Pathfinder General /pfg/

>>52530638
So how's the Highlord look?

>>52530638
Where Cannon Golem is going, we don't need thumbs.

Blinkmaker thread. Discuss Blingmaker, Blingmaker apps, Blingmaker ships, best and worst Blinkmaker waifus.

>>52530638
Miku is cute. CUTE!

>>52530638
Please ignore this thread and someone make another one with an op image that isn't weeb furry trash

>>52530638
I played a Rakshasa heritage Tiefling one and the DM absolutely insisted that I had to have backwards hands, there was no possible universe where any Rakshasa heritage Tiefling could ever be born without it to him, and no amount of describing how Tieflings physically work in the RAW could convince him.

Basically it was the same as any other character and I completely ignored it, except when the DM wanted to be a dick about how I declared my actions and how I stowed my items, even though there were enough mechanical changes. He just wanted me to take an extra 20 seconds every time it was my turn to do basically nothing.

>>52530663
Boring, for all the reasons people in the last thread already stated.

>>52530681
Nah kill yourself, you don't get an excuse to start another thread war.

>>52530681
1 you can clearly see she is wearing gloves
2 even if she wasn't it still wouldn't be furry
3 has anyone noticed that she actually does have opposable thumbs so the OP question seems stupid anyways?

File: 1489459599023.jpg (198KB, 1080x1430px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1080x1430px

>>52530663
List of psionic battlefield leaders with collectives:
>medium (empath)
>mesmerist (ringleader), not psionic but psychic, close enough
>tactician
>vitalist
>zealot

Why do we give a shit about yet another?

>>52530708
List of cute dog girls in my games
>0

>>52530701
>>52530708
Explain further. What's the mechanical reason for it being boring?

File: Screenshot_20170404-010411~2.png (98KB, 1080x1376px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1080x1376px

Post backlog of concepts you want to play

>>52530717
List of reasons to live
>0

>>52530678
Gonna be honest I really like DHB's app. Nugget Man sounds like a fun character to have along.

>>52530717
isn't there a "blinkling" maid in HR?

Dude even used a smol dog eared anime girl in a maid outfit.

>>52530733
I could probably find ways to make all of those work, just not in Golarion. Mundane healer especially.

>>52530733
>Empath Medium
>Spellburst Savant
>Tinker Avowed
>Maybe a Technician if SoM gets its act sorted

>>52530681
This is reality now, best to make peace with it and move on.

>>52530708
Something that I always wondered, can you be a member of multiple collectives?

Spoiled because one of my players in the Giantslayer game is on 4chan. Don't look, you know who you are.

Since I've re-written stone giants to have more of a psionic bent I was planning a side quest where the players fight three stone giant brothers, one a vitalist, one a tactician, and one a zealot

>>52530733
Still gotta make my Blingmaker app of a River Kingdom Gillman mesmerist and con-artist.

>>52530768
Thought that uncommon races were barred

>>52530758
Oh I've got builds for all of them, just waiting on the right game to put them in.

Missing from that list is a tank with two tower shields, one granting a cover bonus and the other granting a shield bonus, and a natural bite attack.

>>52530780
Fuck.

I asked last thread, but I'mma ask again. How do I blow up myself and my enemies with magic?

>>52530784
Well I mean I saw Good Necromancer and presumed bait after that shitstorm last thread.

>talking to a friend
>his DM somehow has time to DM nearly 10 different campaigns
time wizards need to share their power.

>>52530784
I have a buddy doing the bullrush shield thing. He's only took 11 levels to die.

>>52530820
That's a tier 9 spell, cough up

>>52530822
Can't tell if complimentary or derogatory

>>52530804
Well I wasn't in last thread, just saw the last few posts, really. There was a shitstorm? I thought a good necromancer was a big trope, like most people have played one or thought about it at some point before. I didn't think it was controversial.

File: 1ba04ce8ff821773e937e26e2927f22a.jpg (154KB, 882x1238px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 882x1238px

>>52530708
>>52530717
What is that dog girl holding?

>>52530840
It's, per Paizo's inane gibbering, by definition impossible. Go read the last thread.

>>52530663
Reading it right now, it looks and feels more like one of those drainer vitalists combined with better tactician abilities.

It's a 6th level manifester that has quite a bit of the nastier unwilling-participant effects baked in, with shit like "take half the damage I take", "suffer this condition for me", "everyone gets +2 attack/damage against this guy and if he attacks anyone in the collective he provokes AoOs from *everybody in the collective*...

It needs more decree options. but the ones there so far are handy enough.

The tenets seem okay; you basically get 1d8 (growing to 6d8 by 20th) to add to stuff through your collective. Like, the first one, adaptation:
Every turn pick a partymember (2 at 8th, 3 at 15th). They gain your "blood power" bonus (those damage dice) on their next attack against a collective member (remember you're built around forcing shit into it, so by like turn 2 probably the entire field should be in there). They can also as a swift instead expend it to gain +10ft of non-provoking movement per die of damage.

Oppression instead lets you - as a free action - do the damage to 1/2/3 targets in your collective once a turn... and heals you for half the damage done. As a standard, you can try to force (# of dice) things into your collective, and any collective members he chooses to are oppressed, which gives a growing attack and effect-DC penalty to them, makes them totally triggered, and doubling those for targets damaged by that blood-tithe ability earlier.

So overall the class seems to be completely based around "buff allies, rape enemies" through the collective system; all the stuff I listed up there costs nothing, but the decrees tie up your psi-focus while in effect (if you have more than one focus you can have more than one decree running too).

>>52530733
>PROTECT HER SMILE
Summoner vmc oracle with a bipedal, martial-using eidolon
>2 ghost dog
Witchwolf Phantom blade with a possessed hand
>Dragoon
Order of the pike cavalier with a fuckhuge acrobatics score
>Kell of Kells
Kasatha dual-wielding fighter. I swear to god if someone makes a pirate game and doesn't allow kasatha

File: hsJlib3.jpg (159KB, 1002x804px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1002x804px

How would you stat up these two for a duo app?

>>52530638
>notice new DSP playtest
>Highlord

Not sure if blatant reference to Starcraft 2 or not

>>52530887
that's just a summoner and her eidolon, anon. You've posted this three times already, go home.

>>52530840
I have had the most deaths until recently, but he has kept his character alive the longest out of all of us. The only reason he died is because of Shield Other on me.

>>52530803
There's an item in steelforge that allows you to punch people and have it detonate.

Why would you want to blow yourself up?

File: 1472833569504.jpg (67KB, 780x439px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 780x439px

>>52530847
>Go read the last thread
Well that was so AIDS I couldn't even finish it. What horseshit. You can be a good or neutral necro, people need to get their heads out of their asses.

>>52530847
It's not impossible for a good person to perform evil acts. It's just that creating undead is still evil. Just like creating a killer robot that murders people the moment you stop controlling it is evil (you being the evil one, not the robot).

>>52530913
I want explosive karate. I want my enemies to feel the fear that I feel when punching them in the fucking liver.

>>52530916
In your own setting, sure. In Golarion under Paizo's rules, necromancy is evil. Full stop.

>>52530916
The argument wasn't about being a good or neutral necromancer. It's about the fact creating undead is evil even if you use them for good. You still might be good but you're doing evil things so you better be pretty damn good.

>>52530932
Not all necromancy. Creating undead specifically is.

>>52530949
Yes, I don't mean the necromancy school, I mean raising undead.

>>52530932
Pretty sure Finger of Death or Massacre isn't evil.

>>52530932
I wholeheartedly disagree, but whatever. All the reasoning I've seen for Necros being always evil all the time reminds me of a past DM I had who insisted Paladins can't fall because they can't do evil. If a Paladin is the type of person capable of falling, a god would never have made them a Paladin in the first place, in his head.

Paladins can fall, even though RAW they have to be L/G. Necros can be good, even though rules say they are Evil.

>>52530861
That actually sounds kinda fun. Why the hate? Cause it was based off of the Sc2 dude?

>>52530937
>smithing a sword is always evil, even if you use it for good

>>52530968
>trapping someone's soul in their expired body and forcing them to do what you wish with your will against theirs is always evil, even if you use it for good

>>52530968
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masamune#Legends_of_Masamune_and_Muramasa

>>52530960
I just don't see what anyone's reasoning is for creating undead to not be an evil act. Sure you may do good with them but you're creating something that if you're not around tries to kill everything that moves.

That's not responcible.

>>52530977
That's objectively not how it works. You can still make a zombie even if that person's soul has been Magic Jar'd or something like that, it has nothing to do with a soul.

>>52530968
Swords if you put it down don't seek out and destroy all life.

>>52530977
Necromancy in pathfinder has nothing to do with souls.

>>52530968
Swords don't try to destroy all life as we know it the second you take your eye off them.

>>52530987
Like a police dog trained to attack accidentally getting of a leash? Or a sharpened killing tool like a sword could be sold to a murderer but smithing it isn't evil.

>>52530995
But I said smithing a sword, not wielding one. Anyone can use that sword once you've sold it.

>>52530965
No fucking clue, but, well, keep in mind there were 49 different people in the last thread, and two of them are arguing about whether the spatial compression of a warp drive bars the FTL result of such travel from being considered actually faster than light.

So, again, who the fuck knows.

Now, the Highlord isn't really my cup of tea; I'd like one in my party but I myself am not too fond of mindraping things, I'm more of a beatstick kind of guy.

>>52531004
Niether do zombies, actually.

>>52531008
If you trained a dog to kill all life that would be pretty evil.

An undead tries to destroy all life the moment you cease exerting control over it. A sword without input will just sit there. It has no ability to act without you.

Undead do.

If you train a dog to seek and destroy every living creature it finds then that's fucking evil.

>>52531008
State trooper I knew, his trick was to keep actual bacon in his left trouser pocket. Whenever he tapped the pocket, dog gets excited.

Dog gets excited, they claim probable cause.

You know the worst part?
It's not even illegal.

>>52531026
Because zombies don't seek they just attack any living thing on sight. They have no ability to seek since they're mindless and will just stand around or wander if nothing living is around.

>>52531036
Ok, so less of a police dog and more like a guard dog? It really doesn't seem like an evil thing, plenty of people train dogs to attack on sight. Also, do you think undead do this any more than a wild wolf does? They're really don't.

>>52531008
Knowingly selling a sword to someone you know will use it for evil, if you're not under duress, is evil.

>>52531043
Really not so much. I don't know where you're getting this from. Mindless undead behave like animals, and there's plenty of intelligent undead who don't act like that. Sure there are some, but it's not a rule.

>>52531055
Debatable, but even assuming that's true, that's still not how undead work.

>>52531049
Are you fucking stupid. Undead do it much more than a wild wolf does. A wolf won't continually kill until it can't see anything left alive. A zombie will continue to kill if given the opportunity until all life it can find is destroyed.

Training an animal that will attempt to kill anything and everything without stopping no matter what or who it is, is evil. In this scenario of the dog attempts to extinguish all life it can find then yeah, shit is evil.

>>52531075
What? No, undead really don't so this. Take a deep breath, I can tell you're getting excited, probably because of last thread, but I'm just talking.
Undead don't seek out victims, wolves do.
Undead don't have a sense of self preservation so they don't retreat, wolves do.
I mean, there are differences, but it's not like you're making it out to be. This is all talking specifically about mindless undead, I assume we can at least agree that intelligent undead don't have to be evil? That seems pretty cut and dry.

File: tumblr_static_3advz0bo0r8k444o0g8woowcw.jpg (18KB, 271x288px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 271x288px

>>52530733
>Half-dragon shota trap

>>52531092

Wolves eat to live.

>>52531049
The zombie kills, chews the brain, and continues on. If you leave it in a town it'll just keep chewing until either it gets destroyed or there's nothing left to chew on.

The dog at the very least stops when it's sated, and does not instinctively seek to kill everything it sees.

>>52531092
Intelligent undead don't have to be evil, it's just non-evil intelligent undead should be about as uncommon as a non-evil demon. Their nature is that of evil.

>>52531092

>>52531069
You know what is not debatable in pathfinder? Both undead and the methods of creating undead are evil. Literally it's on the short list of 5 things "everyone knows about undead" and yet we are having this debate.

>>52530733
Those are not character concepts... they're build concepts.

>>52531092
Wolves life to eat. Undead destroy all life because that is the nature of undead.

I still don't see your reasoning how creating an undead is anything but evil.

>>52531055
Uh...no, it's strictly Neutral, if they're paying you for it. Merchants simply sell shit. If it's not illegal, there are no regulations, etc. then enabling someone else's sick shit by normally doing business with them is not Evil.

>>52531106
Zombies don't hunger for brains, either.
The behavioral entry for uncommanded unintelligent undead describes them a lot like territorial animals. Everything you've been saying is said after "If commanded [...]"

>>52531114
Kinda like killing a person, right? Funny how that works out. You can't be a level 2 character without being evil, I guess. Also Paladins literally can't exist. Do you see how this is a narrow worldview that doesn't work when applied broadly.

>>52531131
Wolves actually are pretty famous for not knowing when to stop eating. They can actually gorge themselves to death, so in a sense, they kill just to kill after they're 'full', as they have no way of knowing when they're no longer hungry.

>>52531131
Or to protect their pack, or because you're in their territory, or because you moved to fast near one. You really think a wild pack of wolves poses no danger to someone if they're full? Yet they are neutral.

>>52531055
>every weaponsmith for an army is Evil
10/10

>>52531127
For PF I start with a class or build I want to play, and then when I see a game I come up with a character concept that fits both the build and the setting.

>>52531145
>Kinda like killing a person, right? Funny how that works out. You can't be a level 2 character without being evil, I guess. Also Paladins literally can't exist. Do you see how this is a narrow worldview that doesn't work when applied broadly.
Murdering someone for no other purpose to adventure/riches is really god damn evil. Most mercenaries should be evil because they profiteer from simply murdering people. Give me a reasoning that murdering for only coin, or just because you can, is not evil? There is debate on whether self defense, reasons of religion, warfare, etc. are mitigating factors. However a good portion of the time murder is very evil

>>52531155
A wolf does not attempt to kill every living creature it can see until it is no longer capable of it.

>>52531154
Are you actually trying to say wolves kill every living creature it can see and will not stop under any circumstances unless destroyed? Because that's what undead do.

This still is not the important part of the debate. I'm saying what is your reasoning that creating such beings isn't evil?

>>52531127
Characters use builds to exist in the world. Every character has a build. Wooooow mind=blown!

>>52531179
>Are you actually trying to say wolves kill every living creature it can see and will not stop under any circumstances unless destroyed? Because that's what undead do.
Well, no, because Wolves will back off if they think they're about to lose. Zombies, however, are even less than that, and have less mind in them than a rabbit, who knows at least to avoid danger and when to fucking scram. They will, however, attack random shit alarmingly often, even when they're sated.

>>52531164
Depends if the army is using it for evil and you know it.

Knowing aiding evil and evil acts is evil unless you're under duress.

File: 1486999122369.jpg (1MB, 1600x1132px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1132px

Is your character prepared for cold weather?

>>52531193
Killing shit is evil, ergo literally every fucking army is evil, because their job is to kill shit.

>>52531179
>Give me a reasoning that murdering for only coin, or just because you can, is not evil?
Because mercenaries are hired soldiers? I dunno man, are we using Paizo's "because these vaguely defined rules say so" evil or actual logical evil?

>>52531192
>Well, no, because Wolves will back off if they think they're about to lose. Zombies, however, are even less than that, and have less mind in them than a rabbit, who knows at least to avoid danger and when to fucking scram. They will, however, attack random shit alarmingly often, even when they're sated.
I don't fucking care about wolves, that isn't the fucking point of this argument.

Creating an undead, a being that if left to its own devices will destroy all life it can see in its immediate vicinity, is an evil action.

In much the same way that creating a robot that murders everything it can see unless I'm in the same room as it would be an evil action.

Creating things that will attempt to destroy all life unless you're holding the leash is an evil fucking action.

>>52531179
>Give me a reasoning that murdering for only coin, or just because you can, is not evil?
No no, you need to take more time reading. The point is that ALL killing is evil. It should be impossible to be a good aligned adventurer if your worldview is this narrow. I don't need to give an example of a time when killing isn't evil, that's counter to my point.

>A wolf does not attempt to kill every living creature it can see until it is no longer capable of it
Actually it does. All territorial predators do. The only difference is they tend to stick to their territory, and they tend to fall back I'd they're losing. That's really it.

>Are you actually trying to say wolves kill every living creature it can see and will not stop under any circumstances unless destroyed? Because that's what undead do
Yes, and wolves aren't evil. See where we're going with this?

>This still is not the important part of the debate
No, it's the whole point.

>>52531203
Are you an aussie or some shit

>>52531208
So you're saying Wolves are evil.

>Creating things that will attempt to destroy all life unless you're holding the leash is an evil fucking action.
I don't see how, considering you generally intend to hold the fucking leash. If you created it with the intent of just letting them, go, sure, but that's not how most 'good necros' operate.

>>52531206
>Killing shit is evil, ergo literally every fucking army is evil, because their job is to kill shit.
Like I said, there are mitigating factors. I am literally talking about golarion here, what happens in the setting.

There are good aligned wars in pathfinder, we know this because there are wars conducted by good aligned nations.

>Because mercenaries are hired soldiers? I dunno man, are we using Paizo's "because these vaguely defined rules say so" evil or actual logical evil?
If someone kills for no reason other than coin, then they are evil. Warfare occurs for a number of reasons and isn't always evil even under:
> Paizo's "because these vaguely defined rules say so"

>>52531216
>No no, you need to take more time reading. The point is that ALL killing is evil. It should be impossible to be a good aligned adventurer if your worldview is this narrow. I don't need to give an example of a time when killing isn't evil, that's counter to my point.
Not all killing is evil.

>Actually it does. All territorial predators do. The only difference is they tend to stick to their territory, and they tend to fall back I'd they're losing. That's really it.
Except this isn't fucking true. Wolves will retreat and flee if they don't think they can win.

File: Delthea_Echoes.png (193KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 512x512px

How cute is your party's imouto?

Necrofag please take your victim complex, go away and stay away

>>52531219
>there are mitigating factors
For killing sentient beings who have never personally offended you and only pose danger to you because you invaded their land?

>good aligned nations
Which makes as much fucking sense as north aligned atmospheres, what are nations, fucking hiveminds?

>even under
No that's the entire reason it's not evil. Literally DM, or in this case, Paizo, fiat. No rhyme or reason to it.

>>52531227
We don't have one, sadly

>>52531208
Stop saying the whole point of this debate is irrelevant.
A) wolves (and most predators) behave extremely similarly to mindless uncommanded undead
B) such predators aren't evil
C) ergo, undead are not necessarily evil, or at least not by virtue of their behavior. This point is refuted, so either counterpoint instead of ignoring it, or give another reason they're evil.

>>52531225
>Wolves will retreat and flee if they don't think they can win.
But that's the LITERAL only difference. Running away makes you less evil? You could have a pack of dire wolves and it'd massacre entire cities if it decided the city was its new home.

>>52531217
>I don't see how, considering you generally intend to hold the fucking leash. If you created it with the intent of just letting them, go, sure, but that's not how most 'good necros' operate.
The fucking thing is I never fucking said that a good necromancer is impossible. It fucking isn't impossible, just absurd.

However, creating the undead and the undead itself are evil. You can do good with it. It doesn't make the undead not evil and destructive.

The thing is, you're using a naturally harmful and destructive thing when alternatives to what ever you wanted to do with it not only exist but are available to you. Either you don't want to put in the time to research how to make constructs or you are too cheap to.

>>52531225
How can killing be good and undead cant? Don't you see the hypocrisy here? Killing is, without context, evil. But, killing can be good. Same for undead.

>>52531247
>or you're too cheap to
Because, like, you know, making a goddamn golem is a lot harder and more expensive than just animating dead? Ergo it will take more time to get around to doing good with thirty golems than just a hundred skeletons?

>>52531216
>Actually it does. All territorial predators do.
Literally NO animal does that.

>>52531258
Well, killing UNDEAD is almost always good...

>>52531261
Anon if you were to walk into a Bear's territory then it would start roaring at you and then kill you. The only reason it roared to begin with is because you're fucking massive and thinks that it might get hurt if it fights you.

>>52531261
Objectively false. I don't really no what to say, since you didn't really offer any worthwhile statement other than "no, YOU'RE wrong!"
Territorial predators absolutely behave this way. This is just a fact in the real world.

File: 1476831181268.png (803KB, 1101x891px) Image search: [Google]

803KB, 1101x891px

man I fucking warned him...
Why can't we just say that alignments in general are stupid and drop any and all discussion on them?

>>52531261
Ok, go pet a bear with one hand, just make sure you're holding a steak in the other hand so it isn't hungry. I'll wait.

Ok, let's take it from the top on the Wolves vs. Undead.

Mindless undead will attempt to destroy all life, why? The reasons are the following:
>because it is inherent to being undead to desire the end of all life, even if mindless

Wolves will kill if given the chance, why? For the following reasons:
>being territorial
>hunger
>self defense

The difference here is there is no reasoning behind the undead's killing. The only reason it doesn't seek to destroy is because it's not capable of doing so because it's mindless. Undead in golarion either are site bound, so they don't move around unless prompted, or wander, depending if they are necropolis or unquiet dead undead.

What is evil about undead isn't just the killing. It is the natural desire to see the destruction of all life. That is the evil. Like was talked about last thread the whole 'inherently selfish existence' because it wants the destruction for no other reason than wanting the destruction.


>>52531258
>How can killing be good and undead cant? Don't you see the hypocrisy here? Killing is, without context, evil. But, killing can be good. Same for undead.
Ok, tell me a scenario where a mindless undead should be good? Note that all mindless undead if not given input will seek the destruction of all life it can find.

>>52531278
>>52531271
No they fucking don't you idiots. A wolf with not try to chase down and kill a mouse. A bear will not give a shit about a hawk.

>>52531294
And I told you last thread that you cannot possibly be selfish if you are also mindless. There is no such fucking thing as inherent selfishness, because selfishness refers to the act of placing the Self higher in priority than everything else - the Self is something the mindless do not have.

>>52531311
And a skeleton will not attempt to gut a morgh, your point?

>>52531320
>And a skeleton will not attempt to gut a morgh, your point?
Since morghs aren't living things, that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.

>>52530733
yokai kitsune(male)Merchant prince. Better-than-you personality with crippling abandonment issues, so he pushes everyone away so he doesn't get attached.

>>52531294
To continue with this. Killing is not always evil.

Killing can be both good and evil in pathfinder. How do we know this? Because both good and evil killers exist. If killing was always evil than everyone who has ever killed would be evil.

Good and evil, to a large degree, in pathfinder when viewed practically are based on intent and focus on selfishness vs. altruism.

Killing for certain reasons such as to defend the innocent, to save people, is good.

Killing for other reasons such as profit, pleasure, etc. is evil.

Killing for other reasons such as self defense, to satiate one's hunger, etc. are neutral. We see this

>>52531314
>There is no such fucking thing as inherent selfishness
Quite literally in pathfinder and golarion there is. Just like there is inherent quantifiable evil in the world there is inherent quantifiable selfishness and it is associated with evil.

>>52531320
Morghs are also undead, I don't see your reasoning here. Again they don't fall under the "try and destroy all life if possible" clause.

>>52531294
>tell me a scenario where a mindless undead should be good?
No, because I've been saying they're neutral all along.

If it's the "why" that has you hung up, your reasoning is still flawed. Mindless undead do not have a desire to kill, they don't have any desire at all. If it's the intention that has you, there is no intention. A mindless undead isn't any more evil than fire, and creating one isn't any more evil than cooking.

Now I think of it, fire is a decent analogy. It's mindlessly destructive and continues to destroy until theres nothing left that it can destroy in reach, but can still be a useful tool. It can be used for good, and if improperly tended it can spread in undesirable ways. Still not evil.

>>52531331
>>52531336
It's the equivalent though. Living things don't kill all other living things on sight, and the Dead don't attack the Dead on sight. Both the living and the dead are antagonistic towards each other, the difference being of course that the living are generally weaker and run the fuck away.

>>52531311
Tell that to Harambe.

>>52531336
>Quite literally in pathfinder and golarion there is. Just like there is inherent quantifiable evil in the world there is inherent quantifiable selfishness and it is associated with evil.
You can't use inherent mindless evil as an example when that's the very property we're debating, you're using the conclusion to support the argument which is inane. Quantifiable selfishness? No, there is quantifiable evil. But what is the LOGIC behind this quantifiable evil? Literally nobody is arguing that the rulebook does not say Zombie: Neutral Evil. People are asking why it's Neutral EVIL instead of just Neutral.

>>52531340
He's going to say fire isn't a Creature.

>>52531364
Mindless undead aren't really creatures either, if you ask me. I mean, for mechanical purposes they are, but not narrative purposes. There's no soul, no mind, no desire or emotions, no life, nothing. It's just a physical expression of a force.

Maybe that's the real crux of this debate. Some view undead as creatures and try to fit their actions into that framework, and others see the destruction as, for lack of a better term, a force of (un)nature.

>>52531356
> People are asking why it's Neutral EVIL instead of just Neutral.
Because it desires to destroy all life and will attempt to do so given the opportunity.

Attempting to destroy all life for no other reason than you wish to destroy all life. All undead share this desire to destroy all life for no other purpose than being opposed to life.

The living don't seek and destroy all undead they can find. Put a wolf and a zombie in the same room and the wolf likely will run. The zombie won't.

There is nothing there but the desire to destroy.

>>52531340
>>52531364
Fire IS actually an interesting analogy for this. Natural phenomon don't have alignments however and they are not actually things that take 'moral actions'.

I'm not speaking for a philosophical perspective I am speaking for a 'how pathfinder defines good and evil'. There is no altruistic or selfish desire, unlike undead, who do have a desire. Even mindless undead have the desire to destroy all life.

File: 1491159360939.jpg (34KB, 564x467px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 564x467px

This is how I good necromancer.

>>52531380
It really isn't, believe me I tried
The other guy has this weird thinking that the mindless, well, have a mind. Jelly cubes kill because...they're hungry, according to him. I mean mechanically that's what happens but to the jelly cube it's really just bulldozing along until it detects organic matter, at which point it attacks. Same for a zombie, except the trigger is being alive.

>>52531389
>it desires
No it doesn't fucking desire anything that's the problem you don't understand. Zombies have literally no desires. An oxygen atom has as much desire as a zombie. That's why I used it last thread. An oxygen atom will act to fill its valence shells, but not because it desired it, but simply because it was so. Zombies kill things not because they desire it, but simply because it is so, much like throwing a ball will have it drop - it didn't miss the ground too much to stay away, it is simply so.

>have desire
>mindless
>have desire
You don't understand how this works.

>>52531380
They may not have a mind but they're certainly animate, and the force that animates them is usually evil by definition.

>>52531407
But...negative energy is not evil. Using Energy Drain is not, last I checked, evil.

>>52531389
>Because it desires to destroy all life and will attempt to do so given the opportunity
It doesn't though. Undead don't have any desire. This has been said a few times already, stop repeating it.
>Put a wolf and a zombie in the same room and the wolf likely will run
This has nothing to do with alignment. The wolf doesn't want to risk losing, that's it. In fact, it's not really a given that the wolf will run, it may attack.

>There is no altruistic or selfish desire, unlike undead, who do have a desire. Even mindless undead have the desire to destroy all life.
I'm sick of repeating this to you. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY DESIRE. This is an actual fact in Pathfinder. That's why they're called MINDLESS.

Reminder that someone will always love you, anon!

>>52531389
>Even mindless undead have the desire to destroy all life.

But they don't? They're mindless. They literally lack any Intelligence, like a gelatinous cube. They're incapable of having anything resembling a real "desire", and instead just react to external stimuli.

>>52531403
Aren't oozes just ludicrously oversized amoeba?

File: 1491205954715.png (616KB, 472x682px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 472x682px

>>52531401

>>52531426
Basically? They might also be slime molds. I mean the thing is there's an actual monster called Amoeba.

>>52531407
Their source isn't actually evil. We already all agreed that intelligent can definitely be good, and they're still animated by negative energy.

Honestly the whole "wants to destroy life" thing is probably less 'wants to destroy life' and more the negative energy reacting to positive energy in its vicinity
If ANYTHING about the 2nd law holds, then energy gradients flatten out, meaning undead will 'naturally' destroy life, and vice versa.

>>52531433
Not to mention 'made of evil' is expressed mechanically by the Evil subtype, which undead lack!

>>52531426
Functionally, yeah. Not physically though. To get pedantic, ameobae die when forcibly bisected. They can split, but only intentionally.

So, you know what, I see the issue here.

I am trying to discuss how things work in Golarion. I'll summarize how things work in Golarion than just talk about what I would personally do.

Altruism and Selfishness are inherent aspects of Good and Evil in pathfinder. This is talked about in the books of the damned and actually in the same speech that discusses undead. In Altruism and Selfishness is desire. Despite being mindless undead have the desire to destroy all life. Now, is this a chicken before the egg scenario? Do they have the desire because they are evil or are they evil because they have the desire? That's debatable but probably they're evil because they have an inherent desire to destroy all life. This is the thing, desire, desire and it's connection to good and evil in the setting.

I am not trying to argue that in real life one can have selfish/altruistic tendencies while not being capable of moral thought. They can't. However the real world and Golarion have entirely different morality systems due to objective quantifiable evil.

Intelligent undead are capable of being good if they are able to give up this desire. Generally this doesn't happen because it is an inherent part of being undead, but it can happen, just like risen demons can happen.

Now let's look at wolves. We know that the desire for self preservation is neither Good nor Evil in pathfinder. Being self sustaining is next book true neutral.

Now, to go what I think. Would I change things if I wasn't in golarion? Yeah probably. Undead being inherently evil because the desire to destroy all life is a selfish desire does make a certain amount of sense, but requires both desire and selfishness to be part of an objective evil. If we say a creature can not have selfishness and desire without a sapient mind, then no, they'd be neutral as they are simply acting out an inherent part of themselves they have no control over or awareness of.

>>52531448
You're making me start thinking of negative energy sort of like antimatter, and that's not a can of worms I want to open.

File: 1491273400786.gif (3MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x281px

>shit that """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Gloriana"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" will never be able to do because lol 1pp only

>>52531412
>>52531417
Here. I answered this >>52531462. If this wasn't golarion I would agree with you. However since we're sitting in objectivist morality then yeah, they're evil because desire works different in the setting.

File: 1491273860468.gif (2MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x281px

>>52531470

>>52531452
Well oozes don't even have cores, or any internal structure actually. It's somehow even more primitive than an amoeba, it's like a goddamn cell that's nothing but cytoplasm.

>>52531463
Antimatter is still positive in energy density.

>>52531462
Well then we agree
Everyone knows what the RAW says, people are saying the RAW is dumb, and should be houseruled.
We should do something about Smite Evil working on them anyway though desu.

File: 1491273995724.gif (2MB, 540x304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 540x304px

>>52531473

>>52531462
No.
I know you're speaking just about Pathfinder and not about real life, but even in Pathfinder and on Golarion undead STILL have no desire at all, including no desire to kill. If you can point out specifically where it says in any paizo book that an uncommanded mindless undead has a desire, I'll believe you. Until then you're just repeating yourself after you've been proven wrong.

>>52531403
>You don't understand how this works.
Answered this here >>52531462.

I agree that things that are incapable of thought having desire is weird. In golarion they can because of quantifiable good/evil and the nature of good/evil.

>>52531470
That looks like a level 12+ busting CR 1s and 2s, ain't that just fine? Also
>1pp only
is anyone playing a Wizard?

>>52531481
I think his point is that they legitimately don't have desire but because they're evil by definition they somehow gain desire.

>>52531472
You did not answer this. You're still not getting that undead don't have desire. Saying why you think they have desire doesn't mean they have it. They don't, and you're wrong. Mindless undead are mindless, they don't want anything at all.

Anyone feel like talking WWW? What are some good western tropes to incorporate into a backstory?

>>52531463
Well I mean that's basically what Negative Energy is.

It's not inherently evil, and can quite easily compose souls like Positive Energy can. They're just two sides of the same coin.

I mean where do you think a Phantom Armor's soul comes from? You're not pulling the corpse's soul back, it's long gone and could still be rezzed even if his bod was used.

You're making a goddamn SOUL wholesale out of negative energy.

This would be a MUCH better explanation for Pharasma hating undead, since necromancers creating intelligent undead are fucking up her system and just MAKING SOULS.

And I think by the lore, those souls WOULDN'T go to her.

>>52531481
>I know you're speaking just about Pathfinder and not about real life, but even in Pathfinder and on Golarion undead STILL have no desire at all, including no desire to kill. If you can point out specifically where it says in any paizo book that an uncommanded mindless undead has a desire, I'll believe you. Until then you're just repeating yourself after you've been proven wrong.
Let me find it. I've seen it in this thread before and I'm trying to find what book it is in. It's a speech made by an academic about the nature of undead.

File: 1464491606279.jpg (151KB, 1133x629px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1133x629px

>>52531496
I mean there's always the classic "lel my family broke as shit yo time to head out on the Oregon Trail (tm)

>>52531493
Ok, then he's still wrong. They not only don't have desire, they can't have it.

>>52531495
Except they do, because by the nature of being evil they have the desire to destroy. Again the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" scenario comes into play here.

>>52531502
Couldn't the academic just be
You know
Wrong?
I mean academics in Europe had this notion that the Earth was like a half as big as it actually is by surface area, despite the chinks and greeks figuring it out to like 2% error centuries earlier. They're not always right.

>>52531502
>An in-world, potentially unreliable source

Kay.

>>52531513
Yeah but the entire point of this convo is that they shouldn't be evil, because they DON'T have the desire to destroy any more than a hurricane has a desire.

>>52531505
Why do you believe they can't have desire, because they are mindless?

>>52531502
That's not a credible source. Show it in rules form, not as NPC dialogue. NPCs can be wrong.

Prove your point, or stop repeating it. End of discussion. I'm putting the burden of truth on you right now. I don't even need you to admit you're wrong when you can't find proof, just stop posting.

>>52531525
How can something with literally NO intelligence, without a mind, have any sort of desire? We're talking a fucking rock or door here. They don't have zero intelligence, no, they have INT: --, the difference is massive.

>>52531523
>Yeah but the entire point of this convo is that they shouldn't be evil, because they DON'T have the desire to destroy any more than a hurricane has a desire.
Like I said, makes sense to me if this wasn't golarion or most other objectivist morality D&D settings.

>>52531504

I've been trying to work something out involving YOU SHOT MUH PA.

>>52531537
No no no anon
The point is that the rules are internally inconsistent. If something is evil, then it needs to have desire. But mindless things don't have desire, so either all undead need to be bumped to 1 INT at least, or mindless undead need to be TN.

>>52531538
Add in YOU SHOT LAZY LILLY, MUH FAVERITE OX

>>52531504
>>52531538
Have your mother die of dysentery

>>52531537
No matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't make it relevant. They're still mindless, they still don't have desire. Stop posting until you have proof that they have desire.

>all evil things have desire
>all evil things have desire
>in Golarion, that is
Ok, mindless undead have niether, so even in Golarion they're not evil. Until you prove it. I'm waiting.

>>52531557

That seems hard in a setting where divine magic exists

>>52531571
Poor dirt farmers, never enough money to get a cure light wounds going, eh?

>>52531501
Isn't that fairly powerful though? Actually, is there anything that would be useful if you had an infinite number of souls? Exploit-wise I mean

Okay, now that the retard is gone looking for a source that doesn't exist

Is there any ways to make a rifle user as good as a dual wielding revolver user?

>>52531587
No. There are no ways to make a rifle user that shitty.

>>52531580
Cure light wouldn't save you from dysentery. You'll need 3rd level spells for that, that's expensive.

>>52531531
In the books of the damned they talk about this, particularly in Prince of Darkness. That evil itself has inherent aspects, one of them being selfishness. Being evil and being selfish are the same thing.

Now, here is the thing, how is a storm or a fire, also being mindless, have desire or not? Fires can only have alignments if they are on a plane that has an alignment, are magic, or are creatures. The act of being a creature and having an alignment in golaion is linked, along with the narrow scope of: outer planes, some magic items, creatures.

Even in Golarion I would say that alignment is massively inconsistent because Paizo can't write to save their lives. The shit is all over the place.

So let's just view where undead, and their actions, fall when looking at the alignment descriptions. I think that's a good final spot to sit about this. Because honestly it's inconsistent.

However I am curious how you guys address it. If mindless undead should all be neutral why are all intelligent undead evil when performing the same actions? In your eyes should alignment in golarion be entirely intent and not action based? partially intent and partially action? or entirely action?

>>52531529
>>52531520
>>52531522
unfortunately I can't find it anyway, I saw it posted around here multiple times before, hopefully someone has it and can post it

>>52531587
Rifle/Musket is the best way to be a gunslinger.

>>52531599
Can't tell if sarcastic or not.
Going up a die size is supposed to compete with TWF rapid shot?

>>52531602
Actually I was wrong. There is no such thing as good killing in golarion. The vast majority of adventurers should be evil.

>>52531600
Yeah but dysentery's main danger comes from intestinal bleeding and dehydration, which Cure Minor Wounds + Create Water CAN fix.

>>52531602
>why are all intelligent undead evil when performing the same actions?
I imagine for the same reason a human is evil when mauling another person and eating his flesh when there's alternatives available but a wolf is not evil for deciding the injured elf looks tastier than the dead hyena.
With Intelligence comes the ability to suppress your baser instincts and the ability to recognize the existence of morality - unlike, say, the mindless.

>>52531611

I think it's more that TWF Rapid shot is not feasible without huge feat investments.

>>52531602
You're still in this feedback loop that's inherently flawed. That evil things have these certain qualities, so undead must have these qualities, and having these qualities makes them evil. Don't you see that? Mindless undead don't have any of these qualities you keep saying make them evil, and you still can't prove that they do.

>>52531623
Here's the thing though. Unthinking things CAN be good/evil. Why? Because physical planes of existence can be good an evil.

How do those fit into this revised view of alignment?

>>52531627
It's like two feats more than what you'd have with a rifle build anyways. Not to mention getting Dex to damage on those attacks. In my experience Rifles are so overwhelmingly worse off it's painful to play one.

>>52531640
Because we're not on one of those planes. Simple.
Also, often times that's included as a simplification, same reason why nations have alignments.

>>52531657
Outer planes however are literally made of physical good/evil. That's why an outsider has an alignment subtype and undead mostly do not. Same with the plane itself being physically constructed from evil. Hell is physically constructed in majority of evil souls made into bricks.

>>52531670
The material plane still isn't one of those planes, and as you said undead don't have that subtype. So what's your point?

>>52531179
Anon, his entire reasoning for creating such beings not being evil is that if it's evil smite-evil will work on his character, and he doesn't want that vulnerability.

You know who else insists they're not evil, or even insist they're GOOD?

COMCAST.

>>52531496
>>52531504
>>52531552


I need some names for a gang of outlaws, sort of like the A-team, but fantasy western.

Maybe a Minos who is nick named "skinny" what would naming conventions be for them though? I have no idea

>>52531225
You fucking think that wolves will murder everything in their path, nonstop, all day every day, UNLESS they run into something that scares them?

Seriously?

You have no fucking understanding of any kind of fucking animal do you. Lemme start by informing you that bats aren't birds, just so we get that out of the way just in case.

>>52531723
They do, actually. The only difference is that they don't really wander, and they'll retreat if they think they'll lose.

>>52531703
>shitposting slowed down a little, people are talking about it objectively and understanding each other now...
>better shitpost a little to get that cancer back

>>52531710
Once you find a theme for the gang, the names should roll in really easily.
I like Los Banditos Cantantes, Spanish musical names are a dime a dozen.
To save you the Google auto-translate, it means The Singing Bandits.

In Golarion and in D&D at large, alignment is determined in several ways, at times a composite, other times simply categorically. Undead, even mindless ones, are evil as a composite. They arise from the desecration of the dead, they are imbued with the stuff of annihilation, and they are a mockery of the natural cycles. They're evil because of the symbolic (and symbols are magically important) association with these sins and taboos.

So why? Because it's fucking magic and we said so, that's why. Deal with it

>>52531564
>Zombie CR1/2
>NE Medium undead

done. proven.

>>52531730
>they don't really wander
Just when I thought you couldn't get any more retarded. The territory of a wolf pack is measured in tens of square kilometers, they wander far and wide.

>>52531749
This definition of undead does not account for intelligent undead, which we all agreed can be good. As such, it's inherently flawed.

>>52531630
I'm relenting because what I based my assumption on, the destruction instinct, I can't find. I know I have seen it in the past and had it listed, but now no where can I find it or much on the nature of undead in golarion at all. For the nature of good and evil and inherent selfisness/altruism this is discussed at length in the Books of the Damned and actually a bit in the PHB. However for the undead destruction instinct and the speech I was referencing before.

Honestly I disagree with you that if a creature is left to its own device it'll attempt to destroy for no other reason than to destroy should be evil. In much the same way natural phenomenon, if they could have alignments, should be evil Heck I guess this is why everything except base fire elementals are evil, shit though base elementals not having alignments is a mistakegods of storm and fire should be evil. However I can't find the destruction instinct so, eh.

>>52531681
I'm moving on from undead. At this point I'm more coming around to you guys. Should undead be neutral? There is a case for it. Are undead neutral? No.

It's reasonable to change it. I'm coming to realize there is a chance I had a set of assumptions about undead that aren't actually in the books. Namely about the nature of desire in relation to alignment.

Now I'll just state what I thought was true:
>undead attempt to destroy all life given the chance
I'm not sure this is true anymore? I can't find it, or much info at all about undead honestly.
>creating such a being itself should be evil, as you're creating a realistic chance you lose control for some reason and it starts killing all life
this one is true, but not for that reason, creating it is evil because it says [evil] next to the spell
>evil and selfishness are inherently linked
this one is true
>alignment and desire are inherently linked
this one might be true? can't find the passage that talks about it
(1/2)

>>52531766
Honestly I would keep the spell as evil IF the undead has the desire to destroy all life when uncontrolled. Would the undead itself be evil? Up to debate. From what I'm seeing now in golarion simply because it kills things it's evil? Because killing things are evil as described in the burb on evil. However that would make animals evil? The only think about this they give is:
>Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.
But if it's the undead's nature to attack then they too should be neutral.

Overall it's fucking inconsistent. Animals get a pass along with other 'natural' things like oozes. Because undead are inherently unnatural they don't for what ever reason.

Honestly that may be what it comes down to with Paizo's reasoning. Undead are unnatural, undead kill, so undead are evil. except when undead naturally occur, they're still evil but woopty fucking do consistency can suck it

>>52531764
I mean, so can demons.

File: 3IQ.jpg (87KB, 386x335px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 386x335px

>>52531730
>has no goddamn clue about a creature we have in real life that's closely related to another creature he may even have in his own home, and which is well known for its extensive and relatively complex social behavior

>>52531763
that's a different guy buddy

>>52531730
People aren't understanding your lack of points, they're giving up on making you understand the most basic fucking aspects of fucking animals.

Autism speaks, and we should learn to ignore it.

A being that will attempt to destroy all life given the chance, even if mindless, should be evil.

I use the term 'being' as separate from 'phenomenon'. Bombs are neutral, storms are neutral, fire is neutral. A 'being' is entirely different when it comes to alignment.

>>52531757
>slaver
>NE medium humanoid
This just in, all living are also evil.

>>52531763
Stop shitposting, the argument already ended. Wolves have a wide territory, undead don't have any territory and wander endlessly, unlike wolves. Besides, you're kind of arguing against yourself here saying that the clearly neutral and not evil wolves are even more similar to undead than I think they are.

>>52531743

A racially cohesive gang is fine, but what if I want to have diversity in the CURRENT YEAR, involving lots of different races?!

>>52531798
>This just in, all living are also evil.
I mean, in golarion all undead, save for a few rare exceptions among intelligent undead, are evil.

It's in the "5 things everyone knows about undead".

>>52531781
A wolf isn't a dog, stop baiting.

Everyone stop replying to the bait. Even the one autist who was going on and on about desire admitted he was wrong, anyone else at this point clearly just wants the (You)s

>>52531807
You want a gang that is all different from each other, yet want them to be named as a gang? Good luck.

>>52531764
Actually a majority of intelligent undead are just as evil, including many who may not have been before they became undead.

Additionally several of the self-made ones are inherently extremely evil: The acts required to become a lich for example vary but are almost universally heinous at the very least to the natural order of things. This is not just an empty affair; as this disruption *WILL* cause a rippling increase in entropy and generally leads to the appearance of more natural undead.

Generally speaking undead, even when not intelligent, are at a minimum evil in the eastern-religion sense of evil; a desecrating influence that damages and corrupts its environment by its own nature; something to be purified and perhaps pitied, but never abided

>>52531824
gonna be honest I'm still trying to find the setting books that talk about undead because apparently I suddenly can't find any of them?

>>52531810
Using the monster entries stat block is stupid anyways. Going by that logic, Bandits literally can not be evil ever. They are always C/N.

Meanwhile, PLD continues to be comfy
>Are undead evil?
>The only ones that show up are, demon god influence
>Is Necromancy evil?
>Eh, meh, people wouldn't recognize it as such
>Also there's a chance the Shepherd saves their souls so it's cool

>>52531835

Maybe I wasn't clear, I want them to be a gang, but I just wanted to get some names that roughly fit the theme of western outlaws. They don't need to be cohesive with each other other than fitting in a sort of A-team theme, like one is the tough guy, one is the gunslinger, etc

>>52531798
>slaver
>an individual profession of one or many races, generally consciously chosen against societal evolution
>countered by paladin: they're LG, so by your shitass fucktarded cocksuckler logic all living are lawful good

>zombie
>or skeleton
>literally all of the animated undead of those types
>a paladin raised as a zombie is also NE
>no exceptions

I'm done with you. Go set your house on fire; whatever spawned you deserves the punishment just as much anyways.

>>52531842
I sort of admire your devotion to your stance, but it is sort of bordering on actual autism now. You won't find the supporting evidence because it doesn't exist. It just seems like it should exist.

It's like Pikachu has a black tip to his tail, but most people think his tail is yellow. Look it up.
Looked it up? He doesn't, but many people all believe that he does or did have a black tip. It's a common misconception. My point is like the black tip on the tail, so too is the alignment of mindless undead.

>>52531853
Ok this is different though because alignment talks about mortals and how they can have many different alignments.

Literally under the undead type it says "what are 5 things everyone knows about undead".

One of them beings "Undead are invariably evil, as are the means to create such beings.". Which in pathfinder is almost entirely true. I can think of one (maybe two) methods of creating undead that aren't evil.

Also I see no reasoning from an in game standpoint why the created creature shouldn't be evil for zombies and skeletons since they have "always evil" as part of their template.

Unless you're arguing you should be able to create a chaotic good ghoul with Create Undead because creating off stat block should be fine?

>>52531882
I'm just finding it weird that now that I am looking I am finding fucking nothing about undead.

Also just more and more about how alignment is entirely inconsistent and not applied even by their own guidelines by the majority of paizo authors.

>>52531886
>What are 5 things everyone knows about undead
"Everyone knows" isn't an entirely valid thing in a medieval/renaissance society.
There's a few CN undead, plus even one that is CG.
Sure, mindless undead are all evil because they are basically just hatred for the living put in a fleshy or bony cage, but otherwise they could be of any alignment.

File: Delthea 2.png (164KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 512x512px

Is a mithral agile breastplate concealable?

>>52531864

Half-Elf wizard, the brains

Dhampir bard, the face

Ratfolk alchemist, explosives

Half-Orc barbarian, the muscle

>>52531901
Honestly I have a much bigger problem with a player arguing they should be able to create non-evil undead with create undead than arguing mindless undead should be neutral. Shit I wouldn't let a player do it.

Especially for shit like a ghoul. You create a ghoul. Ghouls naturally want nothing more than to eat the flesh of the living because they're ghouls.

What reasoning should a newly created ghoul have to suppress these desires and attempt to live a life of good and righteousness. Goes against their entire nature.

Same with a lich. Liches should always be evil because becoming a lich not only fuck you up something fierce but also you have to do shit like "eat 500 babies" to become one.

>>52531899
Yeah, alignment is pretty inconsistent. Mostly because they flip-flop between "it's a law of nature" and "it depends".

Being that it's inconsistent, you should try to avoid blanket statements such as "all undead are evil".

Would a Paladins CHA bonus to deflection to AC during smite stack with Scaled Fists Untyped CHA bonus to AC?

>>52531918
You'll notice nobody here every even once tried to argue that ghouls and liches aren't evil.

>>52531926
I never said all undead are evil. The vast majority of them are.

>>52531934
Yes, as one is typed and the other untyped.

>>52531934
Yep. Seems weird I know, but it works by RAW.

>>52531935
See the thing is the zombie template has "always neutral evil" as part of it. People are arguing how things SHOULD be, not what they are.

>>52531935
I'm just saying if a player said "I'm making X undead except CG" I would tell them to fuck off.

>>52531950
Good thing the animate dead spell doesn't work with that template, I guess.

>>52531957
Any specific reason, expect just be to be dick to a player? The alignment doesn't matter seeing as they player controls it anyways. All is well here is you trying to power trip over something irrelevant.

>>52531934
Yes it would, not because the bonus for scaled fist is untyped. But because a paladins smite evil AC bonus is "a bonus equal to charisma" you aren't actually adding your charisma mod to AC, just a bonus equal to it.

>>52531981
Irrelvant. Even if they both added tour Cha bonus directly, they are different typed bonuses so they stack.

Alternatively, if one ability gave you "your Cha mod to AC as a shield bonus" and another ability gave you "a shield bonus to your AC equal to your Cha mod", they wouldn't stack. They're both shield bonuses, it doesn't really matter where the bonus comes from.

>>52531970
You don't control undead you make with Create Undead.

>>52532002
But you do with every other undead creating spell.
Are you saying you would allow it if it was another spell? Or are you just trying to be pedantic without really saying anything?

>>52531970
Mostly because stylistically a player creating a bunch of good ghouls makes no fucking sense from the perspective of ghouls. Ghouls are so god samn evil, like Jesus fuck are they evil.

It is relevant because you don't control undead you create with create undead. They sapient and need to be controlled via control undead.

Honestly creating good undead seems like a way the player is trying to ensure that the ghoul doesn't murder him the second they break control.

>>52531965
Animate dead gives the zombie template, same with skeleton.

File: 1476749058381.jpg (115KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 800x600px

Game Finder said that /pfg/ was offering tons of lewd games.

Are there any /pfg/ lewd games I can join?

>>52531999
No it is relevant you mcfaggot, (no offense)

They specifically called it out in a dev post that adding a stat modifier more than once to something didn't stack. You can't add charisma twice to AC even if the sources are different, but bonuses equal to then work, as long as they still fall in line with the normal rules of stacking (of which dodge is the only exception since multiple dodges stack.)

>>52532015
I'm saying that with create undead it is really different. One stylistically a good version of the vast majority of undead makes no sense. Ghouls, devourers, vampires, etc.

I would disallow it because to control the undead they need to cast a spell and control undead of sapient undead is a whole other animal than controlling mindless undead. Not only is creating good undead of most types just shitting on the flavor of the creatures it seems like a blatant attempt to minmax to make the controlling them part way less dangerous.

>>52532020
Their alignment is completely irrelevant because they're indefinitely bound to the commands of the player. They player could call it L/G and then order it to burn an orphanage for all I care, it doesn't matter what the commanded undeads alignment is. The only reason to be shitty about this to a player is to power trip and be a dick.

>>52532043
Ok, so.... You're basically having your own conversation? Getting focused on one spell and one type of undead that nobody besides you brought up? What even is your point here?

>>52532015
>>52531970
Wait would you two actually let your players create a pack of neutral good ghouls? Am I the only one who sees this as just completely opposed to the kind of creatures ghouls are and makes no sense with their flavor.

I mean really you guys are fine with "Necromancer Sam and his Carnival of Good to the Bone undead"? I mean shit maybe in a joke game.

>>52532044
Except they aren't bound to it. With create undead an undead is not automatically under your control and you need to exert control over them using a sesperate spell like

>http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/command-undead/

For intelligent undead you need to make charisma checks and negotiations for actions it normally wouldn't do. It's also trying to break free and subvert your orders. Shit it's alignment matters a fuck ton.

Only an idiot would think it doesn't matter.

>>52532050
No I'm saying creating good undead via create undead, any type of undead, seems like the player trying to get around a lot of the obvious dangers that command undead of evil creatures entails.

>>52532052
Yeah sure, why not? Literally why not. The ghouls alignment has absolute zero bearing on anything the ghouls does, as it's commanded by the player.
To be clear, I would let the player create a ghouls with the alignment "it's kinda hot today, let's get ice cream." It's so completely irrelevant to the game, I can't image ever being enough of an asshole to cock block a players choices over something so petty.

>>52532078
Yeah, so you're specifically talking about one spell that no one besides you is talking about? Ok, got it.

>>52532082
>he ghouls alignment has absolute zero bearing on anything the ghouls does
What? Yes it does. Go read the first paragraph of Command Undead.

The ghoul's alignment with drastically change "things it would normally do". It has a huge impact on play.

>>52532098
we were talking about good undead and I am saying why I wouldn't let my players make good undead

>>52532101
>command undead
Literally what? What are you on about now? Animate Dead just comes with automatic "they obey you indefinitely, period." In it. The alignment is completely irrelevant.

>>52532107
No, you're specifically talking about why undead made by "create undead" should work a certain way. You're talking about a specific situation and everyone else is talking about all undead. You're just talking to yourself.

>>52532110
I'm talking about ghouls which you create with Create Undead. It creates a sapient undead who isn't under your control, such as a ghoul. Then you have to exert control via Command Undead.

Yeah I don't fucking care what alignment the zombie they made is because it doesn't matter.

I wouldn't let them make a neutral good ghoul because one it doesn't stylistically work with the ghoul and two it seems like they're trying to work around command undead and the inherent dangers.

>>52532119
Yeah create undead is one of like four spells that make undead. I wouldn't let my players make good undead with it for a few reasons.

>>52532138
You realize undead don't need to be created

File: 1477795608620.jpg (1MB, 1237x3014px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1237x3014px

Why does /pfg/ think Spheres of Might is a dumpster fire?

>>52532110
Animate dead can't create ghouls or any other kind of non-mindless undead.

>>52532126
But command undead doesn't have anything to do with alignment? I still don't get what you're getting at, just let the player do his completely harmless thing that only the player should care about.

>>52532126
Anon if ANYTHING people would be saying "so can I play a LN Vampire", whereuponthe answer, in my opinion, should be 'sure but why is he not Evil', because fuck's sake they're sentient, surely there's ONE vampire somewhere who doesn't spend his time bathing in the blood of children.

>>52532152
Yeah I'm just saying I wouldn't let my players make sapient good undead because it shits over most of those undead's flavor.

>>52532157
I love when artists draw abs like this because it always makes it look like they have a huge dildo or buttplug in.

>>52532169
Well I mean, considering they CREATED those undead...

>>52532169
But nobody else is talking about creating undead
What the fuck are you even talking about
People are talking about undead, in general

>>52532169
All I see here still is you having a power trip and insisting that your fluff is more important than their fluff, when it's all just fluff and shouldn't matter. Stop being such a cunt.

>>52532159
Because the creatures alignment will drastically change "what it normally does" unless you're saying a LG creature and a CE one has identical habits.

>>52532166
No yeah I'm not saying there shouldn't be non evil sapient undead. They should exist somewhere and be really fucking rare. I'm saying I wouldn't let a player pump out a batch of three dozen LG ghouls.

>>52532169
Do you seriously think the ghouls are going to be a threat of any sort to a Wizard who can just create them though?

>>52532188
I mean, if he wants three dozen LG ghouls juggling torches in front of his wizard tower for shits and giggles I don't really see the problem.

>>52532176
Can't create donuts with a cookie recipe even though both are dessert. If they develop their own spell, sure, but otherwise...

>>52532202
I mean yeah just make them develop a variant ghoul creation spell. Add 100 gp to the cost if you want.

>>52532183
Fluff matters though when it impacts mechanics.

Also if I'm GMing then my fluff certainly does matter more than a player's.

>>52532179
The thing though is creating undead and undead are linked. If a necromancer can just pump out good sapient undead then why are most sapient undead evil? All making them evil does is make them more dangerous as servants.

>>52532188
You're literally cucking a character choice for the sole reason that if that undead ever falls under your control as the DM, you can't figure out how to control it? I'll reiterate, just stop being a cunt to your players pointlessly.

File: konosupa.jpg (104KB, 1134x627px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1134x627px

>>52532157

>>52532206
>Also if I'm GMing then my fluff certainly does matter more than a player's.
Literally nothing else you say will ever matter after this.

>>52532171
Why?

>>52532206
I mean...because Paizo are gibbering retards? I think the 200 posts up there established that.

>>52532211
I think he's saying that "CE ghouls are liable to fucking maul your face while LG ones will kind of do an awkward bow and say 'welcome home master'" and that you shouldn't be able to go from the first to the second just like that. Plus an LG Ghoul probably can't kill peasants and will refuse to do so, which is like, kind of fucked up considering.

>>52532198
>Do you seriously think the ghouls are going to be a threat of any sort to a Wizard who can just create them though?
Honestly? The Ghoul probably not. However a dedicated level 11 wizard can manage creating phantom lancers due to CL increases that are CR6. Making you armed forces of phantom lancers non-evil makes things much safer for you.

>>52532202
Except if you're a Cleric, which most Necros are, and you just ask your god to give you the power to do a thing instead of following instructions. What's wrong with asking for sugar cookies instead of chocolate chip?

>>52532227
Yes because agama should always bend over backwards for every player whim.

>>52532246
Clerics are fucking faggots
>literally HEY BIG MAN G CAN YA GIVE ME LIKE MY DAILY SIXTY MIRACLES IN YOUR NAME

>>52532246
>tfw created LG ghoul with a [evil] spell as an evil cleric

>>52532267
>betraying Evil itself
What could be more evil?

>>52532236
>you shouldn't be able to go from the first to the second just like that
But if they're CE and you cast command undead on them, they literally go from the first to the second just like that.

>>52532267
>tfw want it to kill another evil person so I do just that

>>52532271
Ok I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Command undead doesn't change their alignment.

>>52532280
I mean
It does kind of put it under your complete control though.

>>52532246
>Except if you're a Cleric, which most Necros are, and you just ask your god to give you the power to do a thing instead of following instructions. What's wrong with asking for sugar cookies instead of chocolate chip?
Nothing, but casting Miracle just to create some ghouls seems kind of excessive. Clerics do, in fact, have to follow the rules for their spells just the same as wizards do.

>>52532280
It doesn't have to, they're commanded. They are completely and entirely within your thrall. It changes their behavior. That's why I'm saying the alignment is completely irrelevant.

>>52532246
Amaterasu is only giving you chocolate chip because she likes sugar cookies but they come in packs dumbass
don't push your luck

File: 929b7e546af1af36fedba221203f8aa6.jpg (5MB, 1654x2339px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 1654x2339px

How would you play her in Pathfinder?

What fucking weird homebrew settings are you guys running that necromancer can just create good undead. Especially shit like ghouls that have written in "hunger for the tasty flesh of the living". What would a LG ghoul even act like?

Shit. Are most undead good and neutral the since creating evil servants is dangerous as fuck?

Honestly it just sounds really fucking odd.

So I rewatched Harry Potter lately (yeah fucking sue me)
What the fuck are Dementors even supposed to be? How can they even communicate, as they apparently do? Is there anything a PF epic wizard / cleric / etc. can do against it BESIDES generic vs. Evil shit?

>>52532288
Again, it's all fluff. Who the fuck cares, besides the one asshole who thinks he's more important than everyone else playing?

>>52532301
My personal homebrew setting has only a few sentient undead, to begin with. Ghouls are just animals, they're like the wolves of the undead. Liches and Wraiths and shit get intelligence but they're more Neutral than anything else.

File: 42f3929744c16800fbd5dfcbac1373d4.png (222KB, 960x800px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 960x800px

>>52532301
Spheres of Power lets you make non-evil undead!

>>52532290
>They are completely and entirely within your thrall
That's explicitly not true. Fuck I told you to read the first paragraph of command undead. They are in no way entirely your thrall.

They view your propositions favorably and require negotiations and opposed charisma checks to convince them to do things they normally wouldn't and still have their own will. Also they disobey obviously harmful orders.

How the fuck is that "completely your thrall"?

>>52532301
It. Doesn't. Matter.
It's completely and entirely noninfluencial on the game.

Besides, I also hunger for the flesh of the living. I like to call it "meat" though. I thought that was normal?

>>52532298
By bailing out of the game and rethinking my life choices up to what has transpired and then probably committing an honorable sudoku.

>>52532331
kek

>>52532331
How is the ability to create good undead not have a huge impact on the game world?

Being able to create sapient beings of your own alignment who are immortal should send most settings through a loop.

>>52532326
Are you really getting caught up on this? Obviously if you don't command them, then they're uncommanded. I can't believe I even had to say that. It's still irrelevant. You know who commands them if the player can't? The DM. At that point who the fuck cares, the DM is controlling it. It still doesn't matter, you're still just being shitty to your players just because you think you're better than them.

>>52532339
Being able to create sapient beings at all should send most settings through a loop. As should the existence of magic, shit like Create Water, and the goddamn monsters that level cities on their own. Oh and also ACTUAL FUCKING GODS.
As it is though it's just fantasy kitchen sink hodgepodge.

>>52532331
>It's completely and entirely noninfluencial on the game.
I mean yeah if you don't spare a fucking thought on how your mechanical decisions impact the game world, sure. Honestly you're just sounds like a shit GM.

>>52532352
No I'm not letting them do it because I don't like the flavor of good undead. Shit yeah I guess if ever saying no to a player makes me a bad GM then I'll tattoo it on my forehead.

File: 1473091082746.jpg (54KB, 555x547px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 555x547px

AWAKEN MY REVIEWANONS

>>52532357
Oh, you're one of those assholes who puts the "integrity if the setting" before everyone else at the table? Just kill yourself already.

>>52531227
Pretty great, yours?

>>52532371

>>52532206
>Also if I'm GMing then my fluff certainly does matter more than a player's
Go ahead and get that tattoo, because you're a shitty DM and also kind of a shitty person.

>>52532382
I bet you also think Golarion isn't a terrible setting.

>>52532373
Who do you want reviewed?

>>52532397
Everyone left in Shardwalkers
Someone just made another app too.

>>52532389
Entitled player detected. Just kill yourself, you piece of shit.

>all these dumbasses not brewing their own setting
Are you all high

>>52532382
If you literally can't enjoy the game unless every one of your random desires is catered to then find a different game. Shit settings and campaigns that bend like wet noodles to satisfy ADHD players are garbage. The setting shouldn't fucking suddenly grow airships because you want to emulate some game you just finished and abandon the story.

As a GM I'm there to enjoy myself to and I've experienced players who whine whenever they're said no to even over the smaller shit.

Like I had a kid apply to a game where I had a custom race list. Ended up cussing me out over a Skype call when I said there weren't elves in the setting so he couldn't play one.

>>52532406
Ok, right after you get that tattoo.

Try this, just before your next time DMing, open with "just to be clear from the start, I'm more important than any of you and I'll sacrifice your enjoyment for my own" and see who stays.

File: 1461621658321.jpg (1MB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1600px

>>52532415
Was he by chance an actual kid?

>>52532411
I have my own setting. This guy is saying that the setting should change to be what ever the players want at any time. Saying no to your players is inherently wrong whenever they want to do something.

>>52532415
>one desire with no impact
>every desire has to be catered to and the players are the arbiters of everything
Nice try at a strawman, I guess.

>>52531414
I love you Nonnles. <3

>>52532425
He had recently turned 18 I believe.

>>52532433
Except the ability to create undead of any alignment will have a huge impact on a setting as it changes undead entirely.

>>52532418
I'm not the guy who was talking about the tattoo. I'm just pointing out that you're an entitled piece of shit and need to kill yourself.

File: 1461713620749.jpg (50KB, 420x700px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 420x700px

>>52532438
wew

>>52532415
>As a GM I'm there to enjoy myself to and I've experienced players who whine whenever they're said no to even over the smaller shit.
Protip, the players are also there to enjoy themselves. Everyone is. It's a group activity. Putting your own enjoyment before others is the definition of being an entitled cunt. Stop being a dick over small things that shouldn't matter, you asshole.

>>52532433
>ability to create undead of any alignment
>no impact
What?

>>52532446
See the thing is at the GM I designed both the setting and the campaign. I know what does and does not matter to the overall setting more than players.

For undead creation and the ability to create undead. If a campaign has any focus on the undead then the revelation that nexromancers can choose the alignment of undead they make has a MASSIVE impact on the campaign.

>my character has a blue tabard
>no, it's green. This country doesn't have access to blue dyes
>oooookay... So anyways, he wears a blue tabbard and-
>NO STOP MY SETTIIIIING YOU DONT REALIZE YOURE RUINING EVERYTHING
It doesn't matter. It's just one player doing one thing, you don't have to sperg about it.

>>52532471
It's more like "hey man I have the ability to create golems", "yeah and?", "for fucking free~"

>>52532468
Nothing exists in the setting or the campaign until the players experience it. You know this setting isn't real, right? You don't have to adapt your entire setting in order to let a player do a thing that has no immediate ramifications.

>>52532446
Protip: If a player isn't having fun, that's one person not having fun. If the GM isn't having fun, soon no-one at the table will be having fun(at least not playing the game). So yes, the GM's enjoyment of the game is, in fact, more important than trying to appeal to every entitled piece of shit you made the mistake of playing with.

>>52532471
>strawman the post
How does nexromancers being able to choose the alignment of their creations not change many settings to a large degree? Particularly for any setting where undead play a large role or a campaign where undead play a large role.

Shit I know you're just shitposting now but still.

>>52532487
It DOES mean he has to rewrite his entire campaign and throw out half his notes if it's legitimately centered on necro.

>>52532489
Unironically kill yourself.

>>52532494
It really doesn't, though. Even in that case it doesn't.

>>52532502
Take your own advice, or at least realize that you're a toxic influence on everyone you come into contact with and move to live in the middle of a forest or something.

>>52532502
He's right though, a ticked player denied his blue tabard is not really the threat that a GM forced to bin half his notes is.
And I mean look at it in reverse - it's literally just one little thing. In your own words, can't you just deal with the green tabard?

>>52532487
Shit nigga. If it had no ramifications then yes I'd let them go for it. However I actually spent the time to write a setting. In this case I'll talk about my last game which actually did focus on undead.

The unquiet dead were a big issue everywhere because the afterlife was cut off some time ago and so nexromancers who could control undead are hugely important.

If a necromancer could create undead of any alignment then they could create good undead and just leave them instead of having to exert control. A player who could do it is the holy grail to save the setting.

Shit it has a huge impact. I'm the GM I know what impacts the setting and what doesn't.

>>52532510
I mean it really kind of does, because in the case that Undead are LG there is literally, and I mean literally, no reason that the Dead should EVER be laid to rest. Why, you can pay to have granny brought back, as a skeleton or something of course, but as kind and as amazing as baking as she ever was!

>>52532487
>You don't have to adapt your entire setting in order to let a player do a thing that has no immediate ramifications.
It DOES have immediate ramifications, though, and very significant ones at that.

>>52532487
It has massive and immediate ramifications for anyone who can perform necromancy ever and any community with access to necromancy.

>>52532512
>toxic influence
>just let other people have their fun when it doesn't hurt you
I don't see the connection here at all, so I'm unfazed. I've never had a player complain that I let something work, and it's never caused extra work for me. Probably because I don't autistically devote more care into a fictional setting than I do the people I'm playing with.

>>52532543
But not everyone is you. Some people make up settings as they go. I'm not the one you're arguing with but my setting is so stupidly intricate that changing things (and I do let them change things, sometimes) often leads to half the setting collapsing on itself.

>>52532446

Read the fucking text you yourself quoted. He said, "enjoy myself too", as in as well, as a group, together, etc. Either read what people are saying and respond to what they are actually saying instead of deflecting and talking out of your entitled ass.

>>52532543
>"just" throw a huge fit if everyone doesn't do things your way
Yeah, nah. Kill yourself retard.

>>52532543
I mean if you just play beer and pretzels games then sure. That doesn't work for serious games or for any game actually looking for internal consistency.

You're a wet noodle. People can have fun slapping around a wet noodle. People won't take a wet noodle seriously but if you don't care to be taken seriously then it doesn't matter.

>>52532543
Protip: if we were players, you'd be the one throwing a fit over nothing right now and the GM would probably be readying his use of Rule Zero.

>>52532236
I dunno friend, I think those 200 odd posts established that people love to argue over the internet.

>>52532570
That too

>>52532538
>immediate ramifications
>lists non-immediate, DM-controlled, ofd-camera effects
Nope.

>>52532529
Name one.

>>52532527
Alternatively, you could not sperg out over dumb shit and just let someone have fun. But no you're right, the setting is more important, you should really let this bother you so much that your game collapses.

>>52532521
>However I actually spent the time to write a setting
>whole conversation started talking about Golarion and paizo stat blocks
lol try again. And if it is all just in your homebrew setting then why the fuck are you arguing about it? I'll never effect or impact it and nothing I say matters.

>>52532559
Actually you guys have been the one saying that if you don't get your way you'll be so upset that the whole game will suffer for it.

>>52532580
Are you trying to accuse everyone of being the DM?

>lists non-immediate, DM-controlled, ofd-camera effects
But this WOULD mean the DM has to bin half his notes if necromancers were ANY significant part of the plot, and some or even most of the setting may need to be rewritten. I mean shit son - read this: fucking FREE, INFINITE, UNTIRING, NO VACATIONS LABOR for EVERY SHITHOLE VILLAGE THAT HAS A GRAVEYARD.

>name one
Well for one, the above.

>you could not sperg out over dumb shit
I'm not the DM you're talking to see.

>started talking about Golarion
Actually it started with "what kinds of builds you waiting to use".

>>52532557
>>52532206
>Also if I'm GMing then my fluff certainly does matter more than a player's

>>52532609
But that's literally how it works.
Fluff is part of the setting.
Do you know who builds the setting in a homebrew setting?

>>52532580
>Name one
Why does everyone not just spent 25gp to raise their family as immortal companions? Why are all the undead we encounter evil? Where are all the undead that should be around if we can just make good undead?

I mean yeah if your campaign doesn't touch undead it shouldn't matter and you should be able to just hand wave shit because you obviously don't play serious games or shoot for internal consistency. But if you do have undead then shit it'll change everything.

>>52532604
Or maybe this guy fluked this time and made something unusual? Maybe just don't sperg out completely and do a full rewrite just so a player can have moderately more fun in a way that doesn't effect those around him?

>>52532609
>players should get anything they want when they want
As an example a player asks you if he can have a rocket car, a combat shotgun, and be an American who got teleported to golarion via interplanetary teleport. I mean it should be fine, right?

>>52532640
I mean look here - if it makes such a tiny difference, why can't YOU do without it? I mean you yourself say that Command undead is the same shit. Why not do so?

>>52532619
>more off-screen, DM-controlled things that technically never happen
Still waiting on a single actual immediate ramification.