. Or your character makes a point of not wearing his helm (he fnids them uncomfortable) and the DM uses this to constantly go for called shots to the head. In my view. you should be rewarded for fleshing out a character with detail and enriching the story, and not punished for it.


Funny you should mention that. The same DM actually got mad at me for taking off my armor while we were resting up in town because it made it "to hard for him to balance an ambush" when half the PCs were wearing armor and half weren't.

Malifice
2015-12-11, 03:32 AM
Funny you should mention that. The same DM actually got mad at me for taking off my armor while we were resting up in town because it made it "to hard for him to balance an ambush" when half the PCs were wearing armor and half weren't.

Yeah I guessed it. Lightning striking twice is a pretty good red flag. Im assuming cookie cutter monsters that are always played with a level of omnipresence and a tactical overview that even a deity would be proud of.

I would give him one last chance and get a girlfriend or romantic intrest in the game. If she trys to murder you while you sleep becuase 'she is secretly working for the bad guys' walk away.

goto124
2015-12-11, 03:34 AM
Heh, I thought the GM would be mad that you didn't take off the armor, and attempt to impose resting penalties for sleeping in armor.

The_Snark
2015-12-11, 03:39 AM
The post isnt clear that the good priest attacked (actually tried to kill) the necromancer.

No matter how hard I tried to show our Cleric that I was using them for good purposes, he always would attack me or my minions (even ones i turned during battle).

It seems pretty clear to me.

I'm not saying the priest ought to have just accepted the necromancer without skepticism; nor am I trying to say that the necromancer's actions when they eventually snapped weren't extreme. But the priest isn't blameless here - their actions ended up pushing the necromancer towards evil.

I'm put in mind of Javert, from Les Miserables: rigid, unforgiving, intolerant. I don't know the actual details of the priest character, but it's easy to envision them as a LN follower of a LG god - yes, they're trying to adhere to a good-aligned code, but they don't really get it. If forced to choose between the letter of the law and the spirit, they'll go with the former (and may not recognize that there was a conflict in the first place).

goto124
2015-12-11, 03:48 AM
The real questions: why the PCs were brought together in the first place? Why did the players of the priest and necromancer not attempt to talk things out OOCly? Why did the GM not intervene and say they've got to sort things out, otherwise a PC leaves (or even a player leaves)?

Cazero
2015-12-11, 03:49 AM
It seems pretty clear to me.

I'm not saying the priest ought to have just accepted the necromancer without skepticism; nor am I trying to say that the necromancer's actions when they eventually snapped weren't extreme. But the priest isn't blameless here - their actions ended up pushing the necromancer towards evil.

I'm put in mind of Javert, from Les Miserables: rigid, unforgiving, intolerant. I don't know the actual details of the priest character, but it's easy to envision them as a LN follower of a LG god - yes, they're trying to adhere to a good-aligned code, but they don't really get it. If forced to choose between the letter of the law and the spirit, they'll go with the former (and may not recognize that there was a conflict in the first place).

Funny. I'm put in mind of a character of the same author for the necromancer. Claude Gueux, a good but poor man forced to steal bread to live and sentenced to five years in jail. Here, he is psychologicaly abused by the director for literally no reason despite his examplar behavior. So he kills him one week before being set free, is put in trial for murder, and accept the charges.
Then he is sentenced to death because there was 'no provocation' and he calls bull**** on the 'no provocation' part. (It's an engaged book.)


edited to add :

Why did the players of the priest and necromancer not attempt to talk things out OOCly?
They did. Didn't work. The priest rejected all possible justifications.

Marlowe
2015-12-11, 05:29 AM
Malifice, you are continually misprepresenting the original post to support your own argument. You have no evidence that the Priest and Necromancer were "friends". Quite the opposite.

You have no evidence that the necromancer and the group were trying to pretend to be "good". The original post states that they were trying to "do good". Which is another thing entirely. The fact that they have a necro at all indicates they were probably in the morally grey zone.

You have no evidence that the priest was "goodly". All we know is that he was violently opposed to having a necromancer on his team. Being opposed to one specific type of evil is not the same as being good. Not in the slightest.

All we have here is a story of a player character who repeatedly, attacked and sabotaged another member of his team, against the will of the rest of the party, and eventually paid the predictable price for it.

What are doing is defending the "PC glow". The idea that a PC can be the most counter-productive, dangerous, active hinderance to his side imaginable, and the rest of the party is expected to do nothing about it, because PCs aren't supposed to face consequences for their actions from their fellow PCs.

Frankly, this is a horrible, precious, entitled, and destructive attitude.

The fact that you are continually representing the case in order to make a cheap shot at another forum member makes it just that much worse.

goto124
2015-12-11, 05:35 AM
They did. Didn't work. The priest rejected all possible justifications.

That explains a lot. It makes it a lot more reasonable to make the priest-player switch PCs.

It's not just that the priest was unreasonable and refusing to play with the group, but that the player was doing the same thing.

SuperPanda
2015-12-11, 05:47 AM
Re: OP

I fully agree with the thread - those people were jerks and life will be better without them.

To the OP's question - I have put in motion the events which caused PC's death as a PC, I have allowed PvP as a DM (though I don't make it easy), and I've actively diffused a situation in which PvP was quickly becoming inevitable as a player (At least until my PC died from natural causes).

My guilty PvP story:

The first thing to know about this story is that the game was being run by a DM who loves to see inter-party conflict. He loves to reward back-stabbing and cloak-and-dagger characters because he personally loves to play them.

Second the Rogue's player has a long tradition of playing in a counter-productive style. In the previous game he would use a ring of invisibility at the start of the battle - not engage -loot enemies as the battle raged on and then bluff his way out of getting caught - and he had the devil's own luck on bluff rolls.

Third - the two of us were in many ways the DM's favorite PCs, the third most important person is "the bard" who I'll get to later. The party was a military squad on a mission with the Rogue as the company Intelligence officer and myself as the party's Commanding officer - together we two were in charge. The Bard was the party's religious leader (No one had wanted to play a healer so he got full cleric style healing in addition to bard music, but no other cleric spells). The Bard's player was one of the most enthusiastic players I've ever met with perhaps the worst grip on tactics and socio-political skills out there. He believed he was a political genius however... The DM loved him because he ensured we always had a long line of rich and powerful enemies.

Prior to this engagement he had angered a very rich and powerful nobleman from a country that was (so far) neutral to ours. The party knew that there was a sizeable bounty on the Bard's head but that hadn't come up yet. We were also escorting a VIP that an enemy nation wanted dead and there was also a sizeable bounty on the NPC's head.

Patterns came to my PC's attention suggesting that either the bard or the Rogue were about the do something stupid - this was based on the fact that the Bard had a long history of doing very stupid things (like openly accusing the noble we're trying to negotiate with of Necromancy without any evidence and in front of other nobles) and the Rogue had recently come into quite a bit of money after some mysterious meetings no one else knew anything about. My Lawful Neutral character had a strict code about lying - but you don't make a command position without being okay compartmentalizing and deceiving some. He met with each member of the party to express concerns that someone in the group would betray the party and kill the VIP we were guarding.

I told the Rogue that I thought the Bard might "do something to endanger the mission" and that if that happened it would be time to collect the bounty on the Bard.

I told the Bard that I was worried someone in our group would turn traitor and I wanted him to watch our wizard because I trusted the bard's loyaly(I completely trusted the wizard - more than any other PC, on the other hand, I didn't trust the Bard's competency).

I told the Wizard and the other warrior to watch the Rogue because I trusted them but didn't trust others in the party. (I typically said I would watch the other Warrior except for when I was talking to the Bard when I said I would watch the rogue).

The DM loved it and agreed that while I had deceived I had not lied.

When the rogue betrayed the party and attacked the other Wizard he was sitting ready with a phantasmal killer spell. The Rogue's player howled and wined for a bit then rolled up a Ninja who was all about honor and being a team member - he later said he had much more fun as a team member than working against the party.


The other one we didn't follow through with though we thought about it. The Bard eventually got a 60,000 gold price on his head. I'd previously told him "I would protect him from bounty-hunters and the party unless keeping him alive became more trouble than it was worth - if that point came I would kill him myself and collect the bounty. So after that point was reached I confered with the wizard about how much resurection without level loss would cost (finding the cost at 40,000) we began discussing how we'd split the profits. The bard's player was okay with this plan (The bard was unconcious while we talked about it) until he realized that his share was the resurection and he wasn't getting any profit from the .. profit. He accused me of breaking my word about protecting him. I admit to feeling a guilty sense of satisfaction when I reminded him of exactly what I'd said.

I can't actually think of a time I allowed PCs to kill each other - by that I mean I can't think of a time when I PCs chose to keep doing it after I'd put my normal (minimal) road blocks and asked them out of game not to.

That said - in one game I ran there was a situation similar to the Necromancer and priest though it was more Meta than that.

The long and short of it - a player who never should have been allowed to play a Paladin played a Paladin (though he was more accurately playing as a blackguard). I role-played through his fall through using a demon/trickster figure offering him visions of his desires and promises of powers - such as transforming his Smite Evil into "Smite Anything" with a decidedly evil flavor of look. He even got a personal quest where he actively sided with demons because they said they were working for his goddess. When it was clear he'd fallen and would have to earn redemption (and I had an arc for that where he'd have been more powerful than he started at the end) he rage-quit.

I learned two things - one I'd been waaaaay too soft with him out of fear of letting my personal distate for him affect the game (we were gaming at a friends house and he was a friend of the host. Him and me just had noticeable personality conflicts). Two - I should be more blunt about avoiding those conflicts in the future because the problem would have never come up if I'd just said "no Paladin - we'll make a class with identical powers but no alignment restriction and you can play that because you and I have very different baseline visions of DnD morality and I'd like to avoid the conflict. My vision of Lawful good is based more int he Arthurian ideal and yours tends to be, lets say, more historically accurate for the middle ages." - That would have avoided so many headaches.

With this said, the time I averted a pending PvP moment was in a game with that same player.
This was the first game I was in with a new group and we were all just level 2. I'd wanted to play a caster or a Bard but no one had rolled a Melee character so I made a Paladin and the player above had joined later and rolled a fighter. In many ways we'd both rolled "Idealized versions of ourselves".

I was a young idealist Paladin who'd grown up on stories of the great heroes and was going to live by the Hero's code or die by it. I'd turned my back on my old mercenary company because they were dark grey and I still believed I could be successful as a paragon of good. Despite refusing to be party to evil deeds - I didn't think everyone needed to be a paragon of good. That character really thought that simply by holding himself to a higher standard he'd make the world - and those he traveled with - more good.

The other guys was a masculine drunk power-fantasy that tried to sleep with everything because of his "rugged manly charm" and didn't often care as to its age or degree of consent. Within the first session he got accused of forcing himself on a towns-person. This was important because A) we'd learned of a goblin army comming to sack the town and were trying to defend it Seven Samurai style and B) this act lowered our reputation enough to cost the party its discounts at the stores which we'd earned earlier through saving people from the first attack.

In addition to this accusation he'd also chosen not to train the farmers in how to use spears because his time was better spent "investigating" the young ladies in town or the bottom of ale mugs. When the party jumped down his throat for the accusation (because they were all angry at having to pay full price for supplies again) my character came to his defense. He was accused and if he was actually guilty I'd lock him up myself, until then we have more important things to handle... on that front - he's been lax about defending the innocents in town and that is what we should be mad about.Needless to say his PC both hated and liked my PC in that session. He decided I was a self-righteous jerk (i.e. a normal Paladin) and started trying to recruit the other PCs to help off me. No takers yet - they were too busy trying to off each other. He made one ally (the CN half-orc sorcerer) which balanced out my one ally (The NG elven wizard) while the 2 rogues and ranger fueded on the side.

Then when we found goblin tunnels running into a cellar in town and went to investigate he took up the rear of the party and proceeded to avoid every fight - while I tanked every fight at the start. Deeper in we got ambushed and he was knocked out - down in negatives but stable - and the other PCs were debating leaving him there. Without a word I pick him up and carry him out, I use the last of my healing to bring him back up to a point where he can walk and we retreat back to town. After that there was a truce - his PC still felt I was a self righteous prick - but he owed me and he knew it. The rogues decided to fall in line and one of them was actually shifting aligning towards good and starting to pick up the Paladin's religion...

A few levels later my Paladin died like a chump because he openly challenged a big bad like the 'big heroes' of his story books and the big bad dropped him down a 50' pit trap where a CR 7 monster was waiting. The Rogue eventually went evil as he had originally intended and the Fighter went back to being exactly who he was before.

The character I rerolled had such great luck with the dice that the DM considering banning monks for being OP. It was a fun game - but I'm proud that my Paladin actually deserved the name.

Segev
2015-12-11, 11:58 AM
Its kind of like a boy who cried wolf sort of thing, if someone gets labeled as something often enough eventually they might just give into it. His reasoning was probably less "proving he wasn't evil", but one day having enough of the conflict and just saying "OK, have it your way. I am evil. Now let me show you what evil people do to those who continuously harass them..."

There's even a trope for it: Then Let Me Be Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThenLetMeBeEvil)

It's not justified in a moral sense, but it certainly is very understandable. "I don't trust you and will treat you like you're going to betray us at any moment, no matter how much you try to show me you are loyal and good-hearted." "You know what, fine. I can't be good and prove I'm not evil. So I'll just show you that I WAS NOT evil, by turning evil now and showing you what evil really is!"

It's almost a case of the good guy CREATING the evil villain they were looking for.

What I see very rarely, and would love to see executed well in a story or game or something, is a character who pulls a faux "then let me be evil" to scare the pants off of the people who keep abusing him in the name of "admonishing" him for his "evil" (that he isn't perpetrating, or which isn't really as evil as they act like it is). But then it turns out he had a trick in place that required him to play the evil card to the hilt...so he could betray the bad guys and rescue the good guys.

But in the process, he's demonstrated just how devastatingly horrific things would be if he were evil, and can deliver a "so when I say I'm not evil, take note of how nothing bad has happened as a result of my actions, and believe me. If I were treacherous and untrustworthy, you wouldn't be around to distrust me."

dargman69
2015-12-11, 01:56 PM
Indeed. I hope you left the table after that.

AriLance
2015-12-12, 10:52 PM
\

And the priest assumed the necromancer was evil. He was... you know.. a necromancer... in additon to being the kind of guy who thinks betraying and murdering people is a valid solution to them getting in his way. In most editions of DnD casting animate dead is an evil act. It has the evil descriptor in 3.P, and it creates [always neutral evil] baby eating undead monsters, and further involves the desecration of dead bodies (itself frowned on at the least by most good and neutral aligned religions). I doubt many mature DM's regard casting an spell that is evil by its very nature to create an evil monster as a good (or even morally neutral) act.


Necromancers are not inherently evil-aligned, at least not in 3.5. In fact, the greater goddess Wee Jas (LN) permits the use and creation of undead as long as they are procured without desecration and if it is done lawfully. Therefore, it is indeed possible to control the undead lawfully and without ill intent (especially noted since Wee Jas does not like evil-aligned things). I do not nderstand why there should have been an issue in this aspect since it is possible for a necromancer to be good. I do not believe the GM was at fault here since if the necromancer was not evil-aligned, then there should have been no reason to suspect a problem. Now, the GM could have talked to the priest player and told him to stop harassing the other players, but that's another issue.

Âmesang
2015-12-12, 11:22 PM
Then why does Wee Jas have Lawful Evil clerics?

Rater202
2015-12-12, 11:24 PM
There's this thing called Story and Game play Segregation.

In the lore, Wee Jas hates evil things, but in the rules, a cleric can have an alignment within one step of their gods.

Âmesang
2015-12-13, 12:13 AM
I'm not trying to seem rude regarding the subject, as playing a Suel character recently has me interested in Wee Jas and the like — I just couldn't find any of that lore, hence my question. I've just checked Complete Divine, Deities and Demigods, and the LIVING GREYHAWK® Gazetteer — Dragon Magazine #350 has a HUGE article about Wee Jas that describes her as "a lawful neutral deity with some tendencies towards lawful evil. Most of her clergy are lawful neutral; of the remainder, lawful evil slightly outnumbers lawful good."

2nd Edition's From the Ashes says likewise — "Wee Jas is primarily lawful, but she inclines toward evil through her preoccupation with power."

It's something I'd like to learn more about for my own roleplaying purposes, but unless I've missed something it seems she's perfectly fine with evil acts… just so long as they're done within the confines of the law?

EDIT: I forgot to note that this is in comparison with St. Cuthbert who is also Lawful Neutral but does despise evil, thus he does not allow evil clerics in his flock.

Marlowe
2015-12-13, 12:26 AM
What I'm getting from this is that someone believes that if you have "Good" on your character sheet (although we have no evidence of this in the case of the Priest in question) then anything you do is, by definition, Good. Up to and including attacking and sabotaging an ally and by extension betraying the safety and goals of the party in general. And further that anything that opposes you or which makes you face retribution for your actions is, by definition, Evil.

SuperPanda
2015-12-13, 01:00 AM
What I'm getting from this is that someone believes that if you have "Good" on your character sheet (although we have no evidence of this in the case of the Priest in question) then anything you do is, by definition, Good. Up to and including attacking and sabotaging an ally and by extension betraying the safety and goals of the party in general. And further that anything that opposes you or which makes you face retribution for your actions is, by definition, Evil.

I've run into two of these types of players before (one actually liked to play "evil" characters but wanted "neutral" on his character sheet because he "wasn't really that bad" - I never disliked playing with him. The other one.... well my greatest failing as a DM and least pleasant gaming experience bar none was allowing that player to play a Paladin...)

nedz
2015-12-13, 05:45 AM
What I'm getting from this is that someone believes that if you have "Good" on your character sheet (although we have no evidence of this in the case of the Priest in question) then anything you do is, by definition, Good. Up to and including attacking and sabotaging an ally and by extension betraying the safety and goals of the party in general. And further that anything that opposes you or which makes you face retribution for your actions is, by definition, Evil.

It's perfectly reasonable to play a character who believes this, even if such a character is fanatically unreasonable, but it's a different matter if the player believes it. It's not clear, in the example quoted, which was happening here.

AriLance
2015-12-13, 08:25 PM
I'm not trying to seem rude regarding the subject, as playing a Suel character recently has me interested in Wee Jas and the like — I just couldn't find any of that lore, hence my question. I've just checked Complete Divine, Deities and Demigods, and the LIVING GREYHAWK® Gazetteer — Dragon Magazine #350 has a HUGE article about Wee Jas that describes her as "a lawful neutral deity with some tendencies towards lawful evil. Most of her clergy are lawful neutral; of the remainder, lawful evil slightly outnumbers lawful good."

2nd Edition's From the Ashes says likewise — "Wee Jas is primarily lawful, but she inclines toward evil through her preoccupation with power."

It's something I'd like to learn more about for my own roleplaying purposes, but unless I've missed something it seems she's perfectly fine with evil acts… just so long as they're done within the confines of the law?

EDIT: I forgot to note that this is in comparison with St. Cuthbert who is also Lawful Neutral but does despise evil, thus he does not allow evil clerics in his flock.

Oh no, it's perfectly alright! Wee Jas is one confusing goddess without a lot of information on her. Most of her clerics are indeed lawful neutral, but she does not condemn her followers if they are evilly aligned. It's stated that Wee Jas is not concerned with the issues of morality as long as whatever her clerics are doing is within the confines of the law. Since she does not care about morality, she would certainly not deny her clerics to commit them as long as they're following the law. Why she has lawful evil tendencies is probably because she is in the Death and Magic domains. I do wish there was more concrete information on her since she's my favorite goddess, but at this point some things might have to be up to interpretation.

PrincessCupcake
2015-12-13, 08:26 PM
I've never killed another PC for being sub-optimal, nor have I harassed a PC for the same. (made the occasional wisecrack? sure. Especially because the player did the same.)

I've knocked out, Charmed, cast sleep upon, tied up, attacked, abandoned, threatened, and thrown other PCs out the window. Usually for being arrogant twits who are actively causing harm to the party but not betraying it. Never killed one though. (There's just something funny about the Paladin catching both rogues robbing the store, knocking their heads together cartoon style, dragging them out the shop door, and dropping them into a mud puddle before returning the stolen merchandise.)

As a DM I tell my players the following: "If you guys are stabbing each other in the back, it means I am not giving you enough of a challenge." (Conflict is allowed and encouraged. I've got a cool story from three of my players involving a good aligned Vampire Necromancer, two Paladins, and an undead-hating Cleric. No PVP was involved.) I don't ban PvP until the players prove they can't handle conflict maturely.

Malifice
2015-12-13, 09:22 PM
Necromancers are not inherently evil-aligned, at least not in 3.5. In fact, the greater goddess Wee Jas (LN) permits the use and creation of undead as long as they are procured without desecration and if it is done lawfully. Therefore, it is indeed possible to control the undead lawfully and without ill intent (especially noted since Wee Jas does not like evil-aligned things).

Dude what?

According to the canon her alignment is Lawful Neutral (with lawful evil tendencies). She lives in Archeron (LN/E).


I do not nderstand why there should have been an issue in this aspect since it is possible for a necromancer to be good. I do not believe the GM was at fault here since if the necromancer was not evil-aligned, then there should have been no reason to suspect a problem. Now, the GM could have talked to the priest player and told him to stop harassing the other players, but that's another issue

Its not possible to be a good aligned necromancer (by RAW) in 3.5 or 5E. Animate dead is an evil spell. It has the evil descriptor. Casting it is (by default) an evil act. Undead are evily aligned. Its noted all over the canon that its assumed to be evil barring a few exceptions (deathless in Eberron, balenorns in Faerun etc). Maybe in other systems you can run this argument, but I refute what youre saying is the case in 3.5 or 5E.

YossarianLives
2015-12-13, 09:30 PM
Its not possible to be a good aligned necromancer (by RAW) in 3.5 or 5E. Animate dead is an evil spell. It has the evil descriptor. Casting it is (by default) an evil act. Undead are evily aligned. Its noted all over the canon that its assumed to be evil barring a few exceptions (deathless in Eberron, balenorns in Faerun etc). Maybe in other systems you can run this argument, but I refute what youre saying is the case in 3.5 or 5E.
Maybe my experience is unique but I've never met a single DM who enforced those rules.

Âmesang
2015-12-13, 09:30 PM
Check 'bout six posts up — I had already brought up the Wee Jas discrepancy. :smalltongue:

As for good aligned necromancers? Sure it's possible! Just don't cast spells with the [Evil] descripter! :smallcool: Like bestow curse, blindness/deafness, clone, command undead, enervation, false life, magic jar, ray of enfeeblement, astral projection …wait, what?

Amphetryon
2015-12-13, 09:32 PM
Dude what?

According to the canon her alignment is Lawful Neutral (with lawful evil tendencies). She lives in Archeron (LN/E).



Its not possible to be a good aligned necromancer (by RAW) in 3.5 or 5E. Animate dead is an evil spell. It has the evil descriptor. Casting it is (by default) an evil act. Undead are evily aligned. Its noted all over the canon that its assumed to be evil barring a few exceptions (deathless in Eberron, balenorns in Faerun etc). Maybe in other systems you can run this argument, but I refute what youre saying is the case in 3.5 or 5E.

Necromancers need not cast any Animate Dead Spells, or other Spells with an [Evil] descriptor; stacking Fear effects is a perfectly viable tactic. Also, the fact that you specifically said "barring a few exceptions" means it is, in fact, possible.

Rater202
2015-12-13, 09:44 PM
Like bestow curse, blindness/deafness, clone, command undead, enervation, false life, magic jar, ray of enfeeblement, astral projection …wait, what?

I'm not sure I understand this post.

None of those spells have the evil descriptor, so the wait what is out of place.

Even the Evil descriptor is a poor example of how evil something is. The Spell Programmed Amnesia and the Spell Mind Rape have the exact same effect, but only one of them has the Evil Descriptor

Malifice
2015-12-13, 09:55 PM
Maybe my experience is unique but I've never met a single DM who enforced those rules.

We obviously havent met.


Necromancers need not cast any Animate Dead Spells, or other Spells with an [Evil] descriptor; stacking Fear effects is a perfectly viable tactic. Also, the fact that you specifically said "barring a few exceptions" means it is, in fact, possible.

Indeed, but I was referring to necromancy in the context of 'creating undead'. Im aware that 3.5 and 5E have other spells that are also necromancy spells that are not evil (such as raise dead).

In default DnD undead are not mere constructs. Theyre the actual spirits/ souls of people that are forced back into their rotting (or fully decomposed) body by magic, in what the game refers to as a 'horrifying state of undeath', and enslaved to the casters will as monstrous evil aligned creatures.

You're not only desecrating both a persons body but also the persons spirit/ soul (and against that persons will). Youre also turning them into an evil monster that desires nothing more than murdering all living things around it. You're also enslaving the (now tortured) person to your will.

It's an evil act.

I have no issues with a necromancer who animates dead for good reasons (saving peoples lives, defending the kingdom for a demonic incursion etc). He is of course (objectively) evily aligned (as is any person who uses evil means for a good end).

Thats just my view though. I generally reject 'the ends justify the means' = 'good alignment'.

Âmesang
2015-12-13, 10:06 PM
I'm not sure I understand this post.

None of those spells have the evil descriptor, so the wait what is out of place.
The "…wait, what?" was intended as a humorous comment born out of the sudden realization that the spell, astral projection, belonged to the necromancy school, as opposed to conjuration (like teleport) or transmutation (like etherealness). :smalltongue: I had never noticed that till now (though, to be fair, I can't recall ever having the chance to use it).

That's also why it was the only spell not in an otherwise alphabetical order.

The_Snark
2015-12-13, 10:07 PM
In default DnD undead are not mere constructs. Theyre the actual spirits/ souls of people that are forced back into their rotting (or fully decomposed) body by magic, in what the game refers to as a 'horrifying state of undeath', and enslaved to the casters will as monstrous evil aligned creatures.

You're not only desecrating both a persons body but also the persons spirit/ soul (and against that persons will). Youre also turning them into an evil monster that desires nothing more than murdering all living things around it. You're also enslaving the (now tortured) person to your will.

This is certainly a possible explanation for how animating the dead works - one that does a good job of justifying the [Evil] descriptor on those spells, at that - but I don't recall any 3.5 book stating that this is definitively how it is. Even Libris Mortis is pretty vague on the subject, as I recall.

Rater202
2015-12-13, 10:17 PM
Libris Mortis said something about negative enrgy spirits being the animating force(and even specifically specified that Flesh Golems weren't undead specifically because the animating forceof a Flesh Gole, is an elemental spirit, despite the fact that they're otherwise reanimated corpses.)

It says absolutely nothing about zombies being reanimated by forcibly binding the soul to the corpse as a slave.

To my knowledge, the only undead creatures confirmed to even have souls are Liche's and their variations.

I'd look up more details, but my copy of LM is buried under something.
The "…wait, what?" was intended as a humorous comment born out of the sudden realization that the spell, astral projection, belonged to the necromancy school, as opposed to conjuration (like teleport) or transmutation (like etherealness). :smalltongue: I had never noticed that till now (though, to be fair, I can't recall ever having the chance to use it).

That's also why it was the only spell not in an otherwise alphabetical order.
Projecting your soul from your body sounds like something the spell school that includes the "hide your soul in a jar" "trap somoene elses soul in a gemafter you kill them" and "do the same as the last spell, but also slowly destroy the soul"spells should have.

Amphetryon
2015-12-13, 10:20 PM
We obviously havent met.



Indeed, but I was referring to necromancy in the context of 'creating undead'. Im aware that 3.5 and 5E have other spells that are also necromancy spells that are not evil (such as raise dead).

In default DnD undead are not mere constructs. Theyre the actual spirits/ souls of people that are forced back into their rotting (or fully decomposed) body by magic, in what the game refers to as a 'horrifying state of undeath', and enslaved to the casters will as monstrous evil aligned creatures.

You're not only desecrating both a persons body but also the persons spirit/ soul (and against that persons will). Youre also turning them into an evil monster that desires nothing more than murdering all living things around it. You're also enslaving the (now tortured) person to your will.

It's an evil act.

I have no issues with a necromancer who animates dead for good reasons (saving peoples lives, defending the kingdom for a demonic incursion etc). He is of course (objectively) evily aligned (as is any person who uses evil means for a good end).

Thats just my view though. I generally reject 'the ends justify the means' = 'good alignment'.

The thing is, that context - creating undead - is not the limit of necromancy, even in D&D. Pretending like it is in order to argue your point is simply ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary. . . evidence which you've just acknowledged. That's a bad faith argument.

Malifice
2015-12-14, 12:55 AM
The thing is, that context - creating undead - is not the limit of necromancy, even in D&D. Pretending like it is in order to argue your point is simply ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary. . . evidence which you've just acknowledged. That's a bad faith argument.

Im not being misleading. Youre taking my post out of context (again) even after I explained that I used the term 'necromancy' in the context of the post I was referring to (necromancy = animating the dead). Im aware that there are plenty of necromancy spells that are not evil (raise dead for example).



Libris Mortis said something about negative enrgy spirits being the animating force(and even specifically specified that Flesh Golems weren't undead specifically because the animating forceof a Flesh Gole, is an elemental spirit, despite the fact that they're otherwise reanimated corpses.)


This is certainly a possible explanation for how animating the dead works - one that does a good job of justifying the [Evil] descriptor on those spells, at that - but I don't recall any 3.5 book stating that this is definitively how it is. Even Libris Mortis is pretty vague on the subject, as I recall.

There is a difference between casting animate objects on a corpse and animate dead on it. You can do either. The former creates a construct and the person stays dead. Aside from cultural prohibitions on defiling a persons corpse after death, no harm no foul. The latter spell creates an undead creature. The person whose corpse you cast it on is now no longer dead. They are trapped in a horrifying state of 'not alive but no longer dead' (as a NE monster bound to your will).

This is also the difference between a flesh golem and a zombie. The former is a corpse construct - youre not forcing a spirit of the body into a state of undeath, youre just using the meat and imbuing it with an AI. The spirit of the person that inhabited the bodies or body you used for the spell stays dead.

When you animate a corpse via animate dead, by logical extension the person is no longer dead. Theyre now undead. As a NE creature that seeks to kill everything around it nonetheless. And your slave.

CantigThimble
2015-12-14, 01:19 AM
Malifice that's certainly one take on it but it could just as easily be summoned spirits from the negative energy plane or something, just like flesh golems have earth spirits. Negative energy spirits even make more sense in some ways. Zombies don't recognize their old loved ones, there's no indication of intelligence at all beyond an inclination to kill the living when not directly controlled. The fact that you're summoning something that will be evil in the world if you slip up makes this just as evil as summoning demons. You're endangering good creatures by doing it.

Malifice
2015-12-14, 01:39 AM
Malifice that's certainly one take on it but it could just as easily be summoned spirits from the negative energy plane or something, just like flesh golems have earth spirits.

If I bind a different spirit into a persons corpse, the person stays dead (and I create a construct). Example in point the Flesh golem (or a corpse animated with animate objects). The person animated by the spirit stays dead.

If I instead use animate dead on a persons corpse, the person is now no longer dead. They are now undead.

The former just uses the persons corpse as a vessel for a new intelligence (either an AI you create with magic, or an elemental spirit you drag from somewhere else and place in the empty corpse). The person whos corpse you use stays dead. This is a very important distinction from animate dead. This spell actually makes the target no longer dead. It transforms them (the person) from a state of being dead to a state of being undead.

Raise dead works in a similar fashion, however it transforms the person from the state of death to the state of being alive (and is voluntary).

Rater202
2015-12-14, 01:58 AM
The person whose corpse you cast it on is now no longer dead. They are trapped in a horrifying state of 'not alive but no longer dead' (as a NE monster bound to your will)
Ghouls, ghasts, Morghes, maybe.(though tose are hardly under your control as a result of the spell.)

Possibly Vampires.

Zombies and Skeletons? Probably not. The spell says absolutly nothing about souls, the fluff for Zombies and skeletons says nothing about souls, and they act exactly like mindless autonomatons-they do exactly what you order them to, and when freed from control do whatever it was they were ordered to do before they were freed.

If the actual person was in there, then when not under the control of a necromancer, they'd either act like the actual person or, you know, have some degree of free will at all. Or at least beg someone to kill them.

So please, provide your quote from one of the official game supplements that says that a zombie is animated by the forcefully bound soul of the original victim and not a negative enrgy spirit.

Malifice that's certainly one take on it but it could just as easily be summoned spirits from the negative energy plane or something.

Which is, has been stated, more or less what Libris Mortis says on the subject
First, negative energy is
not a requisite power for any common construct, including
fl esh golems. Negative energy does not energize constructs,
nor does negative energy play a part in the methods whereby
constructs can affl ict foes. Second, constructs are not animated
by evil spirits, but rather by elemental spirits.

Malifice
2015-12-14, 02:12 AM
Ghouls, ghasts, Morghes, maybe.(though tose are hardly under your control as a result of the spell.) Possibly Vampires.

Zombies and Skeletons? Probably not. The spell says absolutly nothing about souls, the fluff for Zombies and skeletons says nothing about souls, and they act exactly like mindless autonomatons-they do exactly what you order them to, and when freed from control do whatever it was they were ordered to do before they were freed.

Its contained by logical inference in simply being undead. The spell expressly makes someone no longer dead. It makes that person undead instead. You're missing this fundamental difference between a construct and an undead. Undead isnt just a convenient term. It means (literally) 'This person is no longer dead, but they are also not alive. They are in a horrifying state of being inbetween the two states'.

Golems are not undead, having never been alive in the first place.

And acting like you want them to doesnt affect the state of the person you cast it on. A dominated person is still alive, but also a slave to your will. The object (even a corpse) you cast animate objects on is not alive, dead or undead and is also a slave to your will. A dead person you cast animate dead is is also a slave to your will, but is also no longer dead.

Some rare magic exists to make a person 'no longer dead, but now undead' and retain a Good alignment. Theyre expressly called out as such (and the exception that proves the rule).


If the actual person was in there, then when not under the control of a necromancer, they'd either act like the actual person or, you know, have some degree of free will at all. Or at least beg someone to kill them.

Or theyre trapped inside their own mind like a sleepwalker or helpless observer as they rip people to shreds and eat their brains. Like dominated creatures are.

Whatever the case, the one thing we know for certain is the target of animate dead isnt dead anymore.

Marlowe
2015-12-14, 02:24 AM
While "Undead are animated by the souls of their former owners" seems to be a common delusion (along with "Paladins and Clerics have to be chaste" and "Warlocks must sell their souls to get their powers"), it's not only not backed up by the text but it is nonsense in practical terms.

Things don't go straight from being alive to being undead through necromancy. There is a period, often quite a long one, when the creature is DEAD dead. During that time, the spirit or soul of the creature goes to its respective afterlife plane. Some of the native inhabitants of these planes are proverbially rather zealous about getting all the souls they can coming to their particular neighbourhood.

IF Undead contain theit former souls THEN those souls must have been dragged out of the Heavens and Hells they were formerly residing. Out of the clutches of powerful Devils and Archons and whatever. And that would very quickly result in far more potent retribution being visited upon the practicing necromancer than a few priests and paladins giving him trouble.

It's far simpler to just go with what's in the book. That Undead are just robots powered by negative energy with the soul being a long-departed former owner.

goto124
2015-12-14, 02:30 AM
thrown other PCs out the window (http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/locke-defenestration.jpg) [snip] Never killed one though.

How did they survive the fall - Feather Fall? The building was not more than two stories high? :smalltongue:


I don't ban PvP until the players prove they can't handle conflict maturely.

To be honest, a number of people here do the reverse: they ban PvP (combat or otherwise) until they trust the players to be mature enough for it. Especially if they're playing co-op games.


In default DnD undead are not mere constructs. Theyre the actual spirits/ souls of people that are forced back into their rotting (or fully decomposed) body by magic, in what the game refers to as a 'horrifying state of undeath', and enslaved to the casters will as monstrous evil aligned creatures.

These sort of stuff seem to exist to make Necromancy evil, instead of using actual logical reasoning.

"If creating flesh golems is neutral, why is zombie-creation evil?"

"Because zombie-creation involves souls unwillingly forced into submission."

"But why does zombie-creation involve souls unwillingly forced into submission, when flesh golems achieve the same result with no evil required?"

There could be different types of zombie-creation: one type doesn't trap souls and is not evil, while another type does trap souls and is evil, but creates stronger zombies. Or something like that.

I don't get the deal with liches though. The best I can think of is that turning into a lich is like turning into a demon (which is literally made of Evil).

Rater202
2015-12-14, 03:02 AM
Its contained by logical inference in simply being undead. The spell expressly makes someone no longer dead. It makes that person undead instead. You're missing this fundamental difference between a construct and an undead. Undead isnt just a convenient term. It means (literally) 'This person is no longer dead, but they are also not alive. They are in a horrifying state of being inbetween the two states'.

Golems are not undead, having never been alive in the first place.

And acting like you want them to doesnt affect the state of the person you cast it on. A dominated person is still alive, but also a slave to your will. The object (even a corpse) you cast animate objects on is not alive, dead or undead and is also a slave to your will. A dead person you cast animate dead is is also a slave to your will, but is also no longer dead.

Some rare magic exists to make a person 'no longer dead, but now undead' and retain a Good alignment. Theyre expressly called out as such (and the exception that proves the rule).



Or theyre trapped inside their own mind like a sleepwalker or helpless observer as they rip people to shreds and eat their brains. Like dominated creatures are.

Whatever the case, the one thing we know for certain is the target of animate dead isnt dead anymore.
Okay, what I'm taking away from this is

1: You are way to hung up over the literal meaning of the word "undead." The literal meaning is "no longer dead." That includes something that supposed to be dead(say, a corpse) getting up and moving, but by the strict definition does not necessarily involve the soul of the person being involved at all. The strict definition of undead would also include a corpse reanimated by any means, including ones that arne't undead by the D&D definition, such as flesh golems or the "Corpse Animated Object" you keep mentioning.

since you are insistent that these are not undead, I will assume that we are using the D&D definition, not the strict definition.

2: You seem to be confused about what D&D Zombies are, since there are no mentions of them eating brains(beyond the one variant in Libris Mortis that is called out as such, implying that other zombies by default do not) All data implies that standard zombies and skeletons are mostly corpsy automatons.

3: You seem to be operating on the assumption that I do not know the differences between a zombie and a construct. I do, inf act, know this, and I posted the exact quote, from Libris Mortis, that explains it, reposting
First, negative energy is
not a requisite power for any common construct, including
flesh golems. Negative energy does not energize constructs,
nor does negative energy play a part in the methods whereby
constructs can afflict foes. Second, constructs are not animated
by evil spirits, but rather by elemental spirits.

Emphasis mine. The difference is "Undead involve negative energy in power source and/or damage" and "undead are powered by evil spirits."

Note that it says absolutely nothing about souls period, and "Evil Spirit=/=Soul of the person the body used to belong to."

So, when you provide us with the quote that says that undead are powered by enslaved souls, then your argument will have merit. Until then, the facts say that your argument is incorrect.

Malifice
2015-12-14, 03:13 AM
Things don't go straight from being alive to being undead through necromancy. There is a period, often quite a long one, when the creature is DEAD dead.

Yeah. They live, then they die, then the necromancer makes them undead.

This is a different process altogether than what happens to a construct. It goes from non sentience (or being sentient elsewhere in the case of bound elemental spirits) to being sentient.


During that time, the spirit or soul of the creature goes to its respective afterlife plane. Some of the native inhabitants of these planes are proverbially rather zealous about getting all the souls they can coming to their particular neighbourhood.

IF Undead contain theit former souls THEN those souls must have been dragged out of the Heavens and Hells they were formerly residing. Out of the clutches of powerful Devils and Archons and whatever. And that would very quickly result in far more potent retribution being visited upon the practicing necromancer than a few priests and paladins giving him trouble.

Depends on if you view the 'soul' and the 'spirit' as the same thing. The words are often used interchangably, but not always. Undead are usually - but not always - described as 'spirits' (ghosts, wraiths, spectres etc). Many religions dont use a binary (soul/ body) divide and instead use a trinary divide (mind/ soul/ spirit).


That Undead are just robots powered by negative energy with the soul being a long-departed former owner.

Thats not what undead are though. Theyre not just robots. That would make them constructs. Theyre no longer dead people.


"But why does zombie-creation involve souls unwillingly forced into submission, when flesh golems achieve the same result with no evil required?"

Because when you make a flesh golem you arent making a dead person undead. You're (essentially) building a robot (out of meat), just like when you animate a sword using animate objects. When you create a construct nothing that was ever alive and then dead becomes now undead instead.


There could be different types of zombie-creation: one type doesn't trap souls and is not evil, while another type does trap souls and is evil, but creates stronger zombies. Or something like that.

There are methods of creating good undead. Balenorns and Deathless spring to mind. Neither of these undead are controlled by the creator (they voluntarily enter undeath) and becoming one is also voluntary (they arent forced into undeath).

Again, they seem to be the exception that proves the rule for mine.


I don't get the deal with liches though. The best I can think of is that turning into a lich is like turning into a demon (which is literally made of Evil).

A lich voluntarily traps its immortal soul into a vessel (its phylactery) in order to preserve its spirit and (decaying) body - both of which it keeps. It seeks to prolong its material existence and mind (while at the same time damning its immortal soul).


1: You are way to hung up over the literal meaning of the word "undead." The literal meaning is "no longer dead." That includes something that supposed to be dead(say, a corpse) getting up and moving, but by the strict definition does not necessarily involve the soul of the person being involved at all. The strict definition of undead would also include a corpse reanimated by any means, including ones that arne't undead by the D&D definition, such as flesh golems or the "Corpse Animated Object" you keep mentioning.

Nah man, youre missing it. You're arguing that someone who is undead can still be dead.

I wholly disagree with that argument on fundamental logical grounds. This isnt just a case of semantics.

They're one or the other - either dead OR undead (or neither, and thus still alive). You cant be dead and undead, or be alive and dead, or be alive and undead. Youre in one of the three states.

This is the distinction between a constuct like a flesh golem or a robot, and an undead like a zombie or a lich.

Look, we are way off topic to the OP. If you want your games to feature good natured necromancers spawning evil monstrosities then have at it. Im not going to stop you.

Rater202
2015-12-14, 03:21 AM
Depends on if you view the 'soul' and the 'spirit' as the same thing. The words are often used interchangably, but not always. Undead are usually - but not always - described as 'spirits' (ghosts, wraiths, spectres etc). Many religions dont use a binary (soul/ body) divide and instead use a trinary divide (mind/ soul/ spirit). And as I have repeatedly pointed out, the Soul/Spirit of the desceased is in no way ever mentioned in the "what is an undead" section of Libris Mortis and is only ever mentioned in relation to Lich. Lich's are the only undead creatures that are confirmed to have souls. Nothing is is confirmed to have a soul.



Thats not what undead are though. Theyre not just robots. That would make them constructs. Theyre no longer dead people. Zombies and skeletons, unless awakened, literally have no consciousness whatso ever. They are autonomoatons that tireless preform taskes with no semblance of free will or thought. They are explcitly called out as mindless in the text. You are playing by definitions of undead other than that provided by the material. The definition of undead provided by the text is "corpse animated by an evil spirit and powered by negative enrgy."

Even by your definition, there's a big difference between "making the body not dead" and "making the person not dead."

The fisrt is only the body. The secod is the body and soul.


Nah man, youre missing it. You're arguing that someone who is undead can still be dead.

I wholly disagree with that argument on fundamental logical grounds. This isnt just a case of semantics.

They're one or the other - either dead OR undead (or neither, and thus still alive). You cant be dead and undead, or be alive and dead, or be alive and undead. Youre in one of the three states.

If the soul exists that the soul is seperate from the body.

The body can be not dead while the soul is dead, because they're not the same thing.

And yes, I perfectly get it.You are arguing that undead must be not dead, which preclude their souls being in the afterlife. I believe this statement is factually wrong and furthermore state that it seems to come from an overly strict definition of undead.

So, for the third time, I ask of you: Give us a quote. Provide us a quotation form an offical 3.5 D&D suplimaetnt that says that the soul/spirit/mind of the original donor is 100% always, without fail, trapped in the body of the otherwise mindless autonomaton zombie.

Otherwise, the quote I twice provided says that ythe soul is not involved.

Also: Flesh Golems require the Animate Dead spell to make.

The_Snark
2015-12-14, 03:25 AM
Its contained by logical inference in simply being undead. The spell expressly makes someone no longer dead. It makes that person undead instead. You're missing this fundamental difference between a construct and an undead. Undead isnt just a convenient term. It means (literally) 'This person is no longer dead, but they are also not alive. They are in a horrifying state of being inbetween the two states'.

The problem is that no D&D book actually says this. Undead are typically portrayed as evil or at best sinister in the myths and fantasy stories that D&D draws on for inspiration; therefore, the D&D rules slap the [Evil] tag on spells which animate the dead, and list zombies as evil despite them lacking any ability to make choices. It doesn't explain why*, or go into detail.

You've constructed an explanation for why these things might be. I actually like your explanation! It's internally consistent, it offers a satisfying answer to the question of "why is undeath bad", and I wouldn't mind playing with it...

... but it is not RAW. Nor is it the literal dictionary definition, which reads something like "technically dead but still animate by supernatural means" (note lack of negative connotation). Some people, instead of looking at the alignment tags and figuring out a way to make sense of them, decide that they're arbitrary and/or nonsensical and should be downplayed or ignored completely (the point of view Marlowe is describing, essentially). Either of those approaches is fine, on its own; problems arise when players disagree about which one is true in their game. It's possible that JonU's difficulties stemmed from the priest's player assuming undeath works as you describe, or something vaguely similar, while JonU assumed it was more benign.

The point I'm trying to make is, the source material is vague about this. It's important to recognize that there's ambiguity, because then your group can settle on an interpretation that works for them instead of getting caught up in arguments about how it's meant to work.

*To my knowledge; if you know of a sourcebook that does I'd love to see it. Libris Mortis is the obvious place to look, but it never really addresses the question directly.

Rater202
2015-12-14, 03:29 AM
According to Libris Mortis, the undead that can be created by spells(and presumably other artifical ones or other ones with no semblance to the original owner of the body) are animated by an evil spirit.

So, logically, the reason animate dead and it's relative have the evil tag is because the spell summons and binds an evil spirit to a corpse.

SirNMN
2015-12-14, 04:07 AM
Some rare magic exists to make a person 'no longer dead, but now undead' and retain a Good alignment. Theyre expressly called out as such (and the exception that proves the rule).[/I]

where can I find these spells?

Malifice
2015-12-14, 04:22 AM
And as I have repeatedly pointed out,the Soul/Spirit of the desceased is in no way ever mentioned in the "what is an undead" section of Libris Mortisand is only ever mentioned in relation to Lich. Lich's are the only undead creatures that are confirmed to have souls. Nothing is is confirmed to have a soul.

What? Ghosts, Spectres, Wraiths, Allips etc etc. You telling me that they're not spirits/ souls?

And Liches dont have souls. They're in their phylactery. The process of becoming a lich requires one to rip the soul out of the body, leaving just the mind (spirit) and body behind.


Zombies and skeletons, unless awakened, literally have no consciousness whatso ever. They are autonomoatons that tireless preform taskes with no semblance of free will or thought. They are explcitly called out as mindless in the text. You are playing by definitions of undead other than that provided by the material. The definition of undead provided by the text is "corpse animated by an evil spirit and powered by negative enrgy."

Being mindless and also being either a construct, alive or undead are not connected. Vermin are mindless, and theyre still alive. Being mindless has no bearing on a which state a creature is in; alive, dead or undead. There is some correllation between being alive and having a mind, but simply not having a mind is no indicator of a creatures state of life, death or undeath.


And yes, I perfectly get it.You are arguing that undead must be not dead, which preclude their souls being in the afterlife. I believe this statement is factually wrong and furthermore state that it seems to come from an overly strict definition of undead.

I actually think that souls and spirits are not the same thing. Souls are the immortal essence of a creature. The spirit is just the personality of the creature (which resonates on the ethereal). There is a crossover between the two though, and some writers have used the two words (soul and spirit) interchangably.


So, for the third time, I ask of you: Give us a quote.

And for the third time I tell you I dont have to. The state of an undead person no longer being dead is all I need to prove my point.


Also: Flesh Golems require the Animate Dead spell to make.

They do indeed. But the spell dosent create an undead creature. Frankensteins monster (a flesh golem) wasnt a singlular person brought back to life (or brought into undeath). It was its own independent entity, like an AI Dr Frankensten programed.


To my knowledge; if you know of a sourcebook that does I'd love to see it. Libris Mortis is the obvious place to look, but it never really addresses the question directly.

The clue is in the nature of the monster.

As a hint a zombie isnt simply a dead person with magical clockwork inside that make it move like a complex puppet. That would make it a construct.

It's a person that is no longer dead.

A dead thing that moves by magic (or by drawing a living spirit inside of it) is a construct. It doesnt suddenly become alive when so empowered, nor does it die when the spirit (or magic) that animates it is released. It's a robot.

An undead is a totally different kettle of fish. Its a living person that died, but is now no longer dead. It is still that same person, just no longer dead.

Undeath is a state a being can be in. It sits between death and life, sharing traits of both, but being neither. It is not the same thing as being a construct.

Example: Joe can only ever be in one of three states:


Joe is alive, or
Joe is dead, or
Joe is undead.


If Joe is a zombie now, he is no longer dead. You cant be alive and undead, just like you cant be dead and undead.

The_Snark
2015-12-14, 04:57 AM
Undeath is a state a being can be in. It sits between death and life, sharing traits of both, but being neither. It is not the same thing as being a construct.

Example: Joe can only ever be in one of three states:


Joe is alive, or
Joe is dead, or
Joe is undead.


If Joe is a zombie now, he is no longer dead. You cant be alive and undead, just like you cant be dead and undead.

I don't disagree with this, but that wasn't what I was asking about; I was asking whether you had a source when you asserted that Animate Dead binds the victim's soul to the corpse and enslaves it to the caster's will. That is not evident from the spell description: the zombie is mindless, it's not obvious that a soul is involved at all. (The phrase "soulless mockery of life" comes to mind.)

At best, your theory is implied by the fact that you can't Resurrect said victim until the zombie is dead, even if you're using a spell that doesn't need a body; that's why I complimented your explanation on logical consistency.

Marlowe
2015-12-14, 05:14 AM
Malifice, carrying your argument to its conclusion; the entire D&D afterlife is a fraud, because the "soul" or "spirit" isn't that goes to the afterlife isn't the "person".

The "person", you seem to think, is inseparable from the body.

Therefore, a valid way to release the "person" into the afterlife would be to animate the body as an undead and allow it to be destroyed in battle. If this is not done, the "person" presumably is left to molder inside the decaying shell. Maybe cremation would work too?

You have, in fact, "proved" that Necromancy is Good. And incidentally that burial is Evil.

If in fact, you have "proved" anything except that you can make lots of wild assertations and laugh off the idea of backing up any of them.

Âmesang
2015-12-14, 06:12 AM
I'm kind of under the impression that the deal with liches is that they've magically extended themselves beyond their normal lifespan, so that even when their bodies "die" they keep going… kind of like Lenore, the Cute Little Dead Girl (and her cohort, Ragamuffin, the Vampire Scourge!).

Actually that reminds me of once trying to make a "first vampire" that came about because an epic spellcaster was making a different attempt at immortality and… kind of goofed. "Basing it around the 'animate dead' seed seemed like a good idea at the time!" Just 'cause a wizard is intelligent doesn't mean he's wise.

Oh, hey, remember the old Transformers episode, Dark Awakening (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Dark_Awakening_(episode))? Would Zombie Optimus Prime be classified as a construct or as the undead? :smalltongue:

Keltest
2015-12-14, 06:27 AM
I'm kind of under the impression that the deal with liches is that they've magically extended themselves beyond their normal lifespan, so that even when their bodies "die" they keep going… kind of like Lenore, the Cute Little Dead Girl (and her cohort, Ragamuffin, the Vampire Scourge!).

Actually that reminds me of once trying to make a "first vampire" that came about because an epic spellcaster was making a different attempt at immortality and… kind of goofed. "Basing it around the 'animate dead' seed seemed like a good idea at the time!" Just 'cause a wizard is intelligent doesn't mean he's wise.

Oh, hey, remember the old Transformers episode, Dark Awakening (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Dark_Awakening_(episode))? Would Zombie Optimus Prime be classified as a construct or as the undead? :smalltongue:

I feel like vampirism would be more of a clerical thing than a wizardly thing. Wizards can become liches. Evil Clerics would seek their own version, which means going through their probably evil god.

goto124
2015-12-14, 07:05 AM
I'm kind of under the impression that the deal with liches is that they've magically extended themselves beyond their normal lifespan, so that even when their bodies "die" they keep going…

Doesn't really explain why they're evil. Is goodness (or Goo-ness, or Good energy, since Good and Evil are literal forced) a part of the body, and when the body dies so does the Good-ness?

Or Good energy cannot prolong someone's life, only (huge amounts of) Evil energy, and the Evil energy that extends their life is also what twists them into evil?

And Good energy cannot prolong someone's life because... well, Good energy can heal wounds and cure diseases, but not extend lifespans because... the gods said so? Or the gods figured that it messes with the delicate balance of life and death that exists in the world?

The_Snark
2015-12-14, 08:05 AM
I'm kind of under the impression that the deal with liches is that they've magically extended themselves beyond their normal lifespan, so that even when their bodies "die" they keep going… kind of like Lenore, the Cute Little Dead Girl (and her cohort, Ragamuffin, the Vampire Scourge!).

Doesn't really explain why they're evil. Is goodness (or Goo-ness, or Good energy, since Good and Evil are literal forced) a part of the body, and when the body dies so does the Good-ness?

A lich is pulling the classic Koschei the Deathless (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koschei) trick: they've hidden their soul in an object (the phylactery), and their physical body is merely a puppet. You can destroy the body, but unless you get the soul they'll hang around in the phylactery, and eventually generate a new one... somehow.

It's not clear to me where the Evil in this process comes in, but the most obvious explanations (to me) are: 1) the act of transferring the soul and creating a phylactery requires you to do something horrible; or 2) something about the transfer or the new state of being warps the soul, turning you into a sociopath/giving you a taste for cruelty/making you evil-aligned in some manner.

Âmesang
2015-12-14, 08:37 AM
I figure the "evil" aspect comes from not accepting when's one time is up; "bowing out gracefully," as it were. Makes me imagine quite a few liches and vampires must have marut inevitables chasing after them. *shrugs*

Knaight
2015-12-14, 09:27 AM
This is also the difference between a flesh golem and a zombie. The former is a corpse construct - youre not forcing a spirit of the body into a state of undeath, youre just using the meat and imbuing it with an AI. The spirit of the person that inhabited the bodies or body you used for the spell stays dead.

Putting aside the quirks of your undead definition (which I'm not seeing backed up for any of the mindless undead, though it fits ghosts, vampires, liches, and a few other D&D creatures pretty well), the flesh golem here is being oversimplified. You're not using the meat and imbuing it with an AI. You're using the meat and then using it as a meat prison for an elemental of human intelligence, then nearly completely crushing their will and forcing them to follow you unless they are eventually lucky enough to break the control - even then, they're still stuck in said meat prison. I have a hard time seeing this as better.

Rater202
2015-12-14, 10:16 AM
What? Ghosts, Spectres, Wraiths, Allips etc etc. You telling me that they're not spirits/ souls?[quote] They're not said to have/be souls. They could just be echos.

[quote]And Liches dont have souls. They're in their phylactery. The process of becoming a lich requires one to rip the soul out of the body, leaving just the mind (spirit) and body behind. Okay, one, D&D doen'st treat the spirit, mind, and soul as seperate.

Two, Liche's have to have souls, otherwise there's nothing to put in the phylactery.


I actually think that souls and spirits are not the same thing.

Good for you, Dungeons and dragons does not.


And for the third time I tell you I dont have to. The state of an undead person no longer being dead is all I need to prove my point. And I have twice provided an exact quote from the book that proves your point wrong. Until you have a quote from one of the books that supports your claim, the book, Libris Mortis, is the authority, and it says that you're wrong.

Provide the quote, because if you do not provide the quote, then Libris Mortis says that you're wrong


They do indeed. But the spell dosent create an undead creature. Frankensteins monster (a flesh golem) wasnt a singlular person brought back to life (or brought into undeath). It was its own independent entity, like an AI Dr Frankensten programed.

Frankenstein's monster was a living creature that, in the original novel, was not, in fact, stitched together from humnan flesh.

A zombie is a reanimated corpse. A flesh Golem is made of reanimated corpses. A zombie is mindless. A flesh Golem is mindless. A zombie requires a casting of the spell Animate Dead to create. A Flesh Golem requires the spell Animate Dead to create.

The diferance between the two is that one is an undead and one is a construct.

Why? Because a Zombie is a mindless automaton powered by negative enrgy and an evil spirit, and a flesh golem is an autonomaton powered by an elemental spirit. As is said in that quote, I provided, which I will now repeat for a third time


First, negative energy is
not a requisite power for any common construct, including
flesh golems. Negative energy does not energize constructs,
nor does negative energy play a part in the methods whereby
constructs can afflict foes. Second, constructs are not animated
by evil spirits, but rather by elemental spirits.

Libris Mortis is an official supplement. That explanation both defines what an undead is and explains the diferance between a zombie and a flesh golem.

A flesh golem isn't undead because it's not powered by negative enrgy and an evil spirit.

That's the canon. Which means that your explanation, undead magically rip the souls of the dead out of the afterlife to animate the corpse, is not the canon

So, for the last time, provide a quote that supports your claim, becuase otherwise your entire argument has no basis

YossarianLives
2015-12-14, 10:58 AM
Malfifice you've ranted about this soul/spirit stuff in other threads. It's become very clear that the whole thing is contrived by you. That's not really a problem, but you're using it as canon in a forum discussion with people who may not share your perspective. It's inappropriate.

Pyrous
2015-12-14, 11:44 AM
[...](Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls.)[...]



Zombies are corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic. [...]it has no Constitution or Intelligence score[...]



Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, mindless automatons that obey the orders of their evil masters.
[...]it has no Constitution or Intelligence score[...]



This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow your spoken commands.


From the context that "sentient" is used, it must mean non-mindless. Therefore, Zombies and Skeletons don't have souls.

Animate Dead doesn't bind a soul, original or otherwise, to the corpse being animated.

RAW says zombies are created through dark and sinister magic and skeletons' masters are evil. That is the best explanation RAW gives for the Evil descriptor of Animate Dead, at least the best I could find*. That is the reason players argue about it being objectively evil: RAW only says it is evil, but doesn't say why.

*assuming spirit = soul; if not, evil spirit works just fine.

Mx56
2015-12-14, 12:13 PM
It's not clear to me where the Evil in this process comes in, but the most obvious explanations (to me) are: 1) the act of transferring the soul and creating a phylactery requires you to do something horrible; or 2) something about the transfer or the new state of being warps the soul, turning you into a sociopath/giving you a taste for cruelty/making you evil-aligned in some manner.
The 3.5e Monster Manual says "The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can only be undertaken by a willing character" (P168), which suggests that either:
a) The process involves some other unspeakably evil act, something unambiguously evil in an obvious fashion (e.g. human(oid) sacrifice or binding and torturing a Good outsider) or;
b) Putting your soul in a phylactery or just becoming undead is itself capital-E Evil because it just is.

(b) seems unsatisfying from a narrative point of view, but think there's room for both interpretations in the text.

FWIW, I always interpretted the fact that you can't use True Resurrection to bring back somebody who is undead without destroying them first as implying that the soul was in some way trapped by the process of becoming undead (thereby making creating any undead an evil act, though not necessarily beyond ends justifying the means type thinking), but don't think it's ever explicitly stated. For [Evil] spells in general, worth bearing in mind that Summon Monster can be [Evil] if you are summoning a fiend, even if you then, say, use the fiend to rescue a burning orphanage full of cute children who all own puppies and kittens, you could probably come up with some in universe reason why this should be the case (summoning an evil outsider has some outside chance of allowing evil spirits to enter the material plane or wevs), but otherwise it's a little odd.

Rater202
2015-12-14, 12:25 PM
From the context that "sentient" is used, it must mean non-mindless. Therefore, Zombies and Skeletons don't have souls.

Animate Dead doesn't bind a soul, original or otherwise, to the corpse being animated.

RAW says zombies are created through dark and sinister magic and skeletons' masters are evil. That is the best explanation RAW gives for the Evil descriptor of Animate Dead, at least the best I could find*. That is the reason players argue about it being objectively evil: RAW only says it is evil, but doesn't say why.

*assuming spirit = soul; if not, evil spirit works just fine.
Okay, turns out I'm wrong about only Lich's being confirmed to have souls.

The 3.5e Monster Manual says "The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can only be undertaken by a willing character" (P168), which suggests that either:
a) The process involves some other unspeakably evil act, something unambiguously evil in an obvious fashion (e.g. human(oid) sacrifice or binding and torturing a Good outsider) or;
b) Putting your soul in a phylactery or just becoming undead is itself capital-E Evil because it just is.

(b) seems unsatisfying from a narrative point of view, but think there's room for both interpretations in the text.

FWIW, I always interpretted the fact that you can't use True Resurrection to bring back somebody who is undead without destroying them first as implying that the soul was in some way trapped by the process of becoming undead (thereby making creating any undead an evil act, though not necessarily beyond ends justifying the means type thinking), but don't think it's ever explicitly stated. For [Evil] spells in general, worth bearing in mind that Summon Monster can be [Evil] if you are summoning a fiend, even if you then, say, use the fiend to rescue a burning orphanage full of cute children who all own puppies and kittens, you could probably come up with some in universe reason why this should be the case (summoning an evil outsider has some outside chance of allowing evil spirits to enter the material plane or wevs), but otherwise it's a little odd.

The Balenorns, Arch Lichs, and the "Good Lich" from Libris Mortis are all good aligned variants of the Lich. So it is possible to be a good lich Presumably the most common method of becoming a lich involves some unspeakably evil act, while those variants do not?

4E states that Orcus has something to do with Lichs, so it's plausible that the ritual requires something evil. Or maybe the ritual only works if you're evil?

Mx56
2015-12-14, 12:31 PM
So in the interests of being on topic a bit, killing a PC because you don't approve of the player's character creation choices is moronic and I would probably just not play with anybody who did things like that. That's outlandishly dickish.


The Balenorns, Arch Lichs, and the "Good Lich" from Libris Mortis are all good aligned variants of the Lich. So it is possible to be a good lich Presumably the most common method of becoming a lich involves some unspeakably evil act, while those variants do not?
Yeah, that's how I'd read it.

(Sidenote, the old WoTC had an article about a TN lich who became one by accidentally interupting somebody else's lich-ifying ritual, but can't remember much about it)

Âmesang
2015-12-14, 12:31 PM
Two, Liche's have to have souls, otherwise there's nothing to put in the phylactery.
Do liches still have taste buds? 'Cause now I want one who has a second phylactery filled with delicious candy (perhaps driven mad in the case that it can't enjoy it anymore. "What have I done?!").

Rater202
2015-12-14, 12:37 PM
Do liches still have taste buds? 'Cause now I want one who has a second phylactery filled with delicious candy (perhaps driven mad in the case that it can't enjoy it anymore. "What have I done?!").

Well, they can see without eyes, hear without ears, and talk without a voice box, lungs to expel air through them, or a tong or lips to shape the flow of air.

Being able to taste without taste buds would be consistent with that.

BootStrapTommy
2015-12-14, 04:07 PM
where can I find these spells? Undying are in the Eberron books. Baelnorn appear in one of the Faerun books, I think. Obviously both are campaign setting specific undead-without-Evil.

The oft-overlooked archlich is floating out there somewhere, though I forget where. It is a non-Evil lich that is designed to be setting neutral.

AMFV
2015-12-14, 04:09 PM
Undying are in the Eberron books. Baelnorn appear in one of the Faerun books, I think. Obviously both are campaign setting specific undead-without-Evil.

The oft-overlooked archlich is floating out there somewhere, though I forget where. It is a non-Evil lich that is designed to be setting neutral.

There's also the one in the BoED which is technically non-evil undead. Necropolitans as well (technically neutral)

Talakeal
2015-12-14, 04:16 PM
Does anyone know what the "evil sirits" used to create undead are or where they come from?

The negative energy plane sems the most likely source, but the plane does not have the evil trait and the outsiders that inhabit it dont have an evil alignment, so it would seem weird that the spirits one draws from it are intrinsically evil.

Maybe they are the lost souls of evil mortals that managed to avoid their fate in the lower planes and are just flitting around the material waiting for a necromancer looking for an easy source of animatin to give them a home?

AMFV
2015-12-14, 04:18 PM
Does anyone know what the "evil sirits" used to create undead are or where they come from?

The negative energy plane sems the most likely source, but the plane does not have the evil trait and the outsiders that inhabit it dont have an evil alignment, so it would seem weird that the spirits one draws from it are intrinsically evil.

Maybe they are the lost souls of evil mortals that managed to avoid their fate in the lower planes and are just flitting around the material waiting for a necromancer looking for an easy source of animatin to give them a home?

I'm pretty sure that fluff is only OOTS, and isn't present in any form of D&D that I'm aware of. So far as I've seen Undead are created from remnants of the living, and powered by the negative energy, which gives them effectively what a living soul might. But it isn't a living soul, which is why so many undead are mindless. I don't like to think of it as possession, it's a shift, the body is now powered by evil, that makes it evil.

Edit: Furthermore that explains why there are "Good" and "Neutral" undead, because the power source and method of creation is different.

Talakeal
2015-12-14, 04:21 PM
I'm pretty sure that fluff is only OOTS, and isn't present in any form of D&D that I'm aware of. So far as I've seen Undead are created from remnants of the living, and powered by the negative energy, which gives them effectively what a living soul might. But it isn't a living soul, which is why so many undead are mindless. I don't like to think of it as possession, it's a shift, the body is now powered by evil, that makes it evil.

Edit: Furthermore that explains why there are "Good" and "Neutral" undead, because the power source and method of creation is different.

Libris mortis mentions it in passing but doesnt go into detail.

AMFV
2015-12-14, 04:24 PM
Libris mortis mentions it in passing but doesnt go into detail.

It makes things more complex than they need to be. IMHO, I would ignore it (particularly since it doesn't occur elsewhere). The brain functions are a result of biological processes, certain undead retain those processes, and they're now powered by negative energy which distorts them. Lich Bob, is still Bob after all. Vampire Bob doesn't cease to be Bob, he's just a twisted version of Bob, having him be possessed I think detracts from the horror of it. It becomes "the Puppetmaster is the evil one" not "Bob really has all that evil inside him that we never saw"

Amphetryon
2015-12-14, 06:47 PM
Im not being misleading. Youre taking my post out of context (again) even after I explained that I used the term 'necromancy' in the context of the post I was referring to (necromancy = animating the dead). Im aware that there are plenty of necromancy spells that are not evil (raise dead for example).


Out of context? This was your quote:



Its not possible to be a good aligned necromancer (by RAW) in 3.5 or 5E. Animate dead is an evil spell. It has the evil descriptor. Casting it is (by default) an evil act. Undead are evily aligned.

Very well. Show me the RAW that forbids a Wizard to specialize in Necromancy in 3.5. You did not say a Dread Necromancer, or a True Necromancer, or any other PrC with the Necromancer label. You said it's not possible to be a good aligned Necromancer (by RAW). By choosing not to qualify that statement, you include any Necromancer. Tell us where the RAW makes this impossible. Please. Quote it, with page number.

Else, please stop accusing folks of taking you out of context as a defense against having to back up your claims.

Malifice
2015-12-14, 10:05 PM
Very well. Show me the RAW that forbids a Wizard to specialize in Necromancy in 3.5. You did not say a Dread Necromancer, or a True Necromancer, or any other PrC with the Necromancer label. You said it's not possible to be a good aligned Necromancer (by RAW). By choosing not to qualify that statement, you include any Necromancer. Tell us where the RAW makes this impossible. Please. Quote it, with page number.

Im not using the term 'necromancer' as in the class title necromancer. Im using the term 'necromancer' as in 'a creator of undead'. I am aware that it is perfectly possible to be a good aligned (class) necromancer.

Ive clarified this for you three times now, and the post you quoted makes this abundently clear.

Amphetryon
2015-12-14, 10:25 PM
Im not using the term 'necromancer' as in the class title necromancer. Im using the term 'necromancer' as in 'a creator of undead'. I am aware that it is perfectly possible to be a good aligned (class) necromancer.

Ive clarified this for you three times now, and the post you quoted makes this abundently clear.

Nowhere in that post I quoted did you exclude the use of 'necromancer' as the class title. Nowhere. I've read it several times. You listed the creation of undead. You did not limit the term by that ability, in any way, by merely including that ability. Your argument is now "I'm choosing my own definition of terms that others in the thread whom I'm arguing against are not using, allowing my argument to be right by default."

Malifice
2015-12-14, 10:48 PM
Nowhere in that post I quoted did you exclude the use of 'necromancer' as the class title.

Ive pointed the context I used the word 'necromancer' in to you four times now to clarify confusion.

Why you keep arguing it is beyond me.

Marlowe
2015-12-14, 11:10 PM
It's funny how so many of these guys seem to have their opinions boil down to a belief in sympathetic magic. "Good is good because it says it's good and has the shiny armour and stuff". "Undead are people because they kinda look like people". "PCs are protagonists and protagonists are good because they're protagonists so they must be Good". "This word means what I use it to mean and you must not bring up what it actually means..."

Anyway; Malidroit, as someone who has played a Good-aligned Necromancer (we had a Dire Bear corpse and an even more Dire need for a frontliner as it had become abundantly clear that our Fighter was a dangerously unstable incompetent coward. What was I suppose to do?), I can tell you that you're objectively wrong.

Not that it matters, as you destroyed your own logical basis for argument back with the spirit/soul doubletalk.

And what does any of this have to do with you calling out another forum member's character for being "evil" while using spurious arguments?

Malifice
2015-12-14, 11:53 PM
Anyway; Malidroit, as someone who has played a Good-aligned Necromancer (we had a Dire Bear corpse and an even more Dire need for a frontliner as it had become abundantly clear that our Fighter was a dangerously unstable incompetent coward. What was I suppose to do?), I can tell you that you're objectively wrong.

No, you cant. In your campaign I would have been. In my campaign I wouldnt have been. Doesnt sound like a universal objective truth at all.


And what does any of this have to do with you calling out another forum member's character for being "evil" while using spurious arguments?

This is why Im trying to avoid any further derailment into necromancy. See my post several above.

The character got sick of being called evil on account of his animating the dead (itself called out as an evil act on account of the 'evil' descriptor in the spell if nothing more), and it annoyed him when his undead minions were attacked by the party cleric. So he betrayed and murdered the cleric (and ally) that was doing it.

You might not consider that an act of evil of course. We differ on this point if so. Also, if you dont think that his actions displayed evil, and were morally justified, I really dont want to be your friend!

Rater202
2015-12-15, 12:16 AM
You might not consider that an act of evil of course. We differ on this point if so. Also, if you dont think that his actions displayed evil, and were morally justified, I really dont want to be your friend!

If somoen repeated attacks you on the grounds that you are "evil" and ingores all evicdence to the contrariy, you are prerfectly justified in attacking him back, becuase eventually he's gonna get lucky and kill you.

It's not betrayal(arguably, the Cleric betrayed him by attacking him first) It's defending yourself by eliminating a known threat.

Marlowe
2015-12-15, 12:41 AM
No, you cant. In your campaign I would have been. In my campaign I wouldnt have been. Doesnt sound like a universal objective truth at all.



I can and I did. That is the objective truth. I'm not playing in your campaign. I wouldn't play in your campaign. I wouldn't trust you to run a campaign. You can't look up "Universal" in a dictionary to find out what it means, why would you be trusted with a DM screen?

The necromancy derailment is ENTIRELY your work. Based on contradictory logic and blind assertions. You want to stop it? Stop it.



You might not consider that an act of evil of course. We differ on this point if so. Also, if you dont think that his actions displayed evil, and were morally justified, I really dont want to be your friend!
http://i.imgur.com/lJ5jeCv.png

Malifice
2015-12-15, 01:05 AM
If somoen repeated attacks you on the grounds that you are "evil" and ingores all evicdence to the contrariy, you are prerfectly justified in attacking him back, becuase eventually he's gonna get lucky and kill you.

It's not betrayal(arguably, the Cleric betrayed him by attacking him first) It's defending yourself by eliminating a known threat.

No, you're not justified. A good person doesnt betray and murder an ally.

Only in a roleplaying forum is such a thing considered a 'good' act.


I wouldn't play in your campaign. I wouldn't trust you to run a campaign.

Harsh words. You dont know me.


The necromancy derailment is ENTIRELY your work.

I must have been arguing with myself then.

YossarianLives
2015-12-15, 01:16 AM
Crap. This argument discussion is getting pretty intense now that the Plane-Touched have joined it.

Marlowe
2015-12-15, 01:27 AM
http://i.imgur.com/Q9dZ2kh.png

The_Snark
2015-12-15, 01:36 AM
The character got sick of being called evil on account of his animating the dead (itself called out as an evil act on account of the 'evil' descriptor in the spell if nothing more), and it annoyed him when his undead minions were attacked by the party cleric. So he betrayed and murdered the cleric (and ally) that was doing it.

The priest also attacked the necromancer, though:

No matter how hard I tried to show our Cleric that I was using them for good purposes, he always would attack me or my minions (even ones i turned during battle). Finally, I got tired of it and just lagged behind the group and pitched in where I could since I knew staying in the group was going to cause issues.
(emphasis mine) It sounds like the necromancer eventually had to resort to keeping a safe distance from the priest, literally, and only came into close physical proximity when they were fighting - at which point the priest would attack him and/or his minions rather than the party's actual enemies.

The eventual snapping-and-murdering was pretty shady, but that priest does not seem good-aligned to me - as you point out, a good person does not attempt to murder their allies - and the priest's player was being disruptive.


No, you cant. In your campaign I would have been. In my campaign I wouldnt have been. Doesnt sound like a universal objective truth at all.

Precisely! This issue does not have an objective truth. The books are vague on the subject, and so people come up with their own tweaks/explanations if they run into it.

Rater202
2015-12-15, 01:37 AM
A good person doesnt betray and murder an ally.The rest of the party agreed with the necromancer and the cleric attacked the necromancer first.

Thus, the cleric is the betrayer.

Okay, that last one feels a bit mean spirited.

Demons_eye
2015-12-15, 02:20 AM
For a one shot a 'friend' built "Communist Man" a total bull**** character that abused every rule because he knew the DM wouldn't check or wouldn't say no to characters. He was a Warforged with the making it human template for -2 LA then added winged and tacked on every Vow of feat he could, had like 3 flaws I think. Basically had armor in the 30's which was more than than the average 15 we had and made it so no one could use violence around him AND was upping his save DC's to insane levels. It took me, a factotum Iaijutsu Focus sword cane wielding old man, and two friends, one a blaster and one another melee, to surprise attack him and still almost not kill him.

It was totally stupid how the fight went with us three hitting him with our hardest moves, using up resources we should have saved for the dragon fight, and still needing the Warlock's help to blast him for the extra cump change damage.

I do have to say that nothing is more badass than nodding to two friends and having them understand a sneak attack with no words spoken at all.

This same dude built another character for another one shot using templates again leading to a minotaur/centaur that had like 60 STR at level 8. That game was a gestalt game though so it was easier to swallow.

Marlowe
2015-12-15, 02:25 AM
As you will, Rater.

Demon's_eye; a little confused. Character was an illegal mess. Fine. But why was it necessary to actually kill him?:smallconfused:

Demons_eye
2015-12-15, 02:40 AM
It was to do anything. We couldn't hurt anyone with his aura and he kept stopping us from doing things because it was against 'the communist code'. And to be honest he was making the game un-fun enough that the three of us, out of the six players, to acknowledge a silent kill command and for a fourth player to finish it after finding out what was going on.

If it was a longer game I would have talked to him about it but it was a one shot that lasted a total of 5 hours 3 of which we spent not using any of our skills because it was violence and we didn't have a choice in the matter.

Marlowe
2015-12-15, 03:05 AM
"Communist Code"

Well, at least you shared the labour of disposing of him in a equitable fashion.

We once rolled up a character for a somewhat "leftist" friend. A 2-weapon fighting Ranger with hammer and sickle of course. He's steal from the rich and redistribute to the poor at some later date when the state withered away and true communism arrived.

Grizl' Bjorn
2015-12-19, 04:58 AM
Our group is currently in an (ex) Dwarven fortress taken over by Goblins and is in the process of persuading the Goblins to leave and take them somewhere else (we've got a place picked out.) The group majority consensus is that we should do this.

There are signs that one player, a dwarf, is initiating some kind of secret plan to try and kill all of the Goblins instead. My neutral good character will not tolerate this (there's no way I can see it being compatible with his perspective, indeed as a Cleric the GM and I agree he'd likely lose his powers if he actively participated in this, or maybe even passively let it happen.)

So it's entirely possible/likely that this is going to lead to a TPK one way or another. I don't really know who is in the wrong here- the Dwarf because she's possibly plotting to do this, going against a party consensus, or me because I'm going to try to kill her if she attempts it. Maybe no one is in the wrong and it's just the unavoidable side effect of playing consistent characters with motivations and some degree of ideological rigidity.

EDIT: When I say 'kill all the Goblins' I'm talking about like forty thousand of them. Effectively genocide is being considered.

goto124
2015-12-19, 05:00 AM
Have you asked the dwarf's player what he/she is trying to accomplish? OOCly, that is.

EvilestWeevil
2015-12-19, 07:09 AM
Some PC deaths are just due to the interaction of the characters, and others just because of disruptive players. When I started with my group, players would flit in and out at a moments notice, and some of the players were the disruptive type. So they would show up and wreck an adventure and then not show up for another 3 months. At one point we were maybe 8 months into a campaign, one of these disruptive types showed up and killed my character who was the healer and leader of the party, just to ruin my day. I was not very happy about my first and only bard I had ever played dying to a character who got to be rolled up that day, at my level, and then killed me. At that point I was ready to walk, or at least be done with that campaign for the conclusion. The DM ended up retconning the whole thing, after I sat him down and explained the players pattern of being a disruptive assclown. In the end that player was not allowed to play with us for an extended period due to his consistently crappy behavior. The rest of us got to finish out the campaign, with that being the only blemish to look back on. I will always look back fondly on my unlucky bard named Lucky.

Guran
2015-12-19, 07:24 AM
All PC deaths I've seen were due to player choices. Most of them being noble sacrifices where they give their lives for the party or NPC's. Ofcourse there was this one exception with a player who decided to betray us. I caught him at the moment when he was about to finish our paladin of. I darted in and killed the traitor.

Keltest
2015-12-19, 07:25 AM
Some PC deaths are just due to the interaction of the characters, and others just because of disruptive players. When I started with my group, players would flit in and out at a moments notice, and some of the players were the disruptive type. So they would show up and wreck an adventure and then not show up for another 3 months. At one point we were maybe 8 months into a campaign, one of these disruptive types showed up and killed my character who was the healer and leader of the party, just to ruin my day. I was not very happy about my first and only bard I had ever played dying to a character who got to be rolled up that day, at my level, and then killed me. At that point I was ready to walk, or at least be done with that campaign for the conclusion. The DM ended up retconning the whole thing, after I sat him down and explained the players pattern of being a disruptive assclown. In the end that player was not allowed to play with us for an extended period due to his consistently crappy behavior. The rest of us got to finish out the campaign, with only that being the only blemish to look back on. I was always look back fondly on my unlucky bard named Lucky.

I dunno, he sounds pretty lucky to me. How many people can say they had reality rewritten for them?

He should go buy a lottery ticket.

EvilestWeevil
2015-12-19, 07:36 AM
Fair enough. It would not have been as big of a deal if the player hadn't already either ruined or tried to ruin 3 or 4 adventures before that point. He was the type to get angry and storm off if the DM didn't let him kill someone's character. At one point he tried to kill a PC while the player wasn't there and the guys PC was being played by someone else. Then he stormed off after the party killed him right back. He is not the most mature guy, and no he was not a teenager.

He helped me change my philosophy on PvP. Now I just let all new players to our group know about my standing threat, that if you ruin my fun, I will roll a new character every week just to ruin yours. Not the most mature, and I would never act on it, but it is a very efficient deterrent.

Kane0
2015-12-19, 07:43 AM
Dude, who does that?

At least the pvp that happened in my group was because two pcs were zealots to the mistress of fate (also the afterlife), one a necromancer/fiend consorter, one mercenary with a hired goon assassin and one highly educated and morally bankrupt half orc. That you could see a mile away.

EvilestWeevil
2015-12-19, 07:48 AM
I would assume it is because the last group of players he had played with would screw each other all the time. He played with different players but the same DM we have now, and he also was all about encouraging that silly stuff until later when it started to ruin adventures he would be running.

Keltest
2015-12-19, 07:48 AM
Dude, who does that?

More to the point, why was he allowed back in after the second time? Fool me twice and all that...

Malifice
2015-12-21, 07:04 AM
Our group is currently in an (ex) Dwarven fortress taken over by Goblins and is in the process of persuading the Goblins to leave and take them somewhere else (we've got a place picked out.) The group majority consensus is that we should do this.

There are signs that one player, a dwarf, is initiating some kind of secret plan to try and kill all of the Goblins instead. My neutral good character will not tolerate this (there's no way I can see it being compatible with his perspective, indeed as a Cleric the GM and I agree he'd likely lose his powers if he actively participated in this, or maybe even passively let it happen.)

So it's entirely possible/likely that this is going to lead to a TPK one way or another. I don't really know who is in the wrong here- the Dwarf because she's possibly plotting to do this, going against a party consensus, or me because I'm going to try to kill her if she attempts it. Maybe no one is in the wrong and it's just the unavoidable side effect of playing consistent characters with motivations and some degree of ideological rigidity.

EDIT: When I say 'kill all the Goblins' I'm talking about like forty thousand of them. Effectively genocide is being considered.

Is there not a way you can stop him without killing him?

Esprit15
2015-12-21, 08:16 AM
I haven't had to kill other party members, though it has been considered at times. I suppose the closest would have been me killing a DMPC (I talked it over with him, and he totally understood and was on board with everything). Tensions between the characters were rising, and after he totally messed up on a few things that he shouldn't have that I warned him about years previous IC, I made a quick and dirty plan to off him. I waited in his lair, polymorphed into a wartroll, and when he came in unprepared, charged and beat the ever loving snot out of him. Unfortunately, my party came in, didn't realize the wartroll was me, and the one party member that passed the sense motive roll to notice that it was my character decided in that moment that they didn't like me, so I got pulped right after killing him without a chance to speak.

I'm guessing that being an ex might have had something to do with that. :smallsigh: It did mean I got to reroll as something that would hopefully be even more fun.

noob
2015-12-21, 08:37 AM
I remember killing a pc because it was annoying.
It was myself.

CantigThimble
2015-12-21, 12:00 PM
I remember killing a pc because it was annoying.
It was myself.

I think the most common murderers of party members are players who found a cool new character concept.

Rater202
2015-12-21, 01:39 PM
I just remembered that I once tried to stake another PC in a Vampire: The Requiem game.

The character had caused a massive Masquerade breach in the midst of Frenzy, that the rest of us had just barely managed to contain, and I was the character's sire by proxy(and thw character had yet to be presented to the Prince) so it was technically within my rights.

Problem was that the character did that while the PC wasn't there(The ST was an Old School game master from the days where prepublished gaming adventures were horrifically unfair), so my character ended up getting shot in the head.(I assume it was the head anyway. It did lethal damage)

I was acting IC, the others were acting on OOC information.

Granted, Staking isn't lethal.

Eugoraton Feiht
2015-12-21, 03:08 PM
No mate, Character A (a good aligned Priest) had issues with Character B (a necromancer) in game. He voiced his concerns that the character (not the player) was using evil and sacreligious methods. He also destroyed the undead at every opportunity (i.e. he was playing his character). He attempted to explain to the necromancer player why his character was acting this way to no avail.

Character B then got so annoyed with the actions of character B, he betrayed and murdered the goodly priest.

Im not saying the player is evil. Its the character who is evil. A goodly priest murdering evil necromancer in fact. You need to draw a line of demarcation between the real world and the game bro.

Its the DM's fault as much as it is the players. Allowing a good priest and an evil necromancer in the party is going to cause problems. The priests player was left with few options here (he was clearly convinced that undead and necromancers are evil, which based on all available evidence - the necromancer betrayed and murdered him - was actually true) and his religious beliefs probably forbade him from dealing with either necromancers or undead. I dont know how mature the players or group were, but (from the sounds of it as they were unable to sort the issue out in a mature manner) he or she made a series of errors here (allowing the two in the same party, not helping to resolve the issue, and sitting by as a PC betrayed and murdered a fellow PC).

Its no different to allowing a CE Antipaladin into a party of LG paladins. By social contract youre all players (and all equally entitled to play the charracter you want to), but 'in game' its just not going to work and its prioritising one persons fun over other players (barring a very mature group).



If your necromancer betrays and murders a goodly priest in response to him destroying your evil undead monstrosities, then I would have no hesitiation in whacking an 'E' on your character sheet.

Maybe thats just me though. I hope not, but hey.

Why are the undead immediately labeled as Evil? Never really understood that myself. I've played a LE Cleric of Nerull and was able to set aside my differences with a LG Paladin of...(I can't remember what Hextor's brother is called sorry).

We disagreed on several points however he never attacked the undead and repeatedly destroyed them. He held a sword to my throat and demanded to know what I was doing. I explained that we had a goal and that, as a servant of Nerull I was calling upon those my god had domain over to assist us. You can summon undead and be respectful towards them. I treated my undead as faithful companions. I took care of them and made sure to fix them if they were broken. then when there services where no longer required I entombed them back within the earth from whence they came.

Sounds like this cleric was just "Rar, undead! Must kill for undead are evil! Good for the Good god!"

Also, looking into my PHB, Druid have a strong dislike of undead due to them being unnatural and against the natural order of things. Cleric...Not so much. A true LG cleric would see that they are returned to their graves and not misused/harmed. This guy is straight just desecrating their corpses...

noob
2015-12-21, 03:47 PM
I think the most common murderers of party members are players who found a cool new character concept.
Did you understood that I said that I made a pc that killed itself?
That is not a new concept it is called suicide.

CantigThimble
2015-12-21, 03:53 PM
Did you understood that I said that I made a pc that killed itself?
That is not a new concept it is called suicide.

Yes, I got that, I meant that plenty of times I've seen players off their own characters (or let them die when they really could have done more to stay alive) because they just wanted to play a different character. The #1 murderers of characters (among players) are their own players.

EvilestWeevil
2015-12-21, 05:19 PM
I have killed other PC's before, it happens. Sometimes it can be a collaboration between players. I played a LN wizard once that had joined with a N and CN wizard, out of a mutual attempt at immortality. Once we achieved said immortality my character was promptly killed off. The player told me what was up, and I went right ahead with it, the CN wizard was old and half crazy and excessively paranoid due to all of our wizards plotting against each other. I was told before hand, and it made sense.

As far as myself killing PC's, well when I was younger it was revenge for people being a jackass to me. Other times it made sense for the character. Once I had an elven rogue, that was apart of an expedition with elven hero types to go into the underdark. The fight didn't go our way, my character was captured, and all the "elven heroes" LG to N in alignment left my character for dead, while assuming I had been captured after they had fled. They continued on with the adventure like they it never happened. In the end, they finished the quest and refounded the elven nation of Earlann back on the surface. My character was tortured and managed to escape back to the surface. Finding out they were being lauded as heroes, after having left him in the underdark. He snapped, made a deal with the church of Bane who these heroes had rubbed the wrong way, and was able to get a hold of potions of explosion, which were magical bombs in this campaign. The character then proceeded to fly over the new found nation which at the time was only a single city and dropped them on the unsuspecting commoners that had flocked there. The character became a terrorist now that I look back on it.

RickAllison
2015-12-22, 02:20 AM
I have been fortunate enough that all PvP was based in relatively solid roleplaying. One case had an Imperial sympathizer being killed by the rest of the party for letting a priceless artifact be stolen (and being totally unrepentant; they gave him a trial and everything!), and the other had my basically LG hunter from nWoD tie up, interrogate, and then execute a criminal kingpin PC who was optimized to sweet-talk police and everyone else. Of course, that was after he attacked me...

Malifice
2015-12-22, 09:50 AM
Why are the undead immediately labeled as Evil? Never really understood that myself. I've played a LE Cleric of Nerull and was able to set aside my differences with a LG Paladin of...(I can't remember what Hextor's brother is called sorry).

And its oft called out in DnD that only in the most extreme of circumstances will a LG paladin ally with an evil creature, and even then its only temporary.


We disagreed on several points however he never attacked the undead and repeatedly destroyed them. He held a sword to my throat and demanded to know what I was doing. I explained that we had a goal and that, as a servant of Nerull I was calling upon those my god had domain over to assist us.

And if it was an NPC he was talking to, I hazard a guess that this conversation would have gone very differently indeed.


You can summon undead and be respectful towards them.

You can summon demons and be respectful to them. Its not really the point though is it?

Your campaign may have varied, but the process of creating undead involves desecration of the dead (an act that is at a minimum culturally frowned upon, and unlawful). Many religions (and Heronious is no exception IIRC) view such an act as a violation of the dead person, and an act of utter blashpemy. Religious people (like paladins and priests) take that **** seriously.

Also depends on your interpretation of undead. They are not mere constructs (like a golem). The are (literally) people who are no longer dead. Theyre also not alive. Most undead creatures are described as being in a horrifying state of undeath - the act of animating them alone turns a person into a tortured 'not alive but not dead' person. Youre messing with a persons body (and arguably spirit or soul) after the person has died, and without the permission of the person. Its expressly called out as an evil act.

Personally, If I was a Paladin (LG) I would have handed you over to the authorities as a practioner of dark magic, desecrator of the dead and an abomination (and creator of abominations). If that wasnt an option, I would have demanded you leave the party (thanking you for your help so far), using as much force as required to make it happen.

I might have considered allying with you to fight a greater evil temporarily if no other option was available, or redeeming you back to the light (the latter option means no creating of undead on my watch). Maybe take you up as my squire as an act of mercy and redemption.


Also, looking into my PHB, Druid have a strong dislike of undead due to them being unnatural and against the natural order of things. Cleric...Not so much. A true LG cleric would see that they are returned to their graves and not misused/harmed. This guy is straight just desecrating their corpses...

Differing religions have different views on the desecration of the dead. Most contemporary religions (outside voodoo and a few others) have very negative views on it indeed.

I cant think of to many LG churches in established canon that are 'OK' with it; quite the opposite in fact (with most of them requiring the destruction of the undead creatures and considering it a blashpemy of the highest order). Its not only a crime against secular law, but also against most religious laws (barring evil religions) and is expressly called out as an evil act (for good reason in my view).

As a LG paladin I wouldnt tolerate it, and would (at a minimum) require you to refrain from the practice and reform.

My current LE paladin of Bane finds the practice distatesful (the dead should be allowed to rest in his view) but could tolerate it as a last resort if it proved useful (and no chidren were animated).

Blackhawk748
2015-12-22, 06:36 PM
Also depends on your interpretation of undead. They are not mere constructs (like a golem). The are (literally) people who are no longer dead. Theyre also not alive. Most undead creatures are described as being in a horrifying state of undeath - the act of animating them alone turns a person into a tortured 'not alive but not dead' person. Youre messing with a persons body (and arguably spirit or soul) after the person has died, and without the permission of the person. Its expressly called out as an evil act.

Ok the whole "tortured state of undeath" thing is ridiculous. A zombie or a Skeleton doesnt feel pain. Also you cant be messing with their soul, wanna know why? Because a 3rd level spell (or 4th if your not a Cleric or Dred Necro) doesnt have the power to unwillingly drag a soul back from the afterlife. I know this because freakin true resurrection, a 9th level spell, cant bring someone back unless that soul agrees to it, so a 3rd (or 4th) level spell sure as hell doesnt have that kind of power.

The reason that undead are Evil in DnD is completely arbitrary. The creators just decided that they would be, for whatever reason, and we are left with Unintelligent creatures having a moral alignment, which makes no sense.

Marlowe
2015-12-22, 07:09 PM
Malifice, stop tormenting your argument's reanimated spirit. Or I won't want to be your friend.

Keltest
2015-12-22, 07:13 PM
Ok the whole "tortured state of undeath" thing is ridiculous. A zombie or a Skeleton doesnt feel pain. Also you cant be messing with their soul, wanna know why? Because a 3rd level spell (or 4th if your not a Cleric or Dred Necro) doesnt have the power to unwillingly drag a soul back from the afterlife. I know this because freakin true resurrection, a 9th level spell, cant bring someone back unless that soul agrees to it, so a 3rd (or 4th) level spell sure as hell doesnt have that kind of power.

The reason that undead are Evil in DnD is completely arbitrary. The creators just decided that they would be, for whatever reason, and we are left with Unintelligent creatures having a moral alignment, which makes no sense.

We may be overthinking this. Arent almost all undead (and certainly all unintelligent undead) hostile to life unless commanded otherwise? Even skeletons and zombies will go and attack random people if theyre left "wild", right?

Marlowe
2015-12-22, 07:16 PM
We may be overthinking this. Arent almost all undead (and certainly all unintelligent undead) hostile to life unless commanded otherwise? Even skeletons and zombies will go and attack random people if theyre left "wild", right?

No. They just don't do anything. They have no will of their own at all.

Blackhawk748
2015-12-22, 07:23 PM
We may be overthinking this. Arent almost all undead (and certainly all unintelligent undead) hostile to life unless commanded otherwise? Even skeletons and zombies will go and attack random people if theyre left "wild", right?

That is mentioned somewhere, but the fact that they are Unintelligent would supersede that, cuz, you know, they cant think. Even so, if they where truly "hostile to life" unintelligent undead would be attacking bushes, grass and other plants and then try to kill squirrels and other living things. In short they would attack virtually everything. But they dont do this, because they are unintelligent.

If a Necromancer animates a skeleton, and then dies before he can command it, it will stand there until destroyed. It wont defend itself, it wont move, it wont do anything, because it never received orders. The random skeletons and zombies in crypts where animated by random happenstance, perhaps a curse caused t. In that case its the curse causing them to murder any living thing that enters the crypt, not being undead.

Keltest
2015-12-22, 07:28 PM
That is mentioned somewhere, but the fact that they are Unintelligent would supersede that, cuz, you know, they cant think. Even so, if they where truly "hostile to life" unintelligent undead would be attacking bushes, grass and other plants and then try to kill squirrels and other living things. In short they would attack virtually everything. But they dont do this, because they are unintelligent.

If a Necromancer animates a skeleton, and then dies before he can command it, it will stand there until destroyed. It wont defend itself, it wont move, it wont do anything, because it never received orders. The random skeletons and zombies in crypts where animated by random happenstance, perhaps a curse caused t. In that case its the curse causing them to murder any living thing that enters the crypt, not being undead.

By that logic, being unintelligent would supersede taking commands too, because they cannot process the commands, right? Skeletons and Zombies are not just bone/flesh golem lite.

Also, while this may be a difference in interpretation, the SRD seems to indicate that a skeleton without any commands defaults to guarding the area, attacking anything that enters it that isn't specifically protected.

Blackhawk748
2015-12-22, 07:47 PM
By that logic, being unintelligent would supersede taking commands too, because they cannot process the commands, right? Skeletons and Zombies are not just bone/flesh golem lite.

Also, while this may be a difference in interpretation, the SRD seems to indicate that a skeleton without any commands defaults to guarding the area, attacking anything that enters it that isn't specifically protected.

No, because Golems have the same restrictions, and they can process commands, but if they arent commanded they just stand there,

Also where is that? I believe you that its there i just cant seem to find it.

I did find this though:


A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative. Because of this limitation, its instructions must always be simple. A skeleton attacks until destroyed

Emphasis mine, this looks an awful lot like a golem.

Keltest
2015-12-22, 07:50 PM
No, because Golems have the same restrictions, and they can process commands, but if they arent commanded they just stand there,

Also where is that? I believe you that its there i just cant seem to find it.

Like I said, it may just be interpretation. The exact wording is something like "An animated skeleton can follow you or guard an area."

Blackhawk748
2015-12-22, 07:59 PM
Like I said, it may just be interpretation. The exact wording is something like "An animated skeleton can follow you or guard an area."

Those are just examples of orders you can give it. I could totally order a Skeleton to "Murder anything that comes through that door that doesnt have this *insert thing here*" That is a simple order it can follow. I could also order it to "Stir this pot" or "Obey Bob the Baker" and it will do it.

EvilestWeevil
2015-12-22, 08:27 PM
Given that they are unintelligent undead, is it really any different than animating a sword and having it attack someone who comes into a room? Necromancy is frowned upon, but in the end its animating a pile of bones or a corpse instead of animating a sword. Its all the same concept, and a necromancer can be a hero. As a matter of fact check the characters for the new sword coast game, one of them is a hero, who happens to be a necromancer.

Malifice
2015-12-22, 09:28 PM
No. They just don't do anything. They have no will of their own at all.

Thats not true. An uncontrolled zombie or skeleton in 5E attacks and kills arbitrarily.

5E - Zombie entry


Sinister necromantic magic infuses the remains of the dead, causing them to rise as zombies that do their creator's bidding without fear or hesitation... Necromantic magic, usually from spells, animates a zombie. Once turned into a zombie, a creature can't be restored to life except by powerful magic, such as a resurrection spell.

A zombie retains no vestiges of its former self, its mind devoid of thought and imagination. A zombie left without orders simply stands in place and rots unless something comes along that it can kill. The magic animating a zombie imbues it with evil, so left without purpose, it attacks any living creature it encounters.

Skeleton (5E):


Skeletons are animated by dark magic... Whatever sinister force awakens a skeleton infuses its bones with a dark vitality, adhering joint to joint and reassembling dismantled limbs. This energy motivates a skeleton to move and think in a rudimentary fashion, though only as a pale imitation of the way it behaved in life. An animated skeleton retains no connection to its past, although resurrecting a skeleton restores it body and soul, banishing the hateful undead spirit that empowers it.

When skeletons encounter living creatures, the necromantic energy that drives them compels them to kill unless they are commanded by their masters to refrain from doing so. They attack without mercy and fight until destroyed, for skeletons possess little sense of self and even less sense of self-preservation.


Ok the whole "tortured state of undeath" thing is ridiculous.

Not in 5E. From the 5E MM (undead type):


Undead are once-living creatures brought to a horrifying state of undeath through the practice of necromantic magic or some unholy curse. Undead include walking corpses, such as vampires and zombies, as well as bodiless spirits, such as ghosts and specters.

One living creatures that are brought into a horrifying state of undeath.


The reason that undead are Evil in DnD is completely arbitrary. The creators just decided that they would be, for whatever reason, and we are left with Unintelligent creatures having a moral alignment, which makes no sense.

No, its because undead peeps are peeps who are no longer dead. Youre stuffing what the game calls 'a hateful evil spirit' into a persons dead body (without that persons consent) and enslaving that spirit to your will (and using the body for your own ends).

Leaving aside the fact that youre calling an evil spirit (that desires murder) into the world, youre also desecrating a persons body (against the persons permission). This is a serious crime even today, and is something almost all contemporary religions consider blasphemy of the highest order.

Go practice necromancy or desecrate corpses in Salem a few hundred years back, or in Saudi Arabia today and see how far it gets you. Burnt at the stake or decapitated is the punishment from memory. Contemporary religions view it as an abomination and a blasphemy; I cant envision LG 'medieval' religions being any different.

So when your parties LG Priest or Paladin kick up a fuss in game about your use of necromancy bear in mind their religion probably condemns the act as utter blasphemy and heresy of the highest order, likely a crime that is worthy of capital punishment. Religious types tend to take those things pretty seriously to say the least.

Finally, even from just a secular legal position, if necromancy is a victimless crime and not an evil act, than so is necrophillia, or cannabilism. You are literally defiling a persons corpse in both instances. Messing with the remains of a person without their consent is a crime.

YMMV. I dont want to get into a back and forward about necromancy again. If your game features goodly necromancers then more fun to you. It doesnt fly in my games (although my games do certainly feature evil necromancers who think they are doing good, or evil necromancers who use evil ends in pursuit of a greater good).

YossarianLives
2015-12-22, 09:49 PM
Just saying, literally all of Malifice's arguments rely on everyone else only playing D&D 5E and using the rather boring default fluff. This thread is in the general roleplaying board.

CantigThimble
2015-12-22, 09:55 PM
Just saying, literally all of Malifice's arguments rely on everyone else only playing D&D 5E and using the rather boring default fluff. This thread is in the general roleplaying board.

Well, to be fair a bunch of previous arguments were based on 3.5 fluff, and this whole discussion was about a scenario in an unspecified edition of D&D.

EvilestWeevil
2015-12-22, 09:59 PM
The worlds we play in, and this is just am opinion, but they should have shades of gray and not be black and white. I have run across just as many adventures that have undead knights that are a former guardian of X terribleness, that are continuing their duty into undeath, as "rawr I undead you die now". There are also plenty examples based on the novels of enemies putting aside differences in order for the greater good. The paladin may be an upright prick about the necromancer raising the dead, but I doubt he would care as much if he is standing in the face of Armageddon. Can't uphold the law, honor, and goodly goodness, if the world is destroyed.

YossarianLives
2015-12-22, 10:20 PM
Well, to be fair a bunch of previous arguments were based on 3.5 fluff, and this whole discussion was about a scenario in an unspecified edition of D&D. This is very true. But if we're using edition-based arguments, I can reference OD&D (my favourite edition) where the Animate Dead spell wasn't evil at all and zombies and skeleton were merely 'chaotic' rather than evil.

Of course, I would be a jerk to do something like that.

Malifice
2015-12-22, 10:22 PM
Just saying, literally all of Malifice's arguments rely on everyone else only playing D&D 5E and using the rather boring default fluff. This thread is in the general roleplaying board.

I was specific I was referring to 5E. Peeps were making blanket statements and I was pointing out that they dont cover all editions or all games.

Im aware that there could be some games where animating the dead via necromancy could expressly be called out as a kind and goodly act. I cant think of any off the top of my head, but Its possible. Its certainly more likely that a DM could rule the desecration of a corpse via animating it with necromancy is morally neutral or good. YMMV.

In my games it sure as hell isnt.

YossarianLives
2015-12-22, 11:27 PM
So this whole discussion is useless because it comes down to "in my game, we do it like this."

CantigThimble
2015-12-22, 11:37 PM
So this whole discussion is useless because it comes down to "in my game, we do it like this."

Apply liberally to the entire subforum. :smalltongue:

Marlowe
2015-12-22, 11:46 PM
http://i.imgur.com/vN2EP0J.png
http://i.imgur.com/GxRz1z9.png
http://i.imgur.com/qS1QpwT.png
http://i.imgur.com/w4be8nj.png
http://i.imgur.com/U0oOME3.png

Malifice
2015-12-23, 12:18 AM
http://i.imgur.com/vN2EP0J.png
http://i.imgur.com/GxRz1z9.png
http://i.imgur.com/qS1QpwT.png
http://i.imgur.com/w4be8nj.png
http://i.imgur.com/U0oOME3.png

Thanks for the time and effort put into your post above.

You don't actially adress the points where I liken necromancy to a desecration of the dead no different from necrophillia or cannabailism, show it is both a secular and canonical crime, and further is something expressly called out to be evil in the relevant game (replete with describing the undead created to be evil murdering monsters)

YossarianLives
2015-12-23, 01:36 AM
http://barrakam.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Calvin-cannibalism-classroom-debate.jpg

I feel this is relevant.

goto124
2015-12-23, 01:58 AM
A lot of the fluff for Necromancy looks like this:

"Hey, we need mooks that are acceptable targets for the good heroic PCs to smack down. We can't have the PCs kill people or they won't be good!"
"Oh, I know! Since they can't kill living people, have them smack people who're already dead!"
"Awesome idea! But if they're already dead, how do they attack the PCs?"
"Simple, there's this guy who's animating dead people to use them as mooks. I got it - the guy would be the Big Bad that the PCs need to take out!"
"Neat! Now we just need to make the Big Bad as evil as possible and we're set. Let's pile on the evilllll!"

Why must undead consist of forcing a spirit to somehow 'suffer' inside a body? Or stuffing a body with literal Evil energy? Why must the undead be murder machines? Why can't it be just a golem that follows orders?

It's as if Necromancy was chosen because there's an icky aspect to it, and all the evil is thrown into the Necromancy to make it a suitable evil target for the heros.

That, or Necromancy as evil has lasted for ages and TRPGs are just building off it.


Leaving aside the fact that youre calling an evil spirit (that desires murder) into the world, youre also desecrating a persons body (against the persons permission). This is a serious crime even today, and is something almost all contemporary religions consider blasphemy of the highest order.

Go practice necromancy or desecrate corpses in Salem a few hundred years back, or in Saudi Arabia today and see how far it gets you. Burnt at the stake or decapitated is the punishment from memory. Contemporary religions view it as an abomination and a blasphemy; I cant envision LG 'medieval' religions being any different.

So when your parties LG Priest or Paladin kick up a fuss in game about your use of necromancy bear in mind their religion probably condemns the act as utter blasphemy and heresy of the highest order, likely a crime that is worthy of capital punishment. Religious types tend to take those things pretty seriously to say the least.

Finally, even from just a secular legal position, if necromancy is a victimless crime and not an evil act, than so is necrophillia, or cannabilism. You are literally defiling a persons corpse in both instances. Messing with the remains of a person without their consent is a crime...

So, necromancy is unLawful?

Admittingly, the topic of "desecration" does sound pretty interesting. It sees the corpse of a person as still being that person in a sense - by extension, when you do things to their corpse, you're messing with the person who has lost ability to consent. We take it for granted that we somehow already 'know' this, and use it as part of our morality.

Also, IRL, corpses tend to carry a lot of diseases. Might've been a factor in what sort of civilisations get to survive over a long period of time - the kind that stays far away from corpses, or the kind that has no problems standing next to a corpse.

Malifice
2015-12-23, 02:15 AM
Why must undead consist of forcing a spirit to somehow 'suffer' inside a body?

Because it does.

You could of course (5E again) just cast animate objects on a corpse and totally avoid the 'creating evil monsterous murderous undead' bit. Animate objects is 5th level though, so a bit harder to cast.

You still have the issue of desecrating the bodies of the dead however.


Why must the undead be murder machines?

Because thats what youre summoning with animate dead. A murderous undead spirit.


Why can't it be just a golem that follows orders?

It can be, but in that case its either a flesh golem (a robot) or you use animate objects instead of animate dead.


It's as if Necromancy was chosen because there's an icky aspect to it, and all the evil is thrown into the Necromancy to make it a suitable evil target for the heros.

Nah man, it uses 'bad wrong evil' energy to create a monstrous undead critter (not a construct, a person who is actually now undead). Thats how it works.


So, necromancy is unLawful?

Depends on the jurisdiction. Messing with a corpse is a crime here in Western Australia:


214. Misconduct with regard to corpse

Any person who, without lawful justification or excuse, the proof of which lies on him —

(1) Neglects to perform any duty imposed upon him by law, or undertaken by him, whether for reward or otherwise, touching the burial or other disposition of a human body or human remains; or

(2) Improperly or indecently interferes with, or offers any indignity to, any dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not;

is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.

Summary conviction penalty: imprisonment for 12 months and a fine of $12 000.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/ccaca1913252/notes.html

I advise you to check your local laws first, but I would be shocked if digging up a corpse and animating it, performing indecent acts on it, eating it, bringing it to work with you, or whatever wasnt a crime (to say the very least) wherever you live.


Admittingly, the topic of "desecration" does sound pretty interesting. It sees the corpse of a person as still being that person in a sense - by extension, when you do things to their corpse, you're messing with the person who has lost ability to consent. We take it for granted that we somehow already 'know' this, and use it as part of our morality.

Pumping a 'murderous evil spirit' into someones corpse to make it walk around like a puppet under your command killing things or doing stuff to make your life easier is pretty evil man. Its right up there with necrophillia or cannabilism for the sheer fun of it.

GAAD
2015-12-23, 02:16 AM
That is mentioned somewhere, but the fact that they are Unintelligent would supersede that, cuz, you know, they cant think. Even so, if they where truly "hostile to life" unintelligent undead would be attacking bushes, grass and other plants and then try to kill squirrels and other living things. In short they would attack virtually everything. But they dont do this, because they are unintelligent.

Okay.

Imma say that undead in TAAS work this way. Because the fought of a necromancer having to constantly keep his minions of Darkness from seeking out and destroying the creatures and plants of Light at the expense of his plans is just hilarious.

goto124
2015-12-23, 03:13 AM
Nah man, it uses 'bad wrong evil' energy to create a monstrous undead critter (not a construct, a person who is actually now undead). Thats how it works.

That's what I was arguing about... that Necromancy is intentionally made to be evil.

Malifice
2015-12-23, 04:16 AM
That's what I was arguing about... that Necromancy is intentionally made to be evil.

Because it taps into the 'dark side'. Think of force lightning from star wars.

Its actually worse than that. Youre also creating evil monstrous baby killers with this dark forbidden magic.

And also; youre messing with dead people, and turning them into undead monsters. Defiling corspes (that is what youre doing remember - youre defiling the corpse of a person; something akin to necrophillia or cannabalism) is almost certainly a serious crime, a cultural taboo, and a blasphemy of the highest order to many if not all Good aligned churches.

I cant think of many LG Paladins of Heroneous that would be cool with it.

nedz
2015-12-23, 05:00 AM
A lot of the fluff for Necromancy looks like this:

"Hey, we need mooks that are acceptable targets for the good heroic PCs to smack down. We can't have the PCs kill people or they won't be good!"
"Oh, I know! Since they can't kill living people, have them smack people who're already dead!"
"Awesome idea! But if they're already dead, how do they attack the PCs?"
"Simple, there's this guy who's animating dead people to use them as mooks. I got it - the guy would be the Big Bad that the PCs need to take out!"
"Neat! Now we just need to make the Big Bad as evil as possible and we're set. Let's pile on the evilllll!"

Hmm, the last time I used undead was when the bad guy wanted plausible deniability — just saying.

Esprit15
2015-12-23, 03:47 PM
Because it taps into the 'dark side'. Think of force lightning from star wars.
Why is it dark?


Its actually worse than that. Youre also creating evil monstrous baby killers with this dark forbidden magic.
A human is just as capable of killing a baby. What makes them evil if they lack intent? Your argument has bounced several times from the undead being the evil aspect to the creation being the evil aspect.


And also; youre messing with dead people, and turning them into undead monsters. Defiling corspes (that is what youre doing remember - youre defiling the corpse of a person; something akin to necrophillia or cannabalism) is almost certainly a serious crime, a cultural taboo, and a blasphemy of the highest order to many if not all Good aligned churches.
So what of us who are not religious? And cultural taboos are just that: cultural. So is public nudity in most western society.


I cant think of many LG Paladins of Heroneous that would be cool with it.
So what if someone consented in life to the use of their body for necromantic acts, so long as the resulting undead was only used for good ends?

ExLibrisMortis
2015-12-23, 03:57 PM
So what if someone consented in life to the use of their body for necromantic acts, so long as the resulting undead was only used for good ends?
I think this is pretty much what the church of Wee Jas does. The godess is specifically okay with animating lawfully obtained bodies (bodies of non-Suel people, preferably), so I imagine there must be some sort of register? It's a decent way to avoid paying for a funeral, I suppose.

Blackhawk748
2015-12-23, 04:32 PM
I think this is pretty much what the church of Wee Jas does. The godess is specifically okay with animating lawfully obtained bodies (bodies of non-Suel people, preferably), so I imagine there must be some sort of register? It's a decent way to avoid paying for a funeral, I suppose.

I once played a LN Dread Necro who worshiped Wee Jaas and that is how he got bodies. Before battles or before an execution he would go around with a register and see who wanted to offer their body to the church. He would then pay 10gp to their next of kin after they died for use of their body. He also would animate bandits and other criminals that attacked him on his travels, and have their animated bodies "atone" for the sins of the soul. Generally this just meant using it until it broke, as he was never quite sure how much "atonement" was required. If he couldnt get any humanoids he would just animate animals or magical beasts.

Now after the bodies where destroyed he would cremate them on a pyre and say a few words. In essence he stalled their funeral until their body stopped functioning, thats because he believed once a funeral was enacted that that "closed the book" so to speak on their life, so by waiting until their reanimated remains where destroyed he gave the soul a better chance when judged.

Was any of that true? I have no idea, but its what he believed.

Esprit15
2015-12-23, 04:45 PM
You have given me awesome ideas for a future PC or NPC.

Blackhawk748
2015-12-23, 05:17 PM
You have given me awesome ideas for a future PC or NPC.

Glad i could help

Segev
2015-12-23, 06:02 PM
Speaking as the resident necromancer, I can assure you that if animating corpses is no easier through necromancy than animate objects, and the former is just "more evil," nobody would do the former over the latter. See, animating skeletons and zombies costs many gp worth of black onyx gems. And while those of us on the more pragmatic end of the alignment scale tend not to care about the suffering of those who cannot complain to us nor act upon their discontent, we also recognize that actively seeking to torment others to no constructive end merely invites excessive retaliation and meddling in our affairs. It's not worth doing.

Thus, if you're re-ordering reality to make creating undead minions evil for evil's sake, while being overall less useful than non-evil methods... well, nobody is going to practice the evil action, that's for sure. If that's your goal, good job. If your goal is, on a meta-level, to have necromancy be something that is performed but is also evil, you'll need to make it worth doing when it comes with a greater cost than the non-evil methods.

We pragmatic types aren't in it "for the evuls." We choose actions based on their utility to us. If the so-called "evil" action is more useful, we'll do it because we're practical. But we're certainly not going to do it just because it's "evil." That's stupid. And, as an Int-based caster, I am most definitely not inclined to stupidity.

Talakeal
2015-12-23, 07:18 PM
In early editions undead were neutral and took no actuons. In 3.5 they were evil but still took no actions. In 5e they remain evil and finally have the capacity to act on their alignment.


If desecration of the corpse is a big issue with why undead are evil, how do deathless, flesh golems, blood oozes, and other animate but not undead and not evil creatures get around the desecration of corpses making them evil?


And I amstill really curios as to what these evil spirits are and where they come from as they seem to have no place in d&d cosmology.

Malifice
2015-12-23, 09:47 PM
Why is it dark?

For the same reason the Abyss and the Nine Hells are. Because it objectively fundamentally is.

Dont get me wrong; I dont believe in objective truths (baring cogito ergo sum) myself. However default DnD assumes the existence of objective good and evil. Seeing as the multiverse exists in the mind of the players, its actually possible for objective truth to exist in the multiverse (it exists because I the DM says it does).

This is very different from how our own universe works, where all knowledge (and indeed the universe itself) is subjective.

Of course, Im clearly a dualist so perhaps im philisophically skewed here.


A human is just as capable of killing a baby.

A human is responsible for its own actions. You created these things in full knowledge that they'll kill a baby if not controlled.

If you build a murderous robot, powering it with a murderous undead spirit, in full knowledge that if uncontrolled it will go on a rampage and kill everything, you're responsible.


What makes them evil if they lack intent?

They dont lack intent. You know their intent before you create them. Theyre evil monsters powered by a murderous undead spirit. You place the spirit in there.

Wait till you get access to 5th level spells and cast animate objects instead. Thats not an evil act, even if you animate corpses with it (although the desecration of the dead is still a problem).


Your argument has bounced several times from the undead being the evil aspect to the creation being the evil aspect.

Both are.


So what of us who are not religious? And cultural taboos are just that: cultural. So is public nudity in most western society.

If you ignore family, religion, cultural taboos, laws etc youre probably chaotic.


So what if someone consented in life to the use of their body for necromantic acts, so long as the resulting undead was only used for good ends?

Many N churches rely on this exception. It avoids half the problem (its no different in donating your body to science). It doesnt avoid the other half (evil energy used, evil spell cast, evil monster created).

Wee Jas springs to mind - of course she is LN(E). Im fairly sure that this doesnt change the reaction of LG priests and paladins to the practice though (barring LG priests and paladins of Wee Jas of course!).


In early editions undead were neutral and took no actuons. In 3.5 they were evil but still took no actions. In 5e they remain evil and finally have the capacity to act on their alignment

I actually agree; I struggle to see how a totally mindless creature can be 'evil'. The walkers in TWD arent 'evil'. I would rule them as unaligned. In 5E however undead (even skeletons and zombies) have Int scores and can (on some level) think and reason.


If desecration of the corpse is a big issue with why undead are evil, how do deathless, flesh golems, blood oozes, and other animate but not undead and not evil creatures get around the desecration of corpses making them evil?

Desecration of a corpse isnt objectively evil. Its a subjective evil (one that is frowned on culturally, or by religions, or by secular laws). Its also a violation of a persons body (against that persons will). Not all religions or cultures have taboos or prohibitions against messing with the dead (some actively promote it) and one could consent to allowing your body to be used in such a manner.

The objectively evil nature of animating the dead comes from the use of 'bad wrong evil' energy to draw a murderous spirit from the negative energy plane (or wherever) and use it to create an evil monster.

Esprit15
2015-12-23, 10:52 PM
For the same reason the Abyss and the Nine Hells are. Because it objectively fundamentally is.
Except for the instances where it isn't.


Dont get me wrong; I dont believe in objective truths (baring cogito ergo sum) myself. However default DnD assumes the existence of objective good and evil. Seeing as the multiverse exists in the mind of the players, its actually possible for objective truth to exist in the multiverse (it exists because I the DM says it does).
Actually, they have Good and Evil. However, these are different than good and evil. Paladins and clerics can fall for doing good things if they don't line up with their gods, because they may not be Good.


Of course, Im clearly a dualist so perhaps im philisophically skewed here.
No worries. The world of DnD is as well, so you're okay in that respect. However, if the mind and body are disconnected at death, then harm to the body should no longer affect the soul, even if undead. The connection has been severed at death.


A human is responsible for its own actions. You created these things in full knowledge that they'll kill a baby if not controlled.
And nobody is saying to leave them alone. We're saying they are being used for Good ends. This was the original argument. That bad things can happen is not an argument for being evil.


If you build a murderous robot, powering it with a murderous undead spirit, in full knowledge that if uncontrolled it will go on a rampage and kill everything, you're responsible.
If. If I control it though, your argument says I am still evil.


They dont lack intent. You know their intent before you create them. Theyre evil monsters powered by a murderous undead spirit. You place the spirit in there.
Alas, we are generally referring to different editions. However, there is no objective, universal reason for undead to be considered evil, only edition specific ones.


Wait till you get access to 5th level spells and cast animate objects instead. Thats not an evil act, even if you animate corpses with it (although the desecration of the dead is still a problem).
Yes, a personal problem, not a moral problem.


If you ignore family, religion, cultural taboos, laws etc youre probably chaotic.
But not Evil.


Many N churches rely on this exception. It avoids half the problem (its no different in donating your body to science). It doesnt avoid the other half (evil energy used, evil spell cast, evil monster created).

Wee Jas springs to mind - of course she is LN(E). Im fairly sure that this doesnt change the reaction of LG priests and paladins to the practice though (barring LG priests and paladins of Wee Jas of course!).
Ah, but they should be against it on moral grounds, not religious grounds. Nobody is saying that hating undead was not against the cleric's religion, only his alignment. The fact that you admit a paladin can remain unfallen for not going turn crazy proves that the player's character only had a religious obligation, not a moral or alignment based one.


Desecration of a corpse isnt objectively evil. Its a subjective evil (one that is frowned on culturally, or by religions, or by secular laws). Its also a violation of a persons body (against that persons will). Not all religions or cultures have taboos or prohibitions against messing with the dead (some actively promote it) and one could consent to allowing your body to be used in such a manner.
Another culture may argue that right to body ends at death.


The objectively evil nature of animating the dead comes from the use of 'bad wrong evil' energy to draw a murderous spirit from the negative energy plane (or wherever) and use it to create an evil monster.
It may be doubleplusungood in 5E, but that is system specific. The game in question lacked a specified system, though I am guessing was 3.5.

Malifice
2015-12-23, 11:30 PM
Except for the instances where it isn't.

It objectively is called out as an evil act (in 5E). Subjectively you might disagree, but thats irrelevant.


Actually, they have Good and Evil. However, these are different than good and evil. Paladins and clerics can fall for doing good things if they don't line up with their gods, because they may not be Good.

Youre confusing subjective good and evil with objective good and evil.


No worries. The world of DnD is as well, so you're okay in that respect. However, if the mind and body are disconnected at death, then harm to the body should no longer affect the soul, even if undead. The connection has been severed at death.

Appears to be the case. So necrophillia and cannabilism are also OK?

And what about the [evil] spirit you are calling forth to inhabit the body and then forcing to do your bidding. What about that soul?


And nobody is saying to leave them alone. We're saying they are being used for Good ends. This was the original argument. That bad things can happen is not an argument for being evil.

You can employ genocide and murder for good ends. You're still evil though.

Actions determine alignment; not intent.


Ah, but they should be against it on moral grounds, not religious grounds. Nobody is saying that hating undead was not against the cleric's religion, only his alignment. The fact that you admit a paladin can remain unfallen for not going turn crazy proves that the player's character only had a religious obligation, not a moral or alignment based one.

No, spurious reasoning that proves nothing of the sort. The Paladin or priest in the example could have very well had both religious and moral objections to it.


It may be doubleplusungood in 5E, but that is system specific. The game in question lacked a specified system, though I am guessing was 3.5.

Yeah, if you want to refer to the system in question and the specific example, the Necromancer was a (self admitted) LE cleric of Nerull (god of trickery and murder), who animated the dead via a spell with the [evil] descriptor, and the person that had an issue with it was a LG Paladin of Heroneous (who with a glance would have both the cleric, and his minions glow like a christmas tree with detect evil).

Justify that all you want man, but I say 'nah'.

Esprit15
2015-12-24, 12:26 AM
It objectively is called out as an evil act (in 5E). Subjectively you might disagree, but thats irrelevant.
Cool. We're talking 3.5.


Appears to be the case. So necrophillia and cannabilism are also OK?
Whence cometh evil? What about those acts is evil?


And what about the [evil] spirit you are calling forth to inhabit the body and then forcing to do your bidding. What about that soul?
Not 5E, not my problem. I don't see why using a convicted serial killer to construct an orphanage is Evil.


You can employ genocide and murder for good ends. You're still evil though.

Actions determine alignment; not intent.
Thank goodness I'm not hurting anyone, then.


No, spurious reasoning that proves nothing of the sort. The Paladin or priest in the example could have very well had both religious and moral objections to it.
You admitted that a Paladin of Wee Jas would be fine with undead. Paladins are held to a standard of the highest Good. By admission that a Paladin would have no problems if their deity didn't, it now becomes solely a religious question.


Yeah, if you want to refer to the system in question and the specific example, the Necromancer was a (self admitted) LE cleric of Nerull (god of trickery and murder), who animated the dead via a spell with the [evil] descriptor, and the person that had an issue with it was a LG Paladin of Heroneous (who with a glance would have both the cleric, and his minions glow like a christmas tree with detect evil).

Justify that all you want man, but I say 'nah'.Could you cite where he said LE? I recall LN, who procured undead in an unspecified manner.

Malifice
2015-12-24, 01:16 AM
Cool. We're talking 3.5.

Its called out as objectively evil in 3.5 too. The spell animate dead has the [evil] descriptor.


Not 5E, not my problem. I don't see why using a convicted serial killer to construct an orphanage is Evil.

If you use evil magic to break a serial killer and rapist out of prison [summon a murderous spirit from bad wrong place using bad wrong magic], and then intentionally expose kids to that serial killer, I wouldnt call you a good person.

Hire some manual labor for gods sake.


You admitted that a Paladin of Wee Jas would be fine with undead. Paladins are held to a standard of the highest Good. By admission that a Paladin would have no problems if their deity didn't, it now becomes solely a religious question.

No I didnt say hes fine with undead; he finds the whole thing distasteful (even if others in his religion do not). He himself doesnt animate them (nor does a LG priest who is forbidden from casting spells with the evil descriptor).

Its no different to a LN cleric of a LE church being opposed to sacrifice and other evil acts, or the disagreement you would have between a LE member of a LN faith, and a LG member.


Could you cite where he said LE? I recall LN, who procured undead in an unspecified manner.

Here:


Why are the undead immediately labeled as Evil? Never really understood that myself. I've played a LE Cleric of Nerull and was able to set aside my differences with a LG Paladin of...(I can't remember what Hextor's brother is called sorry).

We disagreed on several points however he never attacked the undead and repeatedly destroyed them. He held a sword to my throat and demanded to know what I was doing. I explained that we had a goal and that, as a servant of Nerull I was calling upon those my god had domain over to assist us. You can summon undead and be respectful towards them. I treated my undead as faithful companions. I took care of them and made sure to fix them if they were broken. then when there services where no longer required I entombed them back within the earth from whence they came.

A LE cleric of Nerull (death, murder, deception) and a LG Paladin of Heroneous (valor, justice, honor).

And it boiled down to 'we disagreed on several points...'

It would have gone like this if I was the Paladin:

Nerull worshipper: 'I am a cleric of Nerull and I practice necro..'
Paladin: 'Lay down your arms you foul monster; you're under lawful arrest for necromancy and worshipping a forbidden god'

Marlowe
2015-12-24, 02:06 AM
Hey? Remember when Malifice claimed he wasn't responsible for the necromancer derailment and didn't want to continue it? Well apparently, neither does Malifice.

GAAD
2015-12-24, 02:08 AM
Well, obviously since the train was derailed, we required Malifice's necromatic expertise to underail it.

Marlowe
2015-12-24, 02:19 AM
...but he's tormenting it's necromechanical spirit. Or soul. Or whatever. And apparently breaking the law in Australia because apparently you can totally do that by playing D&D. Or something.

Esprit15
2015-12-24, 02:34 AM
Don't worry, I give up. He's not going to listen, someone else can pick up this gauntlet. He's admitted that it's simply a question of his preference, not on just plain rules, though that was already clear for a while.

EvilestWeevil
2015-12-24, 02:56 AM
So how 'bout them PvP stories?

goto124
2015-12-24, 03:07 AM
If desecration of the corpse is a big issue with why undead are evil, how do deathless, flesh golems, blood oozes, and other animate but not undead and not evil creatures get around the desecration of corpses making them evil?

If desecration is evil, creating the golems from corpses would be an evil act (Evil if some god ruled that Desecration is Evil). The golem itself would not be evil.

I suspect zombies are Evil so that they're affected by Smite Evil.

Desecration may be icky, but should it be the heights of evil it's often made out to be?

Marlowe
2015-12-24, 05:52 AM
I don't wish to continue this necromancer stuff any further. BUT it's odd everyone here is assuming using Humanoid skeletons as necromancy fodder. This odd obsession is the only reason any of this "desecration" rubbish has any relevance at all.

As every necromancer smart enough to get his high collar of doom on straight has already noticed, humanoids make frickin' terrible zombies and skeletons. They default to 1 hit dice and lose all their skills and whatever they got from class features. They also get turned, counter-commanded, and dusted at the drop of a hostile cleric. What the discerning necromancer wants are BIG creature. With lots of hit dice, natural attacks and/or special movement options. Bears, Dragons, Elephants. Hell, cows. You're getting more money for your black onyx buying 8gp mules, killing them and raising them as Skelemules than you are raising human skeletons.

And anyone who wants to talk about "desecration" of the corpse of a cow or mule or whatever and who ISN't a vegetarian had better have a heartfelt conversation with his last meal.

Blackhawk748
2015-12-24, 08:20 AM
I don't wish to continue this necromancer stuff any further. BUT it's odd everyone here is assuming using Humanoid skeletons as necromancy fodder. This odd obsession is the only reason any of this "desecration" rubbish has any relevance at all.

As every necromancer smart enough to get his high collar of doom on straight has already noticed, humanoids make frickin' terrible zombies and skeletons. They default to 1 hit dice and lose all their skills and whatever they got from class features. They also get turned, counter-commanded, and dusted at the drop of a hostile cleric. What the discerning necromancer wants are BIG creature. With lots of hit dice, natural attacks and/or special movement options. Bears, Dragons, Elephants. Hell, cows. You're getting more money for your black onyx buying 8gp mules, killing them and raising them as Skelemules than you are raising human skeletons.

And anyone who wants to talk about "desecration" of the corpse of a cow or mule or whatever and who ISN't a vegetarian had better have a heartfelt conversation with his last meal.

This is what another Necromancer of mine did, he animated Wolves as his first minions, then upgraded to Trolls, and finally ended up riding around on a Zombie Hydra. That DM learned real quick not to throw anything at me that he didnt want coming back. :smalltongue:

goto124
2015-12-24, 08:50 AM
Or... have every corpse turn into dust?

Blackhawk748
2015-12-24, 08:56 AM
Or... have every corpse turn into dust?

Im sure there is something i could create with corpse dust.

Marlowe
2015-12-25, 12:44 AM
Or... have every corpse turn into dust? Oh wonderful. Think what that would do to the ecosystem. Every single carnivour extinct within a week.

goto124
2015-12-25, 12:59 AM
It's not like fantasy worlds have realistic ecosystems :smalltongue:

Marlowe
2015-12-25, 01:06 AM
Sure. Let's have the next campaign on the moon. And make all the enemies sentient rock-creatures and ice elementals. And who cares about this "oxygen" stuff anyway? In fact, let's do the whole campaign as a interplanetery romp where the PCs go from world to world by wishing really hard.

Or, you could try NOT destroy any pretense of versimilitude just as a moronic and petty way to screw over a player with a perfectly sound and rules-legal character.:smallmad:

Esprit15
2015-12-25, 01:37 AM
Or... have every corpse turn into dust?

Regrow every speck of dust back into a full bone, then create the world's largest boneyard.

Blackhawk748
2015-12-25, 09:14 AM
Honestly if they all turned to dust i would just make Dustform Creatures out of them. Ya they aint undead, but i still get my minions, and they are nasier than just letting me have my Skeletons.

Though the Worlds Largest Boneyard does sound like fun.

The Fury
2015-12-26, 10:51 AM
Sure. Let's have the next campaign on the moon. And make all the enemies sentient rock-creatures and ice elementals. And who cares about this "oxygen" stuff anyway? In fact, let's do the whole campaign as a interplanetery romp where the PCs go from world to world by wishing really hard.


I played that campaign. The party's Necromancer kept murdering my characters and reanimating them as skeletons in space suits. He kept them in a bag of holding. That way whenever we planet-hopped by wishing super-hard, the undead monstrosities could come with us. After a while the DM pulled me aside and said, "The Fury, please stop getting murdered. Your characters just get turned into animated skeletons and it's ruining the campaign."

I talked it over with the Necromancer's player right as he was about to murder my latest character. I suggested murdering someone else, but he replied, "Sorry, The Fury. Everyone else takes it so personally when I kill their characters and reanimate them. You're the only one that has a sense of humor about it."

I hated to admit it, but he was right. My character was murdered and reanimated once again, the DM kicked me out of the campaign, and we were all richer for the experience.

Segev
2015-12-26, 03:48 PM
I played that campaign. The party's Necromancer kept murdering my characters and reanimating them as skeletons in space suits. He kept them in a bag of holding. That way whenever we planet-hopped by wishing super-hard, the undead monstrosities could come with us. After a while the DM pulled me aside and said, "The Fury, please stop getting murdered. Your characters just get turned into animated skeletons and it's ruining the campaign."

I talked it over with the Necromancer's player right as he was about to murder my latest character. I suggested murdering someone else, but he replied, "Sorry, The Fury. Everyone else takes it so personally when I kill their characters and reanimate them. You're the only one that has a sense of humor about it."

I hated to admit it, but he was right. My character was murdered and reanimated once again, the DM kicked me out of the campaign, and we were all richer for the experience.

...why was it YOUR fault, and not the player of the Necromancer's? Unless I'm missing some sarcasm or other context, here.

Apricot
2015-12-26, 04:55 PM
I'm pretty sure that post was a joke. I mean, I laughed at it.

Marlowe
2015-12-26, 05:31 PM
Obviously it was his fault for not providing an infinite supply of space-suits, thus causing a constant drain on party resources as the necromancer struggled to properly equip his space-skelly army of past Furies.

Why the Legion Exfuriouso needed spacesuits at all is uncertain, but we must presume it was a necessary part of the necromancer's character concept, a substantially less pernicious one than the concept of "I get to attack and sabotage other party members over disputes of doctrine and methodology and no-one's allowed to do anything about it because I'm Good" for which this thread has turned into an apologia, and we must respect it.

Yes, I know "Exfuriouso" means more "Out of madness" than "formerly furious". I choose to use words to mean whatever I want them to mean right now without making any commitment that they'll mean the same thing a second time because I'm an anonymous guy on the internet, and I don't have to be consistent.

GAAD
2015-12-27, 08:06 PM
Are you JOKING? Everyone always has to be totally consistent at all times!

Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly.

Eugoraton Feiht
2015-12-29, 09:46 AM
Here:

A LE cleric of Nerull (death, murder, deception) and a LG Paladin of Heroneous (valor, justice, honor).

And it boiled down to 'we disagreed on several points...'

It would have gone like this if I was the Paladin:

Nerull worshipper: 'I am a cleric of Nerull and I practice necro..'
Paladin: 'Lay down your arms you foul monster; you're under lawful arrest for necromancy and worshipping a forbidden god'

Hmm, that would have been interesting for him to try that seeing as how it wasn't illegal and Nerull was not a forbidden god. The entire time I traveled with them I broke no laws in the three kingdoms we had entered. Their fault for trespassing in evil lands but seeing as I was with them and had committed no crime in other lands and was assisting them with overthrowing a warlord he saw no reason to clap me in irons and haul me away.

Not that it would have done much good dragging me to lawful lands as he still would have had no lawful right to do so.

Malifice
2015-12-29, 12:27 PM
Hmm, that would have been interesting for him to try that seeing as how it wasn't illegal and Nerull was not a forbidden god.

You werent in Greyhawk then, and Nerull is a Greyhawk deity.

Wiki has this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerull)to say:

Nerull's temples are hidden and usually subterranean except in the most evil lands, as befits the god of darkness and the underworld. Nerull's clerics are feared throughout the lands as cold, calculating murderers. Nerull's faithful believe they will be rewarded for acts of murder, for every living thing is an abomination in the eyes of the Reaper. Nerull is the patron deity of those who seek the greatest evil for their own enjoyment or gain...

The Free city (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Greyhawk#Religion) expressly makes it a crime to worship him:

The worship of evil deities and fiends is forbidden, and such cults, though they may have followers, do not have a public presence.

Im not sure what realms in the Flaness dont outlaw Nerulls worship. The evil reams of the Scarlet brotherhood outlaw him (as he is not a Suel God) and he is also outlawed to the north in Iuzs realm (Only Iuz worship is lawful).

I cant think of a place with any kind of sane ruler that would be OK with a cult of murderous evil psychopaths operating openly or lawfully. Even putting that aside, Heroneous and Nerull are mortal enemies. Its akin to a pious christian crusader in the middle ages associating with an open devil worshipper.

Maybe your campaign differed for some reason.


The entire time I traveled with them I broke no laws in the three kingdoms we had entered.

I find it unusual to say the least that necromancy wasnt unlawful in no fewer than three nations (messing with dead people/ desecrating the dead is unlawful in virtually every earth culture and nation) and I also find it unusual that all three nations did not condemn woship of Nerul itself to be a (capital) crime.


Their fault for trespassing in evil lands but seeing as I was with them and had committed no crime in other lands and was assisting them with overthrowing a warlord he saw no reason to clap me in irons and haul me away.

I would have refused to ally with you. Unless you refrained from necromancy and agreed to reform.

You were literally an unrepentant evil monster (as a cleric of Nerull your aura would have stuck out like a beacon) who has almost certainly engaged in murder (as your god commands), ritual sacrifice and the desecration of the dead in addition to other foul acts required by your God for acceptance into the clergy.

I assume this was 3.5 and remember Paladins have this special ruleunder 'Associates (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm)':

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.


In Pathfinder this is lfted a little to allow temporary alleigances to fight a greater evil. Even still, thats not the recipie for a long campaign featuring both PC's even if they were absolutely forced to work together.

For the record, I wouldnt willingly ally with a cleric of Nerull under pretty much any circumstances. He's the god of trickery, death and murder for gods sake. What kind of a murderous psychopath chooses that person as a god? And what kind of a lunatic chooses to hang around with such a monster, let alone place his life in such a monsters hands? Would YOU trust such a person?

It would be akin to choosing to go camping with Charles Manson or Ted Bundy.

Esprit15
2015-12-29, 12:40 PM
Just because you don't have a game where it happens doesn't make it not true. Perhaps his DM made Nerull less mustache twirling evil than the writers made him out to be.

Also, he's free to not associate, but killing him simply for having an evil alignment will not show favorably on him, unless he also kills 1/3 of the commoners he sees and scans every shopkeeper to make sure he isn't funding an Evil person's livelihood. Sure, he could not scan everyone, but at that point he is being willfully ignorant.

Or, we could all agree that some of the RP requirements for Paladins are silly and ignore them. Or the Paladin could be trying to redeem the Necromancer, in which case association would be necessary.

And if he was a friend, an ally who I have known for years, with whom I am respectful and they are in turn, yes. Evil can have friends.

Malifice
2015-12-29, 01:00 PM
Just because you don't have a game where it happens doesn't make it not true. Perhaps his DM made Nerull less mustache twirling evil than the writers made him out to be.

Oh I agree. I only have the information of 'I was a cleric of Nerull and he was a Paladin of Heroneous' so I was going on it being a Greyhawk campaign, and that the deities are as presented in that context. Heroneous = LG god of valor, honor and justice, Nerull = NE god of murder, trickery and death.

Like I said, maybe his campaign differed.


Also, he's free to not associate, but killing him simply for having an evil alignment will not show favorably on him, unless he also kills 1/3 of the commoners he sees and scans every shopkeeper to make sure he isn't funding an Evil person's livelihood. Sure, he could not scan everyone, but at that point he is being willfully ignorant.

At no stage did I say the Paladin should have killed him for simply having an evil alignment. That makes the Paladin approach the lands of evil in my books.

The Paladin should seek to redeem him, or have nothing to do with him (only using force in self defence or the defence of others). Apparently this was an evil nation, and evil peeps and clerics were everywhere.


Or, we could all agree that some of the RP requirements for Paladins are silly and ignore them. Or the Paladin could be trying to redeem the Necromancer, in which case association would be necessary.

Yeah and I expressly ruled in the possibility of redemption. A soul saved adds to the ranks of heaven. An evil creature killed strengthens the forces of hell.


And if he was a friend, an ally who I have known for years, with whom I am respectful and they are in turn, yes. Evil can have friends.

Dude, if you found out your friend was a serial killer who defiled corpses and woshipped devils, and you stay friends with him, more luck to you. I cant think of too many people who would.

I certainly cant imagine myself ever willingly hanging around with someone who worshipps a god that advocates (mandates even) the practice of murder, treachery, betrayal and then animating the dead person as a zombie.

I say this despite being neither a particularly good or lawful person myself. I rate my alignment IRL as around the CN area. According to the online DnD alignment test, Im CE.

:smallbiggrin:

I have devoutly religious friends that get on our nerves from time to time. Now try and reimagine that person as an active priest and devotee of a god of murder, treachery and death. Actually imagine it.

There is a reason those dudes practice in secret. And its not just because they engage in human sacrifice and so forth. Its because no sane person would ever assosicate with them or could ever conceivably trust them. And those that did would almost certainly wind up dead.

Eugoraton Feiht
2015-12-29, 03:48 PM
If I recall correctly Nerull was Neutral Evil but was more seen as inevitable rather than actively evil. After all, death comes for us all no? There was no desecration or active murder though. At least, I didn't view what I was using the undead for as desecration.

As for the paladin, he tried redeeming me the whole way. Had deep discussions about the nature of good and evil and whatnot. Said that he didn't understand how someone so polite, thoughtful, and good-mannered was so thoroughly evil.

As for the three nations, they received some quest through the Paladin's Church to come North and vanquish an evil being before they could rise to power. They figured it was the local warlord that was trying to take over a kingdom. I agreed to join them citing that my god would be pleased by my conduct nonetheless.



To be fair he (the paladin) and the rest of the party did try to kill me several times later on but that was much later after we(being myself and the party) realized I was the evil being they had been sent to kill, not the warlord. Was fun figuring that out myself as well.

Apricot
2015-12-29, 03:55 PM
Malifice, I'm afraid to say that I and many others would much rather be friends with one of those countless types of individuals that you deem evil over someone like yourself. The reason is, just because someone's cruel, malicious, callous, or has any of those other common afflictions doesn't mean they can't be kind, caring, or loyal in their own ways. In particular, it's possible for them to be stable and reliable (though of course not all are). This means that they can be trusted, because you have reasonable assurance that they won't do anything unpredictable and uncalled for. Someone with the morality which you exhibit, which I would much rather call moralism, is instead a ticking time bomb. You see, the problem about having harsh and restrictive moral views that automatically elevate any perceived wrongdoing to the level of being a serial killer is that it's all but impossible to predict what seemingly innocuous action is going to set that moralistic individual off. Even the smallest evil could turn into an unforgivable crime, and because the moralistic individual is assured in their perfect grasp of right, wrong, and the punishments the latter entails, that crime could be treated to judge, jury, and executioner in a matter of seconds. That's honestly terrifying. If a character of mine was ever in a party with someone like what I'm describing, they'd likely either turn that moralistic individual in to the authorities or kill them the first chance they got, because there can't ever be any safe and secure companionship with someone who deeply and truly believes they are right.

I don't know if any of this gets across, but seriously, man, the kind of moral righteousness you're radiating is scarier than any neutral necromancer who just doesn't see corpses as having any real link to the bodies they once housed.

CantigThimble
2015-12-29, 03:56 PM
I'm not sure why him trying to kill you was unreasonable at all. He was straight up given a quest to destroy you by an order of paladins before you came to power. Party dynamics be damned, if he DIDN'T try to kill you then he would be playing his character wrong. This seems more the DM's doing than either of yours now, would he have been trying to kill you if there was some greater threat the two of you were combating together? It sounds like he wasn't before you figured out the plot and he wouldn't if there had been a different quest going on.

Eugoraton Feiht
2015-12-29, 04:10 PM
I'm not sure why him trying to kill you was unreasonable at all. He was straight up given a quest to destroy you by an order of paladins before you came to power. Party dynamics be damned, if he DIDN'T try to kill you then he would be playing his character wrong. This seems more the DM's doing than either of yours now, would he have been trying to kill you if there was some greater threat the two of you were combating together? It sounds like he wasn't before you figured out the plot and he wouldn't if there had been a different quest going on.

Because when he initially ran into me I wasn't doing anything bad other than existing. He had no idea I was who he was sent to kill as I was a simple cleric going around and making sure that people who had died were being cleaned up to prevent a small plague. I was raising the dead and then having them take their meat off somewhere else where I had a fire going. They were investigating the fire. I had no
idea I was meant to be the End Boss of the DM's campaign.

The warlord was actively trying to destabilize the region and through it into open warfare. He was also a brutal tactician that let his army of bandits run amok and do horrible acts. Paladin compared the two of us and decided the Warlord was the force he was sent to kill. I legit had no idea the DM meant for me to be the BBG until after we killed the warlord.

CantigThimble
2015-12-29, 04:25 PM
Because when he initially ran into me I wasn't doing anything bad other than existing. He had no idea I was who he was sent to kill as I was a simple cleric going around and making sure that people who had died were being cleaned up to prevent a small plague. I was raising the dead and then having them take their meat off somewhere else where I had a fire going. They were investigating the fire. I had no
idea I was meant to be the End Boss of the DM's campaign.

The warlord was actively trying to destabilize the region and through it into open warfare. He was also a brutal tactician that let his army of bandits run amok and do horrible acts. Paladin compared the two of us and decided the Warlord was the force he was sent to kill. I legit had no idea the DM meant for me to be the BBG until after we killed the warlord.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you said earlier:


To be fair he (the paladin) and the rest of the party did try to kill me several times later on but that was much later after we(being myself and the party) realized I was the evil being they had been sent to kill, not the warlord. Was fun figuring that out myself as well.

Aren't you saying he only tried to kill you after the plot was revealed? Or were their attacks earlier?

Eugoraton Feiht
2015-12-29, 05:03 PM
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you said earlier:



Aren't you saying he only tried to kill you after the plot was revealed? Or were their attacks earlier?

No, let me explain myself.

I was a cleric of Nerull in a Far northern nation, somewhat barbarian-esque. His party consisted of himself and two others(Paladin, Rogue, and Wizard). They came to the North on a quest to kill a great evil before they rose to power. They ran into me raising the dead and using them to burn their remains to stop the spread of a plague. Paladin saw me using undead and threatened me, but did not try to kill me. I explained what I was doing and also let them know about the Warlord that was running about everywhere. Paladin guy tells me that he is on a holy quest, blah blah, and I volunteer to help because the warlord is a murderhobo...

Never crossed any of our minds that the Evil was apparently myself.

So we worked together and got to the point where we were fighting the warlord. We had gotten separated by a large group and some traps and the rogue and I chased the warlord into a warehouse of sorts.

Now key note, Warlord was always seen wearing this torc on his head claiming he was the one true king of the north. Rogue and myself put him down, rather surprisingly easily, and start searching him thinking he was a doppelganger or something. Dm had me roll a percentage chance and I did. Told me my hand brushed the Torc and then handed me a note.

Note was basically the torc telling me about a way to power, a chance at immortality, a way I could take over the nations of the world on my own, I just had to help it reclaim it's keep. Rogue sees me freeze up and starts talking to me, asking me what's wrong, what's happening, etc. Turned to look at him and said I'm casting a spell. Hit him with 3.0 Harm which dropped him to 1 hitpoint. Promptly won the surprise round as he's freaking out and knocked him unconscious, making sure he wouldn't die.

I make my escape, led by this torc that's showing me a way to what we believed to be a large glacier, was actually a liches keep.

So long story short, I became a lich, took over a giant keep, and promptly started raising a giant army of undead. Paladin and the group realized it would come to a fight between us. They thought they had destroyed my phylactery so they fought to the top of my keep to kill me. Managed to kill the wizard and then the rogue. Came to the Paladin and myself fighting. Cue dramatic, You didn't have to do this speech. Almost took me down to single digits, which would have left him free to search the keep. Cast Earthquake and brought down the entire keep. Silence at the table. Dm then states that a couple weeks later a bony fist bursts from the rubble and then goes into detail into how I rebuilt and then started enslaving the entire Northern kingdoms and wiped out everyone. Good hard fought session but everyone left happy. We had plans to continue on with the DM taking over my character and a child/descendant of my cleric would come forth to join a party to take my Cleric down but sadly we moved and fell out of touch.

CantigThimble
2015-12-29, 05:08 PM
Okay! Sorry I got you confused with the OTHER story about a necromancer and a paladin in the same party who had trouble getting along and wound up fighting eachother that was debated earlier in the thread! :smallsigh:



Had a game once where I played a Necromancer. No matter how hard I tried to show our Cleric that I was using them for good purposes, he always would attack me or my minions (even ones i turned during battle). Finally, I got tired of it and just lagged behind the group and pitched in where I could since I knew staying in the group was going to cause issues. I had talked to the guy out of game and said if I could come up with proof that they were used for good he would be ok with it, yet the numerous examples I gave were never good enough. By the time we got to the final boss (this campaign had lots of undead) I was sick and tired of the shenanigans. Everyone else had finally accepted that I was doing good except him. So I made came to the final conclusion of what needed to e done. I pulled the DM off to the side and explained what I was about to do. When we went in to the fight, I just sat out of the fight until the guy was being attacked by the undead in the room. I immediately started casting and eventually the guy died. He couldn't figure out why the undead wouldn't die, but then neither could the rest of the group. I had simply told the GM that the next big fight we had, I was going to heal the undead attacking the cleric with priority going to the last one he hit. Once the fight started, I did my thing telling the DM how much "damage" I did. When the other people asked what I was doing I gave a description of the spell and the DM had them make their spot checks. One guy new exactly what was going on from the description, but since he failed the roll he couldn't say a word, but he was laughing the whole time. They finally figured out what happened after the fight, but by that time my character was long gone and the campaign was over. I don't like doing pvp, but I was tired of his crap after about 5 weeks of playing 6 hours a week and not getting anywhere despite doing what he said I needed to for him to trust me.

That's the only time I killed another player on purpose. I've done things by accident that have resulted in people being seriously maimed, but usually the only person I get killed is myself. Like playing a character witha -1 str bonus and no skills in swim. The campaign started on a boat for two weeks in game; you can figure out what happened there.

Eugoraton Feiht
2015-12-29, 05:20 PM
Okay! Sorry I got you confused with the OTHER story about a necromancer and a paladin in the same party who had trouble getting along and wound up fighting eachother that was debated earlier in the thread! :smallsigh:




Ah I see. No problem. Nope my Paladin wasn't quite as Lawful Stupid.

Malifice
2015-12-29, 10:04 PM
Malifice, I'm afraid to say that I and many others would much rather be friends with one of those countless types of individuals that you deem evil over someone like yourself.

You would be friends with a demon worshipping madman who literally is a member of a church who have the dogma that can be boiled down to 'betray and murder for power'?

You know how many RW religions have it as a sin to murder and lie, and a virtue to help others and show charity? His religion has it the other way around. And he's not just a lay member who can afford to ignore these rules when convenient - he is literally a practicing member of the clergy.

Think about this for a second. He has pledged his soul (and committed his life) to the teachings of a madman who urges him to betray and murder when convenient for him. To desecrate corpses. And worse.

He might seem like a 'nice guy' on the surface, but he is (objectively speaking) NOT. He is literally evil. He glows evil like a beacon when you use magic to observe his morality. He has engaged in unspeakable practices willingly. Most serial killers probably seem like charming nice guys on the surface; but I dare you to go camping with one!

He is literally an evil monster that will betray you at first instance. Look:


Note was basically the torc telling me about a way to power, a chance at immortality, a way I could take over the nations of the world on my own, I just had to help it reclaim it's keep. Rogue sees me freeze up and starts talking to me, asking me what's wrong, what's happening, etc. Turned to look at him and said I'm casting a spell. Hit him with 3.0 Harm which dropped him to 1 hitpoint. Promptly won the surprise round as he's freaking out and knocked him unconscious, making sure he wouldn't die.

I make my escape, led by this torc that's showing me a way to what we believed to be a large glacier, was actually a liches keep.

So long story short, I became a lich, took over a giant keep, and promptly started raising a giant army of undead. Paladin and the group realized it would come to a fight between us. They thought they had destroyed my phylactery so they fought to the top of my keep to kill me. Managed to kill the wizard and then the rogue. Came to the Paladin and myself fighting. Cue dramatic, You didn't have to do this speech. Almost took me down to single digits, which would have left him free to search the keep. Cast Earthquake and brought down the entire keep. Silence at the table. Dm then states that a couple weeks later a bony fist bursts from the rubble and then goes into detail into how I rebuilt and then started enslaving the entire Northern kingdoms and wiped out everyone. Good hard fought session but everyone left happy. We had plans to continue on with the DM taking over my character and a child/descendant of my cleric would come forth to join a party to take my Cleric down but sadly we moved and fell out of touch.

Incidentally the Harm spell in this example should have been cast (at best) in the surprise round. But thats a mechanical quibble.

Esprit15
2015-12-29, 10:36 PM
I blame the artifact. He was lured by power, like most imperfect humans would be. The loose sense of ethics just makes it easier.

However, you would be the guy to burn him at the stake before he even demonstrated that he would do that to you. Does someone demonstrate loyalty? Can they control impulses? That's my metric. Everything after that is detail. Nothing other than his faith was even possible reason to kill him, and that was not the thing that caused him to betray the party. It was the lure of power. That's not being a worshipper of Nerull, that's having a love of power. Until the point where he was basically promised anything he wanted, he was a perfectly functional party member. I've played neutral people who would have sold their party out for that kind of power without flinching. I've played some that wouldn't. However, before they were given that temptation, they have done nothing deserving of death.

Keltest
2015-12-29, 10:53 PM
I blame the artifact. He was lured by power, like most imperfect humans would be. The loose sense of ethics just makes it easier.

However, you would be the guy to burn him at the stake before he even demonstrated that he would do that to you. Does someone demonstrate loyalty? Can they control impulses? That's my metric. Everything after that is detail. Nothing other than his faith was even possible reason to kill him, and that was not the thing that caused him to betray the party. It was the lure of power. That's not being a worshipper of Nerull, that's having a love of power. Until the point where he was basically promised anything he wanted, he was a perfectly functional party member. I've played neutral people who would have sold their party out for that kind of power without flinching. I've played some that wouldn't. However, before they were given that temptation, they have done nothing deserving of death.

Honestly, I think its a reasonable assumption that someone with a job of "homicidal maniac" is, in fact, a homicidal maniac, regardless of what they do on their days off.

It is possible the Nerull in that campaign setting is different than the more commonly known version, but it has not been stated that it is such. Thus, we can only judge off of the Nerull we know, and the Nerull we know has a cult made up of people willing and able to do horrific things on a fairly regular basis.

Malifice
2015-12-29, 11:15 PM
Honestly, I think its a reasonable assumption that someone with a job of "homicidal maniac" is, in fact, a homicidal maniac, regardless of what they do on their days off.

It is possible the Nerull in that campaign setting is different than the more commonly known version, but it has not been stated that it is such. Thus, we can only judge off of the Nerull we know, and the Nerull we know has a cult made up of people willing and able to do horrific things on a fairly regular basis.

Indeed. Theyre not just willing to do horrific things. Theyre literally clergy in the faith. Theyve done horrific things like murder, rape, torture, human sacrifice, defiling the dead, betraying friends and loved ones etc in the past. As a cleric of the god, theyre religiously devoted to such practices.


I blame the artifact. He was lured by power, like most imperfect humans would be. The loose sense of ethics just makes it easier.

He has more than a 'loose set of ethics'. He is literally a priest of the god of treachery, murder and undeath.

When he betrays the party and raises a necromatic army to bring the world to ruin, he's simply being himself.


However, you would be the guy to burn him at the stake before he even demonstrated that he would do that to you.

I said nothing of the sort. In the context of the adventure as presented I would have simply refused to adventure with him as I expect him to betray me and engage in unspeakable acts of evil.

Correctly as it turned out.


Does someone demonstrate loyalty? Can they control impulses?

Part of that would be - Step 1: Demonstrate your repentance by renouncing your faith.

If the dude is still praying to Nerul for spells in the morning, and animating the dead, he's not showing repentance at all!


That's my metric. Everything after that is detail. Nothing other than his faith was even possible reason to kill him, and that was not the thing that caused him to betray the party. It was the lure of power. That's not being a worshipper of Nerull, that's having a love of power.

Nerull is the god of treachery for greater personal power. It's a holy virtue for his church! Like the sacriments for a catholic or whatever. If he is not engaging in treachery and evil, hes like a Rabbi eating pork. Im not saying such a thing isnt possible, but in a world with actual gods who expect their preists to uphold the tenents of the faith, him betraying the party for greater power is at the very least expected.

Its the core dogma of the religion he is a practicing clergy member of! Honestly think about this. He is devoted (mind, body and even his soul) to murder, death, evil and treachery. What kind of a person does that?

Not the kind of person I would trust with my life, or even willingly hang around with.

Talakeal
2015-12-29, 11:18 PM
Yet Nerull still accepts neutral priests.

Malifice
2015-12-29, 11:25 PM
Yet Nerull still accepts neutral priests.

No he doesnt. NE.

N with respect to Law/ Chaos. Morally (G/E) theyre all just as evil as each other.

Rater202
2015-12-29, 11:33 PM
True Neutral is within one step of Neutral Evil.

Thus, Neutral Evil Nerull can accept True Neutral Clerics.

Thus, he can accept Neutral Clerics.

nedz
2015-12-29, 11:51 PM
Hey? Remember when Malifice claimed he wasn't responsible for the necromancer derailment and didn't want to continue it? Well apparently, neither does Malifice.

You keep what you kill ?

Malifice
2015-12-30, 12:36 AM
True Neutral is within one step of Neutral Evil.

Thus, Neutral Evil Nerull can accept True Neutral Clerics.

Thus, he can accept Neutral Clerics.

Nope (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Cleric).

Alignment: A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of his deity’s (that is, it may be one step away on either the lawful–chaotic axis or the good–evil axis, but not both). A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral.

Only TN gods accept TN clerics im afraid.

Rater202
2015-12-30, 01:05 AM
It doesn't specify what kind of neutral. It just says Neutral

Thus,by RAW, since he s neutral evil, he can have a True Neutral cleric, since he is a neutral deity.

The Glyphstone
2015-12-30, 01:09 AM
It doesn't specify what kind of neutral. It just says Neutral

Thus,by RAW, since he s neutral evil, he can have a True Neutral cleric, since he is a neutral deity.

Except if you actually follow the link to 'neutral' on that page, it links to Neutral (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Neutral), aka True Neutral, aka Undecided. So he has the RAW correct - in the section of Alignment, Neutral without any other descriptors is interchangeable with True Neutral elsewhere.

Malifice
2015-12-30, 01:14 AM
It doesn't specify what kind of neutral. It just says Neutral

Thus,by RAW, since he s neutral evil, he can have a True Neutral cleric, since he is a neutral deity.

See the post above. There technically isnt a TN alignment in 3E. Only N.

You cant be a N cleric of a LN, NE, NG or CN faith. You can only be N if your god is. With a N god, you can be NE, LN, CN, NG or N.

If you read that sentence in any other way, you cant be a LN cleric of a LE or LG God (and you clearly can be). Neutral in the context of that passage is the 'neutral-neutral' alignment.

Here (http://www.canonfire.com/cf/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=749)is the church of Nerull:


Nerull's church is organized into multiple secret societies. Followers of the god of covert activity, they rarely act openly except in the most evil of lands. To join a cult of Nerull, an initiate must swear an oath of secrecy under penalty of death, and must prove her loyalty and devotion by slaying a close family member. Following a period of torture, the initiate is counted as a full member as long as she remains in "good" standing. Nerull's is actually often one of the most egalitarian of cults: orcs, ogre magi, elves and troglodytes are all let in without prejudice and usually given promotions according to their ability.

Dogma: Nerull represents the antethesis of the Flan morality and virtue exemplified by Pelor, Rao, and Allitur. He is the inversion of society's rules in a perverse black mass engineered for the destruction of all. Such a powerful negative force is also a powerful attractant for those seeking might and influence without scruples. For these, the law of Nerull -- the destruction of law and the use of it to enforce form and structure on questionable goals -- has long been a plague on the night and society in general.

Day-to-day Activities:
Under cover of darkness, they enshroud the cities and countryside in a campaign of terror, plotting always to defeat the forces of good and please their evil master. Their secrecy only encourages their reputation; they wield rumor and ignorance as a weapon. They sometimes act as a secret shadow government in an otherwise innocuous village.

Holy Days/ Important Ceremonies: Priests of Nerull must sacrifice a sentient being at least once a month. Priests of Nerull urge their flocks on to greater villainies on the Holy Day of Pelor during Midsummer's day.

On Goodmonth 11th the Dark Night is celebrated with acts of murder, kidnapping and ritual sacrifice.

Yeah, I dont know about anyone else, but Im not willingly hanging around with such a monster as a general rule.

Talakeal
2015-12-30, 03:12 AM
So it does. Thats really weird. I guess the logic is you have to have something in common with your deity? Like a LG is cool with either law or good, but a NG god doesnt have the law chaos axis to bind them?

Although iirc that ix a 3eism, I dont think other editions have that limitation.