Nymph's Kiss

[Primal Fury]

i'm thinking of taking the Nymphs Kiss feat at level 1 since its got some pretty nice perks. i have a problem though, an intimate relationship with a nymph must be maintained in order to retain the benefits of this feat, correct? does the nature of said relationship matter?

[Moff Chumley]

Uh, yes. I think it matters quite a bit. Mutual hate does not seem an appropriate relationship...

[Hadrian_Emrys]

I do not recall if the feat specifies if the fey in question needs to be alive or not. That could be possible a lead into Lich Loved at lvl 3. :smallamused: [/Craft: disturbing mental image]

[Primal Fury]

thats not what i mean... what sort of close relationship is needed? they dont really need to be lovers, do they?

[Azerian Kelimon]

Donnae think so, but being a confident would seem like a bare minimum, and that with some DM permissiveness. It's incredible, but that feat can be RAW'ed.

[dman11235]

Uh, exalted+vile feats in the same build? No, not really.

Anyways, the nature of said relationship is fairly open, because it is an exalted feat, and the designers intended that the user was mature enough to set adequate boundaries. It's why the book has the 'M' tag on it. Really the most basic thing you need (and it is a fluff requirement) is to know and befriend a nymph (or is it just fey?). How far you take it is up to you, and your DM may interpret intimate to be more, well, intimate than that.

[Primal Fury]

ah! thanks for that dman. just needed a bit of clarification. and that lich-loved thing is nasty:smallyuk:

[Frosty]

It's hard to maintaina long-distance relationship. Solution? Grab a Nymph Cohort.

[dman11235]

They are useful, in more ways than one. No! Seriously! They cast as druids, so they can fill multiple rolls! Get that mind of yours out of the gutter!

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Oh come on! Who says you can't have both feats on the same character? Exalted and vile are but names. An undying fey can qualify one for both after all. :smallamused: [/C:DMI]

[dman11235]

Exalted has the requirement of ultimate good. Vile has the requirement of ultimate evil. Unless you can simultaneously be good and evil, sure. And any evil will make you lose your exalted status, and acting good all the time (to keep your exalted status) will nullify your vile status.

[Mewtarthio]

Well, "intimate" is generally used euphemistically. However, given the nature of the book, I'd say the relationship doesn't necessarily have to be sexual--and, indeed, not all sexual relationships would qualify. It has to really be intimate, though: Being able to call them on a weekend if you've got an extra ticket to the big game doesn't count, nor does hiring them as one of your thousands of concubines whose names you can't be bothered to recall. I think the intent of the feat is that the relationship involves sacrifice and honesty.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Exalted has the requirement of ultimate good. Vile has the requirement of ultimate evil. Unless you can simultaneously be good and evil, sure. And any evil will make you lose your exalted status, and acting good all the time (to keep your exalted status) will nullify your vile status.

Alright, so having an intimate relationship with an undying fey: which feat does it qualify you for? Is it a good, or evil act?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Alright, so having an intimate relationship with an undying fey: which feat does it qualify you for? Is it a good, or evil act?What is the nature of the relationship, and is the undying fey good or evil? If it's evil, then carrying out a relationship of any sort is probably an evil act since you are turning a blind eye to it's crimes, but there may be mitigating factors. If the fey is good, but you are an abuser, then it's an evil act.

In other words, just pick which one fits the situation best. It might even be *gasp* neutral. :smallwink:

[Azerian Kelimon]

For a normally aligned fey, The exalted feat. And one called undying lust which gave you a nifty immunity to compulsions and was non vile.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

So... if you are wed to an undying fey who turns evil, and you abuse them regularly, you get an exalted feat. If, however, said fey remained good aligned, you get the vile one. Wow. My mind, she is blown.

Moral of the story kids: Spouse abuse can screw with your alignment so long as you aren't Neutral, because TN just doesn't care.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Nah. The first scenario gets you the vile feat and a check from Hades. If you abuse the fey, you get the vile feat. If the fey is good, and you have a nice, healthy relationship, you get the exalted feat. Gottitdamerung?

[Ralfarius]

Grab a Nymph Cohort.
This is the answer to all of life's (in D&D) problems.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Nah. The first scenario gets you the vile feat and a check from Hades. If you abuse the fey, you get the vile feat. If the fey is good, and you have a nice, healthy relationship, you get the exalted feat. Gottitdamerung?

Wait? Beating an evil fey is an evil act, paid for by the good folks at Infernium and Abyss Inc.? :smalleek: My whole life has been a lie!

[Azerian Kelimon]

Nah, if you're beating them in combat, for a just cause, it's good. Now, if you are abusing the fey pettily and selfishly, with no concern for her psychological and physical wellbeing, it's evil.

Intent, kiddies. D&D has objective good and evil, not objective morality.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Nah, if you're beating them in combat, for a just cause, it's good. Now, if you are abusing the fey pettily and selfishly, with no concern for her psychological and physical wellbeing, it's evil.

Intent, kiddies. D&D has objective good and evil, not objective morality.

If good (right) and evil (wrong) are objective, then that also makes morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) objective. So D&D does have objective morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_morality).

However, I do not disagree with your position that intent matters in determining the morality of an act.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

I thought good and evil were the terms of DnD's rigid system of morality? So long as I get at least ONE of the feats, I'm safe to get hitched and limit the tops in my wardrobe to a white undershirt. *pitches lawn chair on the porch* :smallamused:

[Dervag]

i'm thinking of taking the Nymphs Kiss feat at level 1 since its got some pretty nice perks. i have a problem though, an intimate relationship with a nymph must be maintained in order to retain the benefits of this feat, correct? does the nature of said relationship matter?Probably and probably.

I'm not clear on how that's a drawback, though.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Aaah. Here it is. Enjoy, people. My third finest hour:

The AK/Paladin Fallacy:

D&D does not run based on an objective morality system. Instead, it runs based on objective moral forces, Good and Evil. Maintaining that D&D runs on the first system creates an undefendable position, for it means that, since killing is evil, all adventurers are evil, because they kill in self defense, thus making it impossible for an adventurer to be good, creating a paradox.

[dman11235]

Well put AK. I agree.

Now, you say 3rd finest?

[Emperor Tippy]

Aaah. Here it is. Enjoy, people. My third finest hour:

The AK/Paladin Fallacy:

D&D does not run based on an objective morality system. Instead, it runs based on objective moral forces, Good and Evil. Maintaining that D&D runs on the first system creates an undefendable position, for it means that, since killing is evil, all adventurers are evil, because they kill in self defense, thus making it impossible for an adventurer to be good, creating a paradox.

Who said killing was evil?

[Azerian Kelimon]

The D&D system. Or hurting other beings, explicitly labeled as evil.

Don't even try to argue. I'm going to defeat you with rethorics and rickrolling. And maybe some Pokéthulhu. :smalltongue:

Dman: The second finest hour was the day I played my first D&D game, amongst a few other things. Everything seemed to go my way that day. I even got a diamond ring IRL!

The finest hour has yet to arrive. I'm designing a game system, and if everything goes okay, the day it goes out will be my finest hour.

[streakster]

Who said killing was evil?

And yet another entry for my "People in the Playground who scare me" file.

[Emperor Tippy]

And yet another entry for my "People in the Playground who scare me" file.

Good. Most people need a good scaring.

[Collin152]

Good. Most people need a good scaring.

I hereby bestow upon you the title of Pumpkin King.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Good. Most people need a good scaring.

It's a fool time job really. :smalltongue:

[streakster]

I hereby bestow upon you the title of Pumpkin King.

Long may he rule!

[Azerian Kelimon]

Flour king suits 'im better, methinks. Or bogeyman.

"What's this? What's this? What is this all around?..."

[Emperor Tippy]

I hereby bestow upon you the title of Pumpkin King.

Sweet. See if you can get the mods to change my title.

I wonder if I can get diplomatic immunity, being a king and all.

[Torger]

So... if you are wed to an undying fey who turns evil, and you abuse them regularly, you get an exalted feat. If, however, said fey remained good aligned, you get the vile one. Wow. My mind, she is blown.

Moral of the story kids: Spouse abuse can screw with your alignment so long as you aren't Neutral, because TN just doesn't care.

You're the most complete and irritating Devil's Advocate I've ever encountered. Congratulations on your new title.

[Collin152]

Sweet. See if you can get the mods to change my title.

I wonder if I can get diplomatic immunity, being a king and all.

Hey, I get to rule over the realm of Pure Imagination, and I still have to go through airport security like all of you flesh-shells.

[Azerian Kelimon]

'Cept the Epic fantasyzorz realm. That's my property, it even has a sticker!

[Emperor Tippy]

Whats the point of a title if you don't even get to speed with impunity?

[Collin152]

Whats the point of a title if you don't even get to speed with impunity?

Revoking your US citizenship in style?

[Emperor Tippy]

Revoking your US citizenship in style?

If I wanted to do that I would just go and make my own nation, its not difficult.

[Collin152]

If I wanted to do that I would just go and make my own nation, its not difficult.

I hear it's a pain to keep, though.

[Emperor Tippy]

I hear it's a pain to keep, though.

Not really. Just buy up a bunch of land in some small African nation, bribe the government to renounce all sovereignty over that land you own, build a wall around the whole thing, and higher a bunch of mercenaries.

Might cost you a billion or so bucks but your a nation. It's even technically legal under "international law".

[Collin152]

Not really. Just buy up a bunch of land in some small African nation, bribe the government to renounce all sovereignty over that land you own, build a wall around the whole thing, and higher a bunch of mercenaries.

Might cost you a billion or so bucks but your a nation. It's even technically legal under "international law".

Now see, having a couple billion dollers lying around isn't what most people call a pain, but getting it sure is.
Of course, it's so easy when you're evil.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Voltaire! That is teh winzorz.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

You're the most complete and irritating Devil's Advocate I've ever encountered. Congratulations on your new title.

You wouldn't happen to be an undying fey would you? Because I found a couple of feats... :smallbiggrin:

[Collin152]

Voltaire! That is teh winzorz.

Heh, I'm addicted to that song for a while. I need it at least twice an hour for survival, more for contentedness.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Aaah. Here it is. Enjoy, people. My third finest hour:

The AK/Paladin Fallacy:

D&D does not run based on an objective morality system. Instead, it runs based on objective moral forces, Good and Evil. Maintaining that D&D runs on the first system creates an undefendable position, for it means that, since killing is evil, all adventurers are evil, because they kill in self defense, thus making it impossible for an adventurer to be good, creating a paradox.
And again, I must point out that a universe in which both good and evil have objective moral values and are objective moral forces is, by definition, a universe of objective morality.

Furthermore, nowhere in the D&D rules is killing defined as evil. The relevant sections of the PHB state:

Originally posed by The Core Rules http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment)
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
There are some key points you seem to be overlooking here. The first is that good characters and creatures are defined as protecting innocent life, which would seem to indicate that good characters and creatures are not so defined in relation to nocent (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nocent) life.

Since "evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life," and since debasement (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debasement) and destruction (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/destruction) qualify as forms of injury and harm, we can safely say that evil characters and creatures are nocent (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nocent), which is to say, harmful and/or injurious. From there, it should be obvious that evil characters and creatures, being nocent by dint of their debasement and destruction of innocent life, are not protected by good characters' and creatures' duty to protect innocent life, nocence and innocence being opposing qualities. And indeed, it is the taking of an innocent life which is defined as evil, not the taking of any life. Therefore, the taking of nocent lives is not evil.

Furthermore, you appear to be confusing the word "implies" in the second and third paragraphs with the word "defines" (or rather, "is defined by"). Here is a definition of the root word, "imply"; (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imply) note how it differs from the definition of "define," with which you are confusing it. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/define)

[Azerian Kelimon]

Cut the dictionary links. Using those may cause an invocation of a corollary of Boaz's law.

Also, you even defeated yourself with your own quote! Here:


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others

Emphasis and vengeance be mine. Now, that leaves the paladin fallacy acknowledged and demonstrated.

[Lord Iames Osari]

I will not cease referencing the dictionary. Neither "debasement," "define," "destruction" (in the general sense), "imply," nor "nocent" are given game-specific definitions by the RAW. As such, the common dictionary meanings still apply, and as you seem to be misusing some of them, I will reference them where necessary in order to prove that I am using them properly and you are not.

Once again, I direct your attention to the difference between implication and definition. The passage you have quoted is, in its own words, the former, not the latter, while this sentence, "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit," is a definition, because the wording leaves no room for interpretation. We have an explicit definition of evil (debases and destroys innocent life), which is then elaborated upon in terms of what is implicitly, but not explicitly, evil. Even leaving aside my previous argument, in the absence of a definitive and explicit statement from WotC stating that killing is always evil, and in the presence of an abundance of evidence implying that killing is not, in and of itself, evil, and given that the implicatory evidence in favor of killing always being evil stems entirely from one sentence, whereas the implicatory evidence in favor of killing not always being evil stems from years of gameplay, I must deny your assertion that killing is always evil as being disproven by the evidence.

[Azerian Kelimon]

First off, the paladin fallacy was written in a fit of sarcasm. While it is poorly worded, the reason I mention killing and use a strawman argument is because it was written to once and for all counter any Exalted or Vile alignment thread and close the down.

With that done, one thing: The WHOLE of that sentence is a definition. Implies is used there to mean "It involves", which is a rather accurrate definition of evil.

But we're arguing semantics anyway. The real question is, d'you find anything wrong with the base idea of the paladin fallacy, it mentioning killing aside?

[Lord Iames Osari]

Yes. I find the idea that objective Good and objective Evil can exist in a universe without meeting the definition of a system of objective morality to be ridiculous, laughable, deluded, and utterly ignorant of what objective morality is and means.

If there is an objective standard of that which is right/morally positive/good, and there is a corresponding standard of that which is wrong/morally negative/evil, and these standards are universally applicable, then in what way is that not an objective morality?

[Overlord]

Woah, woah, woah. This thread is getting way off-topic guys. The original post wasn't an alignment question, it was a question concerning the Nymph's Kiss (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Nymph~s_Kiss,) feat.


Well, "intimate" is generally used euphemistically. However, given the nature of the book, I'd say the relationship doesn't necessarily have to be sexual--and, indeed, not all sexual relationships would qualify. It has to really be intimate, though: Being able to call them on a weekend if you've got an extra ticket to the big game doesn't count, nor does hiring them as one of your thousands of concubines whose names you can't be bothered to recall. I think the intent of the feat is that the relationship involves sacrifice and honesty.

I agree. If I was the DM, I would interpret 'intimate' as simply 'close.'

[Azerian Kelimon]

Objective Good and Evil is: "Good's here. It symbolizes X and Y. Evil's here, it symbolizes W and Z".

Objective morality: "Orc are inbornly evil. If DM fiat doesn't appear, you can kill them freely. Elves are inbornly good, so they can't be touched".

At least, that's how D&D objective morality works. And don't let me bring in Exalted and Vile quotes, which utterly disregard intent in favor of personal purity. A real objective morality will have a certain subjectiveness for intent, while some things are hardcoded, like Devils ALWAYS being scheming bastards, and thus corrupting the universe by existing unless an alignment switch is perpetrated.

[ashmanonar]

It sounds like we need a new descriptor and new set of feats; we have Exalted and Vile, do we need a Tome of Mediocrity?

[Azerian Kelimon]

Nah, we have the Libram of Silver something for Neutrality.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Objective Good and Evil is: "Good's here. It symbolizes X and Y. Evil's here, it symbolizes W and Z".

Objective morality: "Orc are inbornly evil. If DM fiat doesn't appear, you can kill them freely. Elves are inbornly good, so they can't be touched".

At least, that's how D&D objective morality works. And don't let me bring in Exalted and Vile quotes, which utterly disregard intent in favor of personal purity. A real objective morality will have a certain subjectiveness for intent, while some things are hardcoded, like Devils ALWAYS being scheming bastards, and thus corrupting the universe by existing unless an alignment switch is perpetrated.

Objective morality does not work that way!

And anyway, you're wrong. According to RAW, elves (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm) and orcs (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm) are "Usually chaotic good" and "Often chaotic evil," respectively. Anything beyond that may be a genre convention, but it is not RAW, which is what matters for the purposes of this discussion.

I further disagree that a true objective morality would have "subjectiveness"; it would allow for varying kinds of intent, yes, but not in a subjective manner.

[Cuddly]

Objective morality: "Orc are inbornly evil. If DM fiat doesn't appear, you can kill them freely. Elves are inbornly good, so they can't be touched".

That's not objective morality.
Objective morality is the fact that, despite the orc having a really horrible childhood, losing his family to adventurers, being poor, and raised by a brutal culture that values strength and ruthlessness, that his razing, raping and pillaging are still evil and not justifiable. Explainable, perhaps, but he is still evil.

That is, not knowing any better is no excuse, an evil act is always evil, regardless of the circumstances that led to it. How else would Demons and Devils corrupt the innocent?

[skywalker]

Nah, we have the Libram of Silver something for Neutrality.

Didn't Paizo publish that?

All joking aside, the word in the feat is "kiss." In my opinion, you must be at least kissing the creature in question to qualify for "intimacy", however, nobody said it had to be a nymph, did they? I think it's a much broader category than that...

There's also nothing preventing this from happening at 1st level, fey slum sometimes.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

For everyone who plans on taking this feat, I have to warn you, carting a fey everywhere you go is likely to make your fellow party members shout "Hey, listen!" at inopportune moments.

[hamishspence]

Libram of Silver Magic and Talisman of Neutrality are in Underdark FR 3.5 sourcebook. Regalia of Neutrality are in Arms and Equipment Guide 3rd ed sourcebook.

I assume both Exalted and Vile are useful for defining alignment. Only in those two do we get confirmatioon that killing even evil creatures isn't always good if intentions are not good (counter to argument that intent irrelavent)

Vile has several references to intent being important, enough to make the same act be accident, negligence, or murder.

[Realms of Chaos]

I hate to say this but technically speaking, Nymph's Kiss has no prerequisites. At all. You know, apart from the entire Exalted thing. By RAW, you don't lose this feat because you choose to abandon the fey, or break their heart, or have never met a fey in your entire life.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

The thing is, doesn't the text say that you need to be around the fey in question on a regular basis. I mean, I ahve a great relationship with my family, and I've spent the lion's share of a year away from them.

[JaxGaret]

The thing is, doesn't the text say that you need to be around the fey in question on a regular basis.

No, it only states that you are "maintaining an intimate relationship with a good-aligned fey".

But, as Realms of Chaos stated, it is not a prerequisite of the feat. There are no prerequisites. Technically by the RAW, your character can simply take the Nymph's Kiss feat and reap its benefits without ever having met a Fey in their life.

Putting that aside for the moment, and assuming that one must maintain an intimate relationship with a good-aligned fey to retain the benefits of the feats, there is no stated time-spent-together requirement. You can "maintain an intimate relationship" with someone even if you talk to them only once a year. It's assumed, of course, that at some point, the character spent more time with the fey, or else the intimate relationship would not have been formed in the first place.

[FinalJustice]

So, if a character qualifies and takes the feat, they send a suitable fey for his pleasure, sweet. :smallbiggrin:


Edit: And maybe they should put a copy of this feat in BoEF.

[Bauglir]

Hm, you COULD qualify for both Nymph's Kiss and Lichloved if you had either the Good or Evil subtype, and were actually of the opposite alignment, I think...

Oh, and that reasoning in the above post applies to Lichloved, as well. But it's far less of a benefit in that case.

[Cute_Riolu]

I want a Chaos and Law version of the Books. :P

[holywhippet]

The answer is simple, you need to have a talisman of booty call like Roy does. One that you can actually activate that is.