|
If it didn't force the alignment, the world would be over-run with vampire paladins. Possibly dark elf vampire paladins.
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
World Famous Whore posted:Out of curiosity, why is everyone saying Durkon is Evil now that he is a vampire? Did I miss a comic where that was explained or is it just assumed/stupid alignment rule that he is because 'Undead = Evil'? He still has free will, correct? So shouldn't he be pretty much himself (Good) with just a weird dietary restriction (that is kinda of evil)? It's also a really interesting story direction. Rich does alignments really well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Not to mention Durkon straight up says he's evil: Roy: ...so you're not evil? Durkon: No more'n Belkar, I'd wager. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html And we know that Belkar is evil. Exceptionally so. The Devas in heaven plotted his evilness on a chart against the hypothetical offspring of Cruella de Ville and Sauron. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html So yeah, Durkon's Evil with a capital E V I L
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Not to mention Durkon straight up says he's evil: On the other hand, Belkar is on the path to changing his alignment so there's some interesting stuff coming up soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Not to mention Durkon straight up says he's evil: I don't mind so much I guess, I trust the comic will handle it well. World Famous W fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Oct 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:If it didn't force the alignment, the world would be over-run with vampire paladins. Possibly dark elf vampire paladins. Dual wielding dark elf vampire paladins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
There's plenty of ways to be Evil in D&D. Alignment is a weird mix of conflicting concepts. There's at least three components: intents, actions, and nature. Suppose you have good intentions, but perform evil acts: that's evil. But reverse that and perform good acts with evil intentions (maybe you're just trying to gain the trust of somebody in order to take advantage of them later): evil too! Now your actions and your intentions are things you have control over (especially as a player dictating how your character acts and feels); but nature is important too! Mortal races aren't especially aligned, they might tend towards good or evil but it's more out of cultural values/educations/etc. than an intrinsic part of their very existence. Outsiders like angels or demons, though, are innately good or evil: if they do manage to change their alignment, it'll change their very nature. Undead likewise are evil by their very nature, because undead existence is evil. It doesn't matter whether they wanted to become undead or not. It doesn't even really matter if their intents and actions are still good: they'll still be evil for as long as they're undead. That's the metaphysical part of the alignment more than anything. So far, we've seen that Durkon is (figuratively, not just literally) more bloodthirsty now than he was before, just look at how gleeful he looked when he killed Nale's drow mage. But even if he still is mostly the same, he'll be evil by virtue of being a vampire. That's something he'll have to deal with. His ways out are either destruction (dying for good) or cure (becoming a mortal again, the simplest methods being to accept being first destroyed and then resurrected).
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Seldom Posts posted:I assume that it will played for comedy at some point in the future that now that he is evil, he thinks trees are his natural allies. Nah, wooden stakes after all, though I suppose now if he still considers trees his natural enemies he's actually got a point (no pun intended).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Let's not forget that, aside from rules reasons we know Durkon's gone evil from the way he acts. He murdered a helpless opponent and, based on the look on his face, he enjoyed it. Like Tarquin or Malack, Durkon is loyal to his friends and willing to help save the world. But also like them, he's now a remorseless killer who enjoys the suffering of others. That's evil, no mater how you slice it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
We had this conversation back when he turned. Not only is Durkon now evil, but evil-Durkon will reject any attempt to change his alignment (just as Malack did).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Let's not forget that, aside from rules reasons we know Durkon's gone evil from the way he acts. He murdered a helpless opponent and, based on the look on his face, he enjoyed it. Like Tarquin or Malack, Durkon is loyal to his friends and willing to help save the world. But also like them, he's now a remorseless killer who enjoys the suffering of others. That's evil, no mater how you slice it. Finishing off someone who is an active combatant and is trying to kill your friends isn't murdering a helpless opponent. So it's okay to to try to kill someone up until they go unconscious? Did you think that the dark elf mage was going to suddenly stop trying to kill the OotS once he regained consciousness?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:Finishing off someone who is an active combatant and is trying to kill your friends isn't murdering a helpless opponent. So it's okay to to try to kill someone up until they go unconscious? Did you think that the dark elf mage was going to suddenly stop trying to kill the OotS once he regained consciousness? It was that look of glee that really made it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:Finishing off someone who is an active combatant and is trying to kill your friends isn't murdering a helpless opponent. So it's okay to to try to kill someone up until they go unconscious? Up until now Durkon has been bang up for not killing the Linear Guild and sending them off to jail. Heck, he didn't even bother with that for Leeky Windstaff, he just gave him a smack and sent him on his way. Then he turns into a vampire and he's suddenly snapping necks of unconscious foes. This is a major shift from his previous attitudes. Just because now he agrees with your moral code doesn't mean he's not evil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:Finishing off someone who is an active combatant and is trying to kill your friends isn't murdering a helpless opponent. So it's okay to to try to kill someone up until they go unconscious? Did you think that the dark elf mage was going to suddenly stop trying to kill the OotS once he regained consciousness? I vote we don't have the alignment debate. Durkon is Evil because that's what the rules say and that's what he says and because that's what will make an interesting story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:Finishing off someone who is an active combatant and is trying to kill your friends isn't murdering a helpless opponent. So it's okay to to try to kill someone up until they go unconscious? Did you think that the dark elf mage was going to suddenly stop trying to kill the OotS once he regained consciousness? He's not active if he's unconscious. It's like how you're not allowed to shoot at medics on a battlefield; yes, they're trying to fix your enemy's soldiers, but those guys aren't about to hit the field again anyway. You can argue all day long about how practical it is, but at the end of the day the metaphysical forces of Good simply don't appreciate killing a guy for the heinous crime of 'daring to fight you' once he's been removed from the fight in question. Especially if he's demonstrated his incompetence as thoroughly as anyone who's ever associated with Nale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
An intelligent undead or evil outsider that managed to change alignment would still count as evil under detect spells anyway. A Succubus Paladin (Of which there is only one example I think) still registers as evil and chaotic under detect evil and chaos spells along with showing up as good and lawful under detect good and law spells.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
Please do not degenerate into an alignment debate again. Alignment is hard-wired into the closest thing 3.X has to the laws of physics, so trying to argue about it with real world morals is pointless. Let's go back to that 1E comeliness thing, because making fun of old editions always works. I always thought that in addition to being a dumb stat, just saying the word "comeliness" makes me feel slightly ill inside.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
3.5 is an "old edition". Alignment exists in universe. In the real world it doesn't. It's like skill points. It's an absurd simplification of something that is actually quite complicated to describe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
inthesto posted:Please do not degenerate into an alignment debate again. Alignment is hard-wired into the closest thing 3.X has to the laws of physics, so trying to argue about it with real world morals is pointless. I was not arguing about it. Just pointing out an interesting little thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Undead likewise are evil by their very nature, because undead existence is evil. It doesn't matter whether they wanted to become undead or not. It doesn't even really matter if their intents and actions are still good: they'll still be evil for as long as they're undead. That's the metaphysical part of the alignment more than anything. Addendum: It is possible to be a non-evil undead if it is animated by positive energy instead of negative energy. I think mummies are usually the only standard edition positive energy undead, but I know I've seen stuff like a template for non-evil liches and the like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
Baelnorn liches specifically. Nothing terribly wrong with being evil anyway. Least Durkon's less boring now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 09:08
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Addendum: It is possible to be a non-evil undead if it is animated by positive energy instead of negative energy. I think mummies are usually the only standard edition positive energy undead, but I know I've seen stuff like a template for non-evil liches and the like. Most good aligned undead were retconned from Undead to Deathless in Book of Exalted Deeds. Think the ghost-matyrs. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:Psions are basically not-wizards, in that they have terrible HP and no armor. But there's nothing stopping one from wearing armor, so if she had a level in fighter or appropriate feats she could be wearing pretty much anything. Even without the feats, wearing off-spec armor just penalizes attack rolls and skill checks, neither of which is a big deal for a primary caster. Spell Failure chances are a pretty big deal for a primary caster. Of course, there are forms of magical protection she could be using that wouldn't interfere with her casting, and I wouldn't necessarily assume Ian is very high level. On par with Tarquin and company might be reasonable by dint of being a protagonists parent, but he's almost certainly not epic. Reaching epic levels is a very big deal in the OotS narrative, and the only people we've seen with them have all been incredibly significant individuals like Soon and Xykon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Spell Failure chances are a pretty big deal for a primary caster. Spell failure doesn't apply to psionic powers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Red Metal posted:Spell failure doesn't apply to psionic powers. I was going to say, Spell Failure (e: from armor) is negated by still casting, and I wouldn't think psionic powers have a somatic component. I could be horribly wrong though. Alliterate Addict fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Oct 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
Not having to worry about crap like somatic and verbal components is one of the clear advantages psionics has over magic. And yes, a mithril chain shirt is a 100% penalty free piece of equipment for psions, proficiency or no. IIRC, psions and their ilk still need a psi-focus or something. I don't know, there's just wasn't enough distinguishing psionics from magic for me to care enough to actually read deeply into the former.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
"Psionic focus" doesn't really have much to do with psionic powers itself. Psionic focus is just a state you can reach by taking a move action, and there are certain feats (which you can get if you have at least one power point) that give you bonuses for being in that state or for expending your focus. It's not required to use powers, though. There are crystals which psions can use to improve their powers, though; a living crystal is basically the psionic equivalent of a familiar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Psions basically have pet rocks for familiars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Psions basically have pet rocks for familiars. I'd still rather have a pseudodragon, but not by much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
prefect posted:I'd still rather have a pseudodragon, but not by much. IIRC in 2e you could end up with a Faerie Dragon as a familiar
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Nystral posted:IIRC in 2e you could end up with a Faerie Dragon as a familiar You could also have imps or quasits. All of those were available in Baldur's Gate, I think, but you were locked to a particular one by your alignment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:You could also have imps or quasits. All of those were available in Baldur's Gate, I think, but you were locked to a particular one by your alignment. Yeah in Baldur's Gate good alignments got pseudo and fairy dragons, neutral got small animals, evil got quasits and mephits. VVV Sorry, yeah Imps - the other small flying creature, Mephits are the assorted elemental, and demi-semi-hemi-elemental varieties. VodeAndreas fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
VodeAndreas posted:Yeah in Baldur's Gate good alignments got pseudo and fairy dragons, neutral got small animals, evil got quasits and mephits. You mean Imps. Mephits are not evil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:An intelligent undead or evil outsider that managed to change alignment would still count as evil under detect spells anyway. A Succubus Paladin (Of which there is only one example I think) still registers as evil and chaotic under detect evil and chaos spells along with showing up as good and lawful under detect good and law spells. It'd be cool if evil outsiders like demons were always evil not because they're inherently bad and can't possibly become good, but because their demonic state was just a reflection of their alignment. Like if an evil demon were to actually go through a change of heart, since its body is a reflection of its soul, it'd turn into some sort of good outsider. I don't think D&D actually endorses that sort of metaphysics though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
nrook posted:It'd be cool if evil outsiders like demons were always evil not because they're inherently bad and can't possibly become good, but because their demonic state was just a reflection of their alignment. Like if an evil demon were to actually go through a change of heart, since its body is a reflection of its soul, it'd turn into some sort of good outsider. I think it'd be more consistent if they eventually just spawned a good-aligned variant of the kind of demon they started out as once the number of concerts reached some sort of critical mass. It'd follow the precedence set by fiends such as the Erinyes (essentially lawful evil angels)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
t=0: Population is composed entirely of always chaotic evil demons. t=10000: Random mutations in the demon population produce a tit-for-tat demon. This demon is an rear end in a top hat to all the other demons, but only because they are assholes to him. t=20000: Tit-for-tat demons are now a small, yet extant, minority within the demon population. They are not assholes to each other, but the chaotic evil demons are assholes to them, and to each other. t=50000: The tit-for-tat demon population thrives on the benefits of cooperation; the chaotic evil demons are held back by their lack of access to those same benefits, have difficulties competing for resources, and are slowly dying out. t=100000: Notable demon political scientist Robert Axelshtrazanga'aa'abazurq authors The Evolution of Cooperation: Why Nice Imps Finish First.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
A finite mutation within an infinite population is effectively non-existent. anyway, evil outsiders gonna evil
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
nrook posted:It'd be cool if evil outsiders like demons were always evil not because they're inherently bad and can't possibly become good, but because their demonic state was just a reflection of their alignment. Like if an evil demon were to actually go through a change of heart, since its body is a reflection of its soul, it'd turn into some sort of good outsider. That is exactly how it works in In Nomine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
Cthulhuchan posted:A finite mutation within an infinite population is effectively non-existent. "My name is unpronounceable in your tongue. Actually, that's not true, it is - we'd just be here until the end of the universe and I still wouldn't be done trying to say it. And that would kind of put a damper on any demonic pact you were planning. So just call me Peaches." Also, yay for Tit-for-Tat references. One of the neatest bits of game theory  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
Paul.Power posted:There's an infinite number of demons? That must make nomenclature hard. If I'm not mistaken, the chaotic neutral planes and their denizens are also infinite. Because chaos includes every possibility. Or something. By chaotic good aren't because they'd rather have a nice hunting ground or something, okay?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 04:30
|
|