[3.5/PF] GitP Regulars as Plagues/Poisons/Diseases/Positoxins/Ravages/Afflictions

[NeoPhoenix0]

I was kidding, unless you count PF as a DnD edition.
"Evidence" is really useless against strict facts. This isn't My Little Pony, the lore doesn't leave much to speculate on, and when it does it's a straight up mistake or due to laziness.

After that, the PHB is the be all end all source for that sort of information, so it's all moot anyway.


We could. I mean, if we were to take it seriously, is Pelor referred to as evil in 3.5 at all/specifically?

You know, the core rule set contradicts itself an awful lot. Even i who believes a lot of contradictions are not impossible recognise that the core rule set cannot be entirely correct. for example wither most undead must be evil and vampires cannot be inherently evil or most undead cannot be inherently evil and vampires must be depending on the nature of negative energy. Either Pelor is a racist non-good bastard or he is not against undead for undead cannot all be evil. (besides at least half the undead shouldn't have alignments to begin with, which makes the entire thing more complicated.) This all becomes important when discussing how imersive dnd is unless of coarse you rename the alignments. in which case everything makes sense, but all good gods are inherently racist and nuetral gods are the true moral high ground. this also mean the alignment descriptions must be thrown out and alignment is basically a cosmic force used to help sort how the world interact with people. it also becomes impossible to figure out where you are supposed to put your character.

Basically all things considered labeling Pelor as evil is part of the simplest ways of reconciling 3.5 with itself.

[khadgar567]

You know, the core rule set contradicts itself an awful lot. Even i who believes a lot of contradictions are not impossible recognise that the core rule set cannot be entirely correct. for example wither most undead must be evil and vampires cannot be inherently evil or most undead cannot be inherently evil and vampires must be depending on the nature of negative energy. Either Pelor is a racist non-good bastard or he is not against undead for undead cannot all be evil. (besides at least half the undead shouldn't have alignments to begin with, which makes the entire thing more complicated.) This all becomes important when discussing how imersive dnd is unless of coarse you rename the alignments. in which case everything makes sense, but all good gods are inherently racist and nuetral gods are the true moral high ground. this also mean the alignment descriptions must be thrown out and alignment is basically a cosmic force used to help sort how the world interact with people. it also becomes impossible to figure out where you are supposed to put your character.

Basically all things considered labeling Pelor as evil is part of the simplest ways of reconciling 3.5 with itself.

I agree wiyj you phoenix but I cant put my mind on waths the real artificer( who cast spells like regular sorcreer or wizard) force to became a useless wreck in the hand on both pathfinder and idiots of the coast

[Jormengand]

Twisttongue
Type: Disease, inhaled
Save: Fortitude, DC 16
Onset: 1d6 days

Twisttongue causes swelling of the tongue and mouth that makes it difficult to form words. Those afflicted take a -5 to all rolls involving speech, including Truespeak checks. Additionally, they suffer a 10% chance of arcane spell failure for any spell with verbal components.

Well this is terrible. Why would you do this to your favourite truenamer?

[LoyalPaladin]

Paladin-sensei, i think i have something you will like a bit more

Torm's malady

Oooooh. I do like this!

I got some pretty noice stuff for christmas. A sexy GPU and Fallout 4. Both are good.

Very nice! I got some new jackets and some useful things... I just recently got a puppy, so the useful things were puppy related. Y'know, because puppies are hard work.

Theres more evidence than that, but it is certainly a part of it.

All the more reason to worship Torm!

Ehm, guys, I think My Khadgar is broken, so, do I get a new one or do I send him off for repairs?

Pfffft.

[Xuldarinar]

All the more reason to worship Torm!

But I like evil pelor. Or nurgal if we are talking pathfinder..

[Snowbluff]

You know, the core rule set contradicts itself an awful lot. Even i who believes a lot of contradictions are not impossible recognise that the core rule set cannot be entirely correct. for example wither most undead must be evil and vampires cannot be inherently evil or most undead cannot be inherently evil and vampires must be depending on the nature of negative energy. Either Pelor is a racist non-good bastard or he is not against undead for undead cannot all be evil. (besides at least half the undead shouldn't have alignments to begin with, which makes the entire thing more complicated.) This all becomes important when discussing how imersive dnd is unless of coarse you rename the alignments. in which case everything makes sense, but all good gods are inherently racist and nuetral gods are the true moral high ground. this also mean the alignment descriptions must be thrown out and alignment is basically a cosmic force used to help sort how the world interact with people. it also becomes impossible to figure out where you are supposed to put your character.

"Always Evil" doesn't mean that. Undead is not a race, it's a type. Generally it means that whatever is it feeds on, willingly or unwillingly, intelligent creatures to survive. They are contrary to the survival and betterment of living creatures. Being disgusted and hateful towards undead isn't anyway different than being disgusted and hateful towards reptiles in real life; they are bastards by nature. Only on a rare exception that undead aren't evil, but you can usually tell if they are munching on your leg within 6 seconds of meeting. Past that, they are a perversion of life, which even gods of death agree with. Even the good ones should be allowed to pass on.

Neutrals, by definition, do not have the moral high ground. In fact, you are demonstrating about how useful they are. For further reading on how to be neutral and not be a sophist, look up Wee Jas, who understands better than you the nature of undead.

Basically all things considered labeling Pelor as evil is part of the simplest ways of reconciling 3.5 with itself.

That's the opposite of simple.

[unseenmage]

Was too busy cowering from the holiday spirit and missed this thread till just now. Looks great though. Glad folks have gotten stuff made for them.

I can't recall which of this threads topics can afflict constructs though. If memory serves the only real danger to me and my crafted brethren is in some plague or another revealing us as what we really are when we're the last beings standing in city after city of plague ravaged corpses.

We'll have to do a thread on slimes, molds, and 'hazards' (seriously why aren't all hazards just traps; arrgh!) so my golems can be afflicted by something too.

[Snowbluff]

Was too busy cowering from the holiday spirit and missed this thread till just now. Looks great though. Glad folks have gotten stuff made for them.

I can't recall which of this threads topics can afflict constructs though. If memory serves the only real danger to me and my crafted brethren is in some plague or another revealing us as what we really are when we're the last beings standing in city after city of plague ravaged corpses.

We'll have to do a thread on slimes, molds, and 'hazards' (seriously why aren't all hazards just traps; arrgh!) so my golems can be afflicted by something too.

I guess people can write something that specifically works on constructs. Nothing is stopping them.

[Xuldarinar]

I guess people can write something that specifically works on constructs. Nothing is stopping them.

How about a plague that operates as a microscopic disenchanter/rust-monster, or a contagion that has its own anti-magic field.

[NeoPhoenix0]

"Always Evil" doesn't mean that. Undead is not a race, it's a type. Generally it means that whatever is it feeds on, willingly or unwillingly, intelligent creatures to survive. They are contrary to the survival and betterment of living creatures. Being disgusted and hateful towards undead isn't anyway different than being disgusted and hateful towards reptiles in real life; they are bastards by nature. Only on a rare exception that undead aren't evil, but you can usually tell if they are munching on your leg within 6 seconds of meeting. Past that, they are a perversion of life, which even gods of death agree with. Even the good ones should be allowed to pass on.

Neutrals, by definition, do not have the moral high ground. In fact, you are demonstrating about how useful they are. For further reading on how to be neutral and not be a sophist, look up Wee Jas, who understands better than you the nature of undead.


That's the opposite of simple.

Are you telling me that the gods of death do not like a creature that steps around the rules of life and death and cheated the very concept they embody... Shocker. Though we jas is a good counter point to those that attempt to use pelor's life portfolio as an example of why he is good.

Munching on a leg does not make something evil or perverse either. That just makes them similar to a wild animal, if they are even capable of that. most undead are just alignment-less tools, wanting to destroy them does not justify a god as good. Nor does it stop a cleric of pelor preparing a symbol of pain spell from being very suspicious. Also none of pelor's relics are beneficial to people. They are mearly tools of destruction. Pelor is never given any real reason to be considered good, he really just seems to be there to offset death and undeath. it is basically the same problem i have with kender. Why is he good? cause the book said so, that's it.

And just to be clear positive energy and healing is not a reason to call him good. Positive energy is just a tool that can be easily used for evil.

[Snowbluff]

Are you telling me that the gods of death do not like a creature that steps around the rules of life and death and cheated the very concept they embody... Shocker. Though we jas is a good counter point to those that attempt to use pelor's life portfolio as an example of why he is good.

No one likes the undead unless they are evil, is the point I am making. It's against the natural order, life cycle, and is inherently evil, ergo undead are evil.

Munching on a leg does not make something evil or perverse either. That just makes them similar to a wild animal, if they are even capable of that. most undead are just alignment-less tools, wanting to destroy them does not justify a god as good. Nor does it stop a cleric of pelor preparing a symbol of pain spell from being very suspicious. Also none of pelor's relics are beneficial to people. They are mearly tools of destruction. Pelor is never given any real reason to be considered good, he really just seems to be there to offset death and undeath. it is basically the same problem i have with kender. Why is he good? cause the book said so, that's it.

Uh, tools of evil people. Even then, they are always evil. Even then, they still pervert life. Even then, then souls of the innocent are trapped inside them until they are destroyed.

And just to be clear positive energy and healing is not a reason to call him good. Positive energy is just a tool that can be easily used for evil.

Uh, what? No, his clerics use to help people. People like Pelor's clerics because they help people. You are required to be good, or at least not evil, to be one of his clerics.

The simple fact of the matter is positive energy while can be used to heal an evil person, what it can't do is harm the living. Positive energy inherently protects life and it's natural end. For the same reasons we have developed ethics and morals (in order to maintain a growing and surviving society), it's inherently good. Which isn't my argument. I guess it's just something you brought up to make yourself sound more wrong.

I like it how your argument is Strawman Fallacy, without actually addressing the problem that your argument has a negative number of legs to stand on. I can stand funny, I can stand right, but you got to be at least one of the two. If you're having difficulty understanding what makes a good thing good, I suggest take a course in ethics or philosophy, because I do not want to start at square to explain everything.

[Blackhawk748]

No one likes the undead unless they are evil, is the point I am making. It's against the natural order, life cycle, and is inherently evil, ergo undead are evil.

Uh, tools of evil people. Even then, they are always evil. Even then, they still pervert life. Even then, the souls of the innocent are trapped inside them until they are destroyed.

Emphasis mine. This is not an argument for undead being Evil, this is an argument for them being Chaotic, which they used to be. Also that is a huge generalization, Wee Jaas has Neutral Clerics who use Lawfully obtained undead.

On to the Italicized part. The persons soul is not trapped in an undead body, this is because there is no way a 3rd (or 4th) level spell is going to have the power to take someones soul out of the afterlife against their will when raise dead, a 5th level spell, requires them to be willing.

On top of this, no god would allow a necromancer to exist if this is how necromancy worked, becuase that necromancer would be sucking souls out of various afterlives, and no god is ok with that.

[NeoPhoenix0]

A skeleton can't be always evil because it isn't capable of being evil. Because it is not capable of willingly committing an evil act.

Undead are as against the natural order as constructs. Also how does being against the natural order make something evil?

[Snowbluff]

A skeleton can't be always evil because it isn't capable of being evil. Because it is not capable of willingly committing an evil act.

They attack people on sight. You have to take a feat that involved smooching a lich to avoid.

Undead are as against the natural order as constructs.

It's like a frankenstein monster made out of dead people who were exhumed without their family's permission versus a tractor.

Also how does being against the natural order make something evil?

Because the natural order is the purpose of good. Be born, live, get kids, die. That's the basis of the existence of a living being. Human ethics are ultimately based on this. Remember what I said about square one?

Also, I know what you are thinking, and I'm going to say don't say it. Trust me, your argument will look less awful, and I don't want to be the one to bring up the topic.

[Blackhawk748]

They attack people on sight. You have to take a feat that involved smooching a lich to avoid.

Because the natural order is the purpose of good. Be born, live, get kids, die. That's the basis of the existence of a living being. Human ethics are ultimately based on this. Remember what I said about square one?

Also, I know what you are thinking, and I'm going to say don't say it. Trust me, your argument will look less awful, and I don't want to be the one to bring up the topic.

Firstly, created unintelligent undead do nothing unless ordered to.

Secondly, im still not seeing Good here, im seeing Law. Which is fine, i agree that Undead are Chaotic, but Law doesnt equal Good anymore than Chaotic equals Evil.

[Snowbluff]

Firstly, created unintelligent undead do nothing unless ordered to.

AFB, but tell me where that guy's soul is.

Secondly, im still not seeing Good here, im seeing Law. Which is fine, i agree that Undead are Chaotic, but Law doesnt equal Good anymore than Chaotic equals Evil.

Hey, just because I'm using the word order to describe the sanctity of life doesn't mean it's a concept of law. It's the difference between me not stabbing you in the throat because it's wrong and not stabbing you in the throat because I'd get in trouble.

And honestly this is way off topic for people that are playing devil's advocate.

[Blackhawk748]

AFB, but tell me where that guy's soul is.


Hey, just because I'm using the word order to describe the sanctity of life doesn't mean it's a concept of law. It's the difference between me not stabbing you in the throat because it's wrong and not stabbing you in the throat because I'd get in trouble.

And honestly this is way off topic for people that are playing devil's advocate.

Their soul is in the afterlife.

Thats motivation, stabbing me would be Chaotic Evil actually, and DnD is weird in that it really doesnt care about motivation, just your actions. Even then its not consistent, such as: Orcs massacre human village, Evil. Humans massacre orc village, not Evil.

[Draconium]

Summation of this tangent: the alignment system in D&D is broken, even when you're talking about how it relates to undeath. Is that accurate?

[Blackhawk748]

Summation of this tangent: the alignment system in D&D is broken, even when you're talking about how it relates to undeath. Is that accurate?

More or less, its broke and undead make it more broke.

[Snowbluff]

Thats motivation, stabbing me would be Chaotic Evil actually, and DnD is weird in that it really doesnt care about motivation, just your actions. Even then its not consistent, such as: Orcs massacre human village, Evil. Humans massacre orc village, not Evil.

Orcs are evil. Ergo it's an act of self defense (preserves the lives of the innocent), and thus good. Orc have no interest in interfacing in any way other than counter productively (pillaging and murdering), therefore it's a lawful act.

If you had a village full of serial killers who plan on killing you, would you really not do something about that? This is like saying that Russia is real entirely 99.9% cutthroat KGB and secret police operatives who wish and intend harm to you, but you think we shouldn't do something about them just because they're going to kill you.

The problem here isn't that it's a double standard. The way DnD's works means that there are very real and deadly threat that exist for no other reason than to kill for the sake of it. It's contrary to how society works in reality, which is the point.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Because the natural order is the purpose of good. Be born, live, get kids, die. That's the basis of the existence of a living being. Human ethics are ultimately based on this. Remember what I said about square one?

Also, I know what you are thinking, and I'm going to say don't say it. Trust me, your argument will look less awful, and I don't want to be the one to bring up the topic.

I don't know what you are referencing with either of these. It might be a good idea for me to backtrack when i stopped being facetious and started playing the devil's advocate.

Also, as far as how off topic we got, that is your fault for using undefined messes as sturdy support platforms. don't built skyscrapers in swamps without finding the bottom.

[Blackhawk748]

The problem here isn't that it's a double standard. The way DnD's works means that there are very real and deadly threat that exist for no other reason than to kill for the sake of it. It's contrary to how society works in reality, which is the point.

Emphasis mine. Im fine with this if they're Demons, as they are made of literal Evil, but Orcs arent. Orcs are basically just Vikings. They have their towns and villages, and then the go A-Orcing. Are they jerks? Yes. Are they Evil? From their victims perspective ill bet they are, but im sure they arent from their perspective. Do Orcs kill for killings sake? No, they kill to get stuff, just like adventurers.

And yes DnD has a double standard. Garl Glittergold committed genocide on the primeval kobolds, who where not Evil at that time, they where just doing their thing and their city was totally awesome. Garl got jealous and freakin nuked them. And not one god did anything. Pelor, god of flipping Healing stood by, Heironius, god of Justice and Valor, nothing. St Cuthbert, nothing (though he may not have existed yet). Not one of the gods did anything to punish Garl for his unprovoked attack. It fell to Io to do anything.

[Snowbluff]

Emphasis mine. Im fine with this if they're Demons, as they are made of literal Evil, but Orcs arent. Orcs are basically just Vikings. They have their towns and villages, and then the go A-Orcing. Are they jerks? Yes. Are they Evil? From their victims perspective ill bet they are, but im sure they arent from their perspective. Do Orcs kill for killings sake? No, they kill to get stuff, just like adventurers.

This is your problem right here. You're judging as humans, where as these are the critters made by Grumsh, who made them evil because he felt like it.


As for Garl, don't know the whole story, but you'd have a Blood War problem if the gods did everything to stop the other ones, and gnomes are dumb anyway. Screw Garl.

Also, as far as how off topic we got, that is your fault for using undefined messes as sturdy support platforms. don't built skyscrapers in swamps without finding the bottom.

Excuse me, but I was using the definition as my argument.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Excuse me, but I was using the definition as my argument.

exactly. not many swamps deeper than a definition from 3.5

[Snowbluff]

exactly. not many swamps deeper than a definition from 3.5

No, that's as base as it gets. "An attack is an action made to harm," etc.

What you were doing is arguing against something defined as something, despite that being a part of the article in question. It's like saying rats aren't vermin in DnD because you own a friendly pet rat.

Furthermore, it becomes more clear when you remember that you can do good or evil without it affecting your alignment.

And if Blackhawk needs convincing of anything, he said it's okay for demons to be called evil because they are literally the embodiment of evil, let us remember that Pelor is good and has good literally as his domain. He embodies, defines, and is omniscient on it. If he does something seemingly bad every once in a while, he knew it, probably feels bad, and probably did it to because it meant the most good. You are right in that the writers could have made some effort in putting more good stuff for the God of healbots past a PrC.

[NeoPhoenix0]

To the basiest definitions I can think of on this subject then. An alignment is ones personal attitudes and philosophies. An unintelligent undead cannot have these for they have no mind represented by there lack of an international score, therefore an unintelligent undead cannot be lawful evil, neutral evil or chaotic evil, because those are alignments.

[Xuldarinar]

To the basiest definitions I can think of on this subject then. An alignment is ones personal attitudes and philosophies. An unintelligent undead cannot have these for they have no mind represented by there lack of an international score, therefore an unintelligent undead cannot be lawful evil, neutral evil or chaotic evil, because those are alignments.

Lets take several examples, but all following the same conduct. An individual kills everything it comes across, for no other reason than it was there.



A human would be chaotic evil.
A machine would be lawful neutral.
An animal would be true neutral.
The leviathan is true neutral.
A mindless undead creature would be neutral evil.



Am I wrong in this?

[Snowbluff]

To the basiest definitions I can think of on this subject then. An alignment is ones personal attitudes and philosophies. An unintelligent undead cannot have these for they have no mind represented by there lack of an international score, therefore an unintelligent undead cannot be lawful evil, neutral evil or chaotic evil, because those are alignments.

The circumstances of their existence may affect it too. Liches are über evil because you have to do some nasty stuff to become one. In turn, mindless undead interfere with resurrection, so that may interfere with the soul (bad mojo). YMMV.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Lets take several examples, but all following the same conduct. An individual kills everything it comes across, for no other reason than it was there.



A human would be chaotic evil.
A machine would be lawful neutral.
An animal would be true neutral.
The leviathan is true neutral.
A mindless undead creature would be neutral evil.



Am I wrong in this?

This argument is flawed, mindless undead do not kill like that. All mindless undead are created and only kill because they were told to by their master, they are incapable of acting otherwise. The mindless undead is effectively a sword and the person who gave the command the wielder.

Is a nonmagical sword used to kill an entire village evil?

[Xuldarinar]

This argument is flawed, mindless undead do not kill like that. All mindless undead are created and only kill because they were told to by their master, they are incapable of acting otherwise. The mindless undead is effectively a sword and the person who gave the command the wielder.

Is a nonmagical sword used to kill an entire village evil?

I
The mindless undead would follow in suit of the example of a machine. Lawful neutral if not straight up neutral. Giventthe same commands, their alignments are different. Its an inconsistency on what alignment is often described as, but it isn't alone.


MySpoint is, alignment isn'tpstrictly about how one conducts themselves and why, but rather.. there has to be more to it. The default on zombies, skeletons, and the like, is that they are NE. I'd argue true neutral, but thats not how they have it. Arself-aware being possesses a CE alignment for the same conduct as a N entity that lacks an intelligence score above 3. It seems that if their source is tied toean alignment, they move a step in that direction, for reasons.


No,athe non-magical sword wouldn't be evil, but undead are created by means of magic. A magical sword can be "evil" magically, or a previously non-magical sword that has been used in such vile deeds could conceivablydtake on certain qualities and become "evil" without being directly imbue with magic (if memory serves; BoVD, WoL, HoH.. ect.)


And to correct myself; the leviathan is chaotic neutral.sThe tarrasque is true neutral.