Has anyone ever considered using Pelor the burning hate in a campagin?

[Gamerlord]

Has anyone actually used The Burning Hate in a campaign? I use it every now and then as a sort of rumor, that the church of pelor fully denounces, the one time my players investigated they quickly found themselves as sacrifices to an unknown deity bound and gagged by unknown people.

[Drakevarg]

I haven't used it personally, but I managed to convince the Cleric of Pelor in my group that it was a valid argument.

[Optimystik]

It's an amusing tangent, but the biggest point of his argument is that Jozan uses Symbol of Pain. It also requires deliberately misreading the Malconvoker and expecting the god to intervene directly every time one of his paladins faces a vampire.

It's a funny diversion but has no place in a campaign.

[Vizzerdrix]

Oh dang! This just gave me the idea of a Good Ur-Priest that wants to expose the Evil Pelor. Gotta flesh this one out now

[Starscream]

It's an amusing tangent, but the biggest point of his argument is that Jozan uses Symbol of Pain.

Which is hilarious, because the exact same book features him casting the Good spell "Holy Smite". If the evidence is that he casts both good and evil spells, then really the worst you could claim is that he and his god are neutral.

The PHB also shows Mialee summoning a good aligned Coatl, and Fiendish Codex 1 shows her summoning an evil Nalfeshee. Again, neutrality is the worst you can really ascribe to the characters if every picture of them is "canon".

It's pretty obvious that the illustrators just drew whatever they thought looked cool, or wanted to demonstrate visually. But whatever, epileptic trees are fun.

[Optimystik]

Really, I think alignment descriptors on spells are ridiculous to begin with, and lead to wonderful inconsistencies like Exalted characters getting Deathwatch on their list (Slayer of Domiel.)

Oh dang! This just gave me the idea of a Good Ur-Priest that wants to expose the Evil Pelor. Gotta flesh this one out now

*facedesk*

[Sliver]

There are 2 ways to explain Deathwatch.

It's always evil. Like races, meaning most of the time..

Or...

It is a special version of Deathwatch which is good. Like good po- Nah, I won't start that.. Like good mindr- Damn..

[deuxhero]

I've always had the idea of a planewalker Paladin (in morals/ideals, not class) that believe it and wants to destory Pelor (and Lyonsbane, but that is not the point) because of it. Never would be able to play it on account of likely being epic and the epic rules being so bad.

As for Deathwatch, I prefer the explanation of WoTC being a bunch of idiots (because it also anwsers a lot of other questions.) when they made it [evil] (or when they made [evil] in the first place.

[Longcat]

As it happens, one of our players is playing an evil cleric of pelor, using the burning hate variant.

[Tanuki Tales]

I personally have Pelor as merely a facade for Asmodeus in my campaigns.

[dyslexicfaser]

I put together a Soulbow that pretty much used the concept. There was the church of good and strength (the front, of sorts), but then there were also Inquisitors and Pelor-affiliated assassins.

I believe I called him Pelor, the Burning Sun in Darkness.

[KillianHawkeye]

The PHB also shows Mialee summoning a good aligned Coatl, and Fiendish Codex 1 shows her summoning an evil Nalfeshee. Again, neutrality is the worst you can really ascribe to the characters if every picture of them is "canon".

As a wizard, Mialee's alignment does not restrict the spells she is able to cast. She can cast either [Good] or [Evil] spells and it won't necessarily tell us anything about her alignment.

Besides, the whole "Jozan casts symbol of pain" thing is a holdover from the 3.0 PHB, in which symbol of pain was merely a particular version of the symbol spell and lacked the [Evil] descriptor.

[Gamerlord]

As a wizard, Mialee's alignment does not restrict the spells she is able to cast. She can cast either [Good] or [Evil] spells and it won't necessarily tell us anything about her alignment.

Doesn't matter, we have proof she is LN.

[Optimystik]

As a wizard, Mialee's alignment does not restrict the spells she is able to cast. She can cast either [Good] or [Evil] spells and it won't necessarily tell us anything about her alignment.

In addition, casting aligned spells is called "minor" in both BoVD and FC2.

An evil character has very good reasons to cast Protection from Evil - e.g. if he is summoning Balors. He would have to cast it very often to actually shift alignments.

[Ponce]

I did, but I neglected to tell the players that I was using The Burning Hate in place of Good Pelor.

Which is to say, no, I have never used The Burning Hate.

[Bibliomancer]

Doesn't matter, we have proof she is LN.

Unless those examples in the PHB are generalizations and don't actually represent the characters in the book.

Otherwise, yeah, she's LN, which would account for her summoning various outsiders to get the job done.

[Zeta Kai]

Has anyone actually used The Burning Hate in a campaign? I use it every now and then as a sort of rumor, that the church of pelor fully denounces, the one time my players investigated they quickly found themselves as sacrifices to an unknown deity bound and gagged by unknown people.

The concept of an Evil Sun God is used prominently in the Hourglass of Zihaja campaign setting.

[KillianHawkeye]

Doesn't matter, we have proof she is LN.

I know, I was merely pointing out that Mialee's spell selection isn't pidgeon-holed by her alignment in the same way that Jozan's would be because wizards aren't subject to the same restrictions as clerics. For example, even though she is Lawful Neutral, she could just as easily summon a Slaad as a Formian. Basically, wizards are completely irrelevant to a discussion about the so-called evidence regarding Evil Pelor.

[imp_fireball]

While somewhat off topic, someone on that thread claimed that the definition of 'paladin' is 'good guy' and that the LE paladin contradicted this.

What's the actual definition of paladin?

1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

Alright, so we know that from this, a paladin is brave and takes on great deeds (heroic, as in 'daring', by the definition), and a good fighter (champion). He may be considered a knight by his peers (discounting the knight class of course), due to his particular fighting discipline and mannerisms.

But #3's definition is hazy. It merely reasserts what D&D says, so lets see what the definition of noble is.

Noble:

Of an exalted moral or mental character or excellence; lofty: a noble thought.

So in essence, someone who aspires to certain standards. But just to be sure...

Exalted:

raised or elevated, as in rank or character; of high station: an exalted personage.

None of this indicates 'good'. Rather, it indicates 'high in position', 'respected', 'competent', which in turn goes well with 'has faith in'. Thusly, it makes sense that LG paladins worship Pelor, because paladin in itself isn't 'good', it's more likely to be associated with 'ordained religious warrior'. Any paladin ignorant enough to believe that being a paladin by nature makes them good as long as they do what their deity tells them will hit it hard when they learn that morals can be defined by external things like 'common sense' and (at least in D&D, depending on the campaign), other gods too.

And in real life, that meant converting saxons to christians and what not. In fact, the paladin is a heavy cavalry unit for most European nations in AoE2: Age of Kings, including the Franks. Franks and Charlemagne go hand in hand.

Good and evil by themselves don't make sense. But positive and negative energy do. Light burns in equal measure as it heals, negative slays in equal measure as it allows for decomposition and the renewing of natural resources.

[Fail]

Doesn't matter, we have proof she is LN.

You doubly don't have that proof. First, because she's canonically TN (see DMG - at least 3.0 DMG and Heroes and Allies, also 3.0, but it doesn't seem to have ever been contradicted), which would allow her to summon whatever even if she was a cleric. Second, because wizards don't have alignment restrictions on their spells - even with using [alignment] spells being an [alignment] act, that doesn't change anyone's alignment upon having been done a number of times potentially as low as one. Else, people would change alignment hourly.

Which might actually be the most sensical ruling on alignment.

Other than ... not using it, of course.

[Gamerlord]

You doubly don't have that proof. First, because she's canonically TN (see DMG - at least 3.0 DMG and Heroes and Allies, also 3.0, but it doesn't seem to have ever been contradicted), which would allow her to summon whatever even if she was a cleric. Second, because wizards don't have alignment restrictions on their spells - even with using [alignment] spells being an [alignment] act, that doesn't change anyone's alignment upon having been done a number of times potentially as low as one. Else, people would change alignment hourly.

Which might actually be the most sensical ruling on alignment.

Other than ... not using it, of course.

The PHB 3.5 lists her as an example of lawful neutral.

[Mewtarthio]

It is a special version of Deathwatch which is good. Like good po- Nah, I won't start that.. Like good mindr- Damn..

For extra fun: The Repose domain is intended for Good clerics who wish to protect the sanctity of the dead. It's first domain spell? Deathwatch. That's right: You can't use the very power your god is trying to give you without falling.

Also, regarding the good version of mindrape, I take it you've never heard of a certain Exalted spell that imprisons victim's souls and brainwashes them...

[dspeyer]

Which is hilarious, because the exact same book features him casting the Good spell "Holy Smite". If the evidence is that he casts both good and evil spells, then really the worst you could claim is that he and his god are neutral.

The PHB also shows Mialee summoning a good aligned Coatl, and Fiendish Codex 1 shows her summoning an evil Nalfeshee. Again, neutrality is the worst you can really ascribe to the characters if every picture of them is "canon".

Does anyone else think True Neutral is the most appropriate alignment for a sun god anyway? He's affiliated with nature (especially plants, which are always neutral). He's probably a little vague on anything less than a thousand miles across. I can totally see him looking after electrodynamics, celestial motion, very basic ecology and other concerns too big to be good or evil.

[Foryn Gilnith]

It is a special version of Deathwatch which is good. Like good po- Nah, I won't start that.. Like good mindr- Damn..

Unless you're being meta, I sense that humor is going undetected.

[Lamech]

For extra fun: The Repose domain is intended for Good clerics who wish to protect the sanctity of the dead. It's first domain spell? Deathwatch. That's right: You can't use the very power your god is trying to give you without falling.

Also, regarding the good version of mindrape, I take it you've never heard of a certain Exalted spell that imprisons victim's souls and brainwashes them...

Okay why do people keep on bringing up sanctify the wicked? What about the class that magically compells people to become good, but not just any good; it forces them to be lawful good. It a freaking exhalted prestige class. How does sanctify the wicked even come close to that?

[Tavar]

What class is that?

And people bring up Stanctify the wicked because it's so similar to two other spells, the insanely evil Mindrape and the neutral Programed Amnesia. It's an example how three spells do very similar things, and are classified as three different alignments. Clearly, Wizards of the Coast just doesn't care.

[Frosty]

My next campaign will involve The Burning Hate, and will set the characters up for a sequel.

A group of adventurers have been asked by Pelor to descend into Hell to steal Asmodeus's copy of the Pact Primeval (Pelor has also secretly tasked another group with stealing Mechanus's copy), his explanation being that with all the copies of the Pact Primeval, Pelor can change the contract language, closing the loophole that allows Asmodeus and his lackeys to be evil/encourage evil, etc.

When the PCs finally succeed on their epic mission, they will learn that Pelor and Asmodeus were in it together this whole time, and the whole mission was part of a big bluff check against the other good deities, and now Big P and Big A changes the language of the Pact to something even worse than before.

Cue next campaign, where the objective is to destroy Pelor.

[taltamir]

this is awesome...

Which is hilarious, because the exact same book features him casting the Good spell "Holy Smite". If the evidence is that he casts both good and evil spells, then really the worst you could claim is that he and his god are neutral.

The PHB also shows Mialee summoning a good aligned Coatl, and Fiendish Codex 1 shows her summoning an evil Nalfeshee. Again, neutrality is the worst you can really ascribe to the characters if every picture of them is "canon".

By RAW, a wizard who casts [evil] or [good] spells only risk an alignment shift into neutral. (which is unlikely to happen via a single casting)

A cleric simply can't cast any spell with an alignment descriptor opposite to his own...

[chiasaur11]

Obviously, Pelor has a good for nothing brother who he lets take the job from time to time.

[Starscream]

Obviously, Pelor has a good for nothing brother who he lets take the job from time to time.

Or a split personality. That'd be a good plot hook: "Deliver these holy meds of +5 sanity to the sun god or her turns evil."