Kaorti Resin

[schreier]

I've seen a lot of discussion on this material. I know it is available on the WOTC archive site:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031014a

One of the relevant sections says " The item maker must use resin it has excreted itself, and also must have the appropriate craft skill and item creations feats"

and

"A kaorti must begin to process of making a magic item by first collecting enough resin for the job and forming it into a suitable shape. Kaorti resin typically lasts only about 500 days, so a kaorti item maker must strengthen it with extra material excreted from its own body to fashion a truly permanent item; this process costs the kaorti experience points equal to 50% of the market price for a masterwork item of the appropriate type. After that, a kaorti can reduce the cost to make a magic item by 5 gp for every XP spent, to a minimum of 35% of the normal cost (and it must spend at least 1/5th the base item's cost in XP). A kaorti character cannot spend so much experience so as to cost itself a level to create an item. Multiple kaorti can work together to create a single item, but none can contribute less than 33% of the total amount of experience points necessary to create the item. All kaorti must fulfill the requirements necessary to create the item."


This seems incredibly limiting, as you would need to find a member of the race willing to make the item, or steal one of the items.

So does this mean that only a kaorti can make the item? Can a non-kaorti assist (with spells and/or feats)? Would an artificer be able to use his abilities to mimic the kaorti race, but would still need to locate a source of the resin? I was thinking an artificer with leadership feat bringing a kaorti or something?

Any thoughts?

[Jowgen]

For the creation of any (magic) item, a specified list of prerequesites must be met. Commonly these are Item Creation feats, Caster Level, and spells. Sometimes also race, skill ranks, or other special stuff, like with Item Templates. I think the Kaorti Resin rules simply fall into the special stuff category. The excretion of resin, paying of extra EXP, etc. are simply special prerequesites.

Now for the creation of a given magic item, there is no requirement that all the prerequesites must be met by a single creature. Explicitly, any number of creatures (and in the case of spells, even items) can come together and provide one or more of the pre-requesites to make the item. Normally, one creature is designated the creator of the item. It is this creature that pays the EXP and who's CL is used for the item. However, by means of an Amulet of Transference or the Ritual of Transference feat, any given willing creature can provide the EXP in the designated creator's place.

So, to answer your question, I think it is a perfectly practical material, provided you have a captive mind-controlled Kaorti and one of the aforementioned means to feed it item-creation exp. Considering how vile those things are, I don't even think it would count as an Evil act.

[Emrod]

. Considering how vile those things are, I don't even think it would count as an Evil act.

Begetting evil unto evil is still an act of evil. (Red Fel³)

more on topic is that you could always use Polymorph Any Object, the permanent duration would allow you the time to train with secretion of the resin, and having a workshop in a plane NOT the prime material if your using PAO is fairly trivial at that point so you dont even have to worry about the Kaorti Resin Shell. THAT however is dependant on your DM allowing you the time to do those things so ofc YMMV.

[Necroticplague]

Begetting evil unto evil is still an act of evil. (Red Fel³)

Fortunately, mind-controlling someone isn't an inherently evil act, so this is A.O.K.

[Emrod]

nah its just the subversion of a creatures free will and sense of self agency, totes legit grey area xD

[Necroticplague]

nah its just the subversion of a creatures free will and sense of self agency, totes legit grey area xD

That's more a law vs. chaos problem than a good vs. evil issue, though. So on the Evil axis, it is.

[Manyasone]

That's more a law vs. chaos problem than a good vs. evil issue, though. So on the Evil axis, it is.

Oh, come on. Breaking someone's will via magic is Evil, regardless of receiver of said magic. Even Red Fel agrees on that

[Necroticplague]

Oh, come on. Breaking someone's will via magic is Evil, regardless of receiver of said magic. Even Red Fel agrees on that

How so? Mind-controlling someone isn't inherently harmful to them.

[Jowgen]

To play devil's advocate (of sorts), I belive there is actually a line in BoVD that states allowing a fiend to exist is an evil act. While not native to the lower planes, Kaorti do technically meet the evil outsider criteria, so keeping one alive for any reason might be construed as Evil.

On the other hand, destorying a Fiend is always a good act, and robbing it of its free will seems like something that -in part- accomplishes that goal. In either case, I don't think that unlawful imprisonment is Evil so long as no undue suffering is caused. I mean, if you were trying to Redeem the Kaorti *big lol*, keeping it locked up and metally subdued would be considered high-grade Good. Little difference, really.

[Red Fel]

Begetting evil unto evil is still an act of evil. (Red Fel³)

Never, ever do that again. Red Fel x3 and Red Fel3 are two entirely different things. You do not want an exponential Red Fel.

Nobody should have to deal with the HyperFel.


Oh, come on. Breaking someone's will via magic is Evil, regardless of receiver of said magic. Even Red Fel agrees on that

He does not, see below.


How so? Mind-controlling someone isn't inherently harmful to them.

This, kind of.

Mind control, absent the [Evil] tag, violates Chaos, not Good. It is a violation of freedom, not morality. (As a Lawful being, I'm generally quite in favor of it.) Admittedly, using mind control to compel an individual to Evil is likely an Evil action, but it's much like a Fireball spell - what's Evil is the ends, not the means.

As always, I point to various illustrations from the Book of Exalted Deeds, admittedly poorly-conceived but nonetheless canon, that show that forcing a fundamental mental change towards Good is not only not Evil, it's not only Good, it's Exalted. Moreover, what is Diplomacy, but a skill-based mental shift in one's perception of you?

Changing someone's mind, directly or indirectly, isn't Evil, is my point.

Now, on the subject of visiting Evil upon Evil, the same BoED again proclaims that visiting Evil upon cosmic Evil - Evil Outsiders and Undead and the like - is never Evil. I find this contradictory and stupid, particularly when an example is given of a Paladin being given the chance to spare a pair of Succubi in love, but such is the way of things.

That said, engaging with Evil Outsiders - dealing, bargaining, etc. - is a generally Evil act. Enslaving them to make your weapons isn't submitting them to judgment, or attempting to redeem them, or otherwise purging - it's harnessing a specifically Evil tool (specifically, an Evil Outsider) for your own ends, which is probably a bit Evil by the absolute morality system of D&D.

Of course, I don't have a problem with it. But then, I suppose we have different priorities.

[Necroticplague]

As always, I point to various illustrations from the Book of Exalted Deeds, admittedly poorly-conceived but nonetheless canon, that show that forcing a fundamental mental change towards Good is not only not Evil, it's not only Good, it's Exalted. Moreover, what is Diplomacy, but a skill-based mental shift in one's perception of you?

Changing someone's mind, directly or indirectly, isn't Evil, is my point.


Oh hey, thanks for bringing up BoED, that reminds me of a perfect example: sanctify the wicked. Utterly brainwashes someone over the course of a year so that their alignment radically changes to match that of the caster's. Yet not only is it not evil, it's explicitly [good].

[ExLibrisMortis]

Oh hey, thanks for bringing up BoED, that reminds me of a perfect example: sanctify the wicked. Utterly brainwashes someone over the course of a year so that their alignment radically changes to match that of the caster's. Yet not only is it not evil, it's explicitly [good].
All the more reason to consider [good] and [evil] expressions of cosmic geopolitics (cosmipolitics?), more than morality. I maintain that humans and other living critters are only on the [good] side because we happen to have our anode linked to the Positive Energy Plane, and the cathode to the NEP, rather than the other way around. We just stuck with the deities who happened to draw power from the same well.

[Gildedragon]

The PEP and NEP aren't aligned at all.
What makes hand Good (or Neutral or Evil...) is the intrinsic nature of mortal souls.
Strict reading puts humans as default TN (with the lack of alignment descriptors), despite what folk like me might argue about inherent human goodness

[Chronikoce]

I've always found it interesting that slavery is classified as an inherently evil act but mind controlling someone to serve you for no pay is not.

But I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that d&d had logically consistent canon so there is that.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The PEP and NEP aren't aligned at all.
Yes, that's the irony :P. Positive and negative energy don't become aligned, until they've been used by the cosmipolitical players - deities, archfiends - to advance their 'side'.

[Necroticplague]

All the more reason to consider [good] and [evil] expressions of cosmic geopolitics (cosmipolitics?), more than morality. I maintain that humans and other living critters are only on the [good] side because we happen to have our anode linked to the Positive Energy Plane, and the cathode to the NEP, rather than the other way around. We just stuck with the deities who happened to draw power from the same well.

Honestly, I rather agree on the first part. I think that calling the cosmic forces Good and Evil was a bad idea, tying way too much baggage to them. Altruist vs. Egoist would probably be better names without so much.

I don't think the second part makes any sense, though. The Positive and Negative planes are morally neutral (as they're inner planes, they're actually Moderately Neutral aligned). Gods also don't get power from them, they're power is from the outer planes (which, for the most part, aren't neutral).

[Red Fel]

I've always found it interesting that slavery is classified as an inherently evil act but mind controlling someone to serve you for no pay is not.

Well, back up.

Slavery is explicitly Evil. Mind control is arguably neutral. But mind-controlling someone into slavery rolls back over into slavery, and we're back to explicitly Evil territory.

It's like the aforementioned Fireball spell. Murdering innocents is an Evil act. Casting Fireball is neutral. Using a Fireball to murder innocents brings us back to Evil. Same premise.

Again, mind control is an instrumentality; a means to an end. The end that you pursue with it is the part that may add a moral charge. For example, if you mind control a guard to "Ignore us when we pass," that's not slavery, it's stealth. It's not inherently Evil. If instead you mind control some workers into "Obey my commands," and then use them as slaves, that's slavery and therefore Evil.

Mind control =/= slavery. It == compulsion. If it becomes slavery, then it falls under the rules for slavery - and is Evil.

Focus on the ends, chief.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Honestly, I rather agree on the first part. I think that calling the cosmic forces Good and Evil was a bad idea, tying way too much baggage to them. Altruist vs. Egoist would probably be better names without so much.

I don't think the second part makes any sense, though. The Positive and Negative planes are morally neutral (as they're inner planes, they're actually Moderately Neutral aligned). Gods also don't get power from them, they're power is from the outer planes (which, for the most part, aren't neutral).
I don't think deities get power from the outer planes. Deities are able to shape outer planes, as consequence of being a deity. Two quotes here:

The Inner Planes are places of raw power and pure elements, of ultimate states and extreme conditions. They are the building blocks of the rest of the universe and represent matter and energy in their primal states.

The Outer Planes are also the homes of powerful deities. These deities may exist on other planes, but the Outer Planes are ideal for them.

[...]

Deities prefer the Outer Planes because the divinely morphic trait lets a god rearrange the terrain with a wave of his or her hand.
Deities get power from their worshippers, which are, for the [good] deities, overwhelmingly positive-energy based.

In any case, it's all my personal conjecture. Think of it like this: if the world hadn't been polarized (and populated with living and dead) according to the positive/negative axis, it might've been the fire/water axis, which is a fun alternate universe to try someday.

[Necroticplague]

Deities get power from their worshippers, which are, for the [good] deities, overwhelmingly positive-energy based.

In any case, it's all my personal conjecture. Think of it like this: if the world hadn't been polarized (and populated with living and dead) according to the positive/negative axis, it might've been the fire/water axis, which is a fun alternate universe to try someday.

The worshipers of Evil deities are also overwhelmingly positive-energy based. As are the vast majority of Evil gods. That's not the line things are divided along.

[Chronikoce]

Well, back up.
...snip...

Mind control =/= slavery. It == compulsion. If it becomes slavery, then it falls under the rules for slavery - and is Evil.

Focus on the ends, chief.

I tend to play lawful neutral or lawful evil anyway so I don't have an issue with mind control personally but it does come up in group discussions now and then.

I'm on board with your analysis though, that makes a lot of sense.

[OldTrees1]

Well, back up.

Slavery is explicitly Evil. Mind control is arguably neutral. But mind-controlling someone into slavery rolls back over into slavery, and we're back to explicitly Evil territory.

It's like the aforementioned Fireball spell. Murdering innocents is an Evil act. Casting Fireball is neutral. Using a Fireball to murder innocents brings us back to Evil. Same premise.

Again, mind control is an instrumentality; a means to an end. The end that you pursue with it is the part that may add a moral charge. For example, if you mind control a guard to "Ignore us when we pass," that's not slavery, it's stealth. It's not inherently Evil. If instead you mind control some workers into "Obey my commands," and then use them as slaves, that's slavery and therefore Evil.

Mind control =/= slavery. It == compulsion. If it becomes slavery, then it falls under the rules for slavery - and is Evil.

Focus on the ends, chief.

That is quite a solid argument (& it changed my mind). Polish it up and generalize it beyond RAW and that could turn into a Philosophy article.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The worshipers of Evil deities are also overwhelmingly positive-energy based. As are the vast majority of Evil gods. That's not the line things are divided along.
Are they? Evil deities have living worshipers, certainly, but many are not.

The Nine Hells are fuelled by the souls of the dead - they're not worshipers, but the archdukes are not deities. Undead are 'always evil', and overwhelmingly worship evil deities. Undead are immortal and create spawn from the living, so they tend to stick around more than the living - surely, there are entire worlds of undead, wightocalypes gone horribly right, providing power to evil deities. Evil clerics channel negative energy, and the 'lower planes' are closer to the NEP. All of this is circumstantial, but provides reasons to consider my explanation.

As for living worshipers of evil deities: maybe good and evil deities like to keep some 'foreign currency', so to speak, getting positive and negative energy both, in different ratios. Good deities still grant inflict spells, for instance. Useful in a pinch, but not your main fare.

At the end of the day, it's my personal conjecture, and it doesn't fit the default assumptions 100%, because nothing fits the default assumptions - they are contradictory, especially in the alignment department. I'm throwing out some canon material to present a consistent whole. In this interpretation of the D&D multiverse, evil gods are predominantly negative energy based. Why are so few of them undead-like? Because most of them were born from and to run on negative energy, unlike humans, so they look like their usual selves when doing so.

Headcanons make more sense than official canons. Fewer contributors and closer editor oversight, probably.

[Emrod]

ill admit that personally i have a rather skewed view on some of the spell schools.
Necromancy is seen as inherently evil as a result of how its GENERALLY used, wheras enchantment is seen as generally neutral.
I never agreed that ALL healing spells were removed from the necromancy sphere and put in conjuration(but if we are going to start arguing the mechanical aspects of weather or not spells like enervation would follow the transfer as a result of negative energy being conjured from the negative energy plane ala positive energy being conjured to facilitate healing we'll have to start reorganizing most of the spell schools causing more balance issues). But that is a thread all its own.
I've always seen most mind effecting enchantments like domination as evil, seeing as how it directly benefits number 1 at the expense of number 2, but its not a broad strokes 'mind-affecting = evul' its like how i see necromancy, its how you use the tool that determines how it should be seen.