|
Post by EDM Entori on Sept 9, 2007 14:22:06 GMT -5
heh I find alot of spells still have kick if your used meta magic...but your right...
4 fireballs are not going to do squat to most thinks, other then let the whole lot know your there.. and they come running..
trust me arak.. I KNOW.. lol
|
|
|
Post by EDM Neo on Sept 9, 2007 16:57:51 GMT -5
Just seconding (thirding?) the opinion with the mage spells not doing much... while I'm sure it's much more effective for higher leveled ones, anyone who travels with him can tell you that Celith pretty much -never- uses direct damage spells. If it can't kill an enemy, save an ally, or significantly increase an ally's abilities to kill enemies, it's a waste of a spell.
But of course, at present, he's a level 9 wizard with extra HP and BAB, so of course his damage dealing capabilities are lagging far behind that of a pure caster of comparable level while needing to fight the same enemies, which makes the meager damage he can do even less impressive... but still.
But, this is all getting rather off topic. Back to poisons and death magic. I don't have much to say beyond what others already have stated. Neither are neccesarily evil, but might still get you dirty looks, etc, etc.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Sept 9, 2007 17:42:02 GMT -5
The DnD group I play with has determined direct damage spells are not as good as buffing your party in PnP as well. Now can we get back to the original topic?
The only reason it matters if a spell is evil or not is:
1. for a DM to change your alignment or take away divine spell casting abilities. 2. for you to roleplay properly and avoid #1 above
Everything else is moot. If Ralph and his gang think you are evil then it doesn't matter if the books say casting rainbow bridge is a good spell. If someone thinks casting create undead is evil but thinks harm is ok then you can think him correct or absolutely nuts. But if you are a divine spellcaster you need to know how your god feels about it.
|
|
|
Post by TermaForever on Sept 9, 2007 17:53:18 GMT -5
The DnD group I play with has determined direct damage spells are not as good as buffing your party in PnP as well. Now can we get back to the original topic? What is this 'topic' thing you speak of? Anyway, yeah...for the most part it isn't gonna matter that much unless you're divine. Its not wise for a Cleric of Lathander to walk up to a creature and cast the spell: "Flay Body and Mutilate Soul in horrible painful agonizing way that causes irrevocable death at some point eventually". Similarly Bane is going to look at you funny if you're one of his clerics and you cast "Summon Fluffy Bunny Army" unless you turn right around and implode the bunnies. Now for poison, I think as people have said, it depends...yeah...
|
|
|
Post by ancientempathy on Sept 9, 2007 18:21:35 GMT -5
Do the "poisons" characters find actually say poison on them? I don't think my character has ever found any poison, just giant bee venom and mild spider venom and centipede venom. :-) Very well said.
|
|
|
Post by ancientempathy on Sept 9, 2007 18:40:21 GMT -5
This was mentioned in some other fashion by another player here on the forum, but so much has been said that it's been difficult to memorize everything. So I'll maybe point out something now that some may have forgotton. DM's, feel free to correct me on this if I am mistaken.
This is the world of Forgotton Realms. In Faerun, your God is your life. Your character should /normally/ be religious in some manner. If you dont comply with your Gods ideals, you're...not in a good position.
You may be a cleric, wizard, fighter, or a dang commoner; If the player/npc doesn't act accordingly how his or her god would wish it, then there's a problem.
If your actions do not reflect that which your deitys alignment is, then you'll likely be shifted accordingly to the proper alignment, as well as needing to pick a new deity in respect to it. You'll need to pick a deity that clearly won't mind the use of poisons, and most likely your alignment will give you room to do so.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 9, 2007 22:24:31 GMT -5
In Faerun, your God is your life. Your character should /normally/ be religious in some manner. Well, we are getting somewhat far afield here, but here we go: My character is indeed religious... she's a polytheist. It's hard to see how she wouldn't be, in the world she lives in. And why would she pick one god, from the many there are, and close herself off from the others? Now, she does have gods she prefers... and gods she would never, ever pray to. Sort of her own personal ordering of the pantheon. And I did choose a deity on character creation: that god happens to be one she especially feels drawn to, whose ideals she appreciates. But she would, and does, pray to all sorts of good- and neutral-aligned gods, under appropriate circumstances. My god (singular) might be my life if I were a paladin or cleric. And in that instance I might well restrict my worship to my chosen deity and his/her close allies. But... I'm not playing a paladin or cleric. And I don't think my character has a god, singular... she has a pantheon. Go, team pantheon!
|
|
|
Post by ancientempathy on Sept 10, 2007 0:02:45 GMT -5
In Faerun, your God is your life. Your character should /normally/ be religious in some manner. Well, we are getting somewhat far afield here, but here we go: My character is indeed religious... she's a polytheist. It's hard to see how she wouldn't be, in the world she lives in. And why would she pick one god, from the many there are, and close herself off from the others? Now, she does have gods she prefers... and gods she would never, ever pray to. Sort of her own personal ordering of the pantheon. And I did choose a deity on character creation: that god happens to be one she especially feels drawn to, whose ideals she appreciates. But she would, and does, pray to all sorts of good- and neutral-aligned gods, under appropriate circumstances. My god (singular) might be my life if I were a paladin or cleric. And in that instance I might well restrict my worship to my chosen deity and his/her close allies. But... I'm not playing a paladin or cleric. And I don't think my character has a god, singular... she has a pantheon. Go, team pantheon! Actually, your situation can apply to a paladin and cleric as well I believe. What your character does is nothing wrong =) Actually I think its rather common. But to target a specific class, such as a paladin, I think this will be safe to say: A paladin should have their one true deity to venerate and worship their heart out. However, this does not mean that they cant also show respect to another deity in some manner hehe. Of this for a paladin, they may restrict themselves to only showing respect to other good-aligned deities, as well as some neutral ones maybe. Would depend upon your circumstances. So I find that, what your character does is perfectly acceptable. Seems to me like she's just showing them her respect when it is due? I dont think this is uncommon in FR?
|
|
Toreavamp
Old School
Retired FRC DM
DM Team Get-it Gal
Posts: 357
|
Post by Toreavamp on Sept 10, 2007 4:37:09 GMT -5
So I find that, what your character does is perfectly acceptable. Seems to me like she's just showing them her respect when it is due? I dont think this is uncommon in FR? It is very much common practise to have multiple gods you offer a prayer to. It is also very common practise to have one single patron deity. This patron deity is the one who will when you die come and pick you up. If you don't have a patron deity or are one of the "false" (who changes their deity about as often as they changes their clothing) you'll end up in the Wall. Love Hanne
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Sept 10, 2007 6:36:22 GMT -5
So I find that, what your character does is perfectly acceptable. Seems to me like she's just showing them her respect when it is due? I dont think this is uncommon in FR? It is very much common practise to have multiple gods you offer a prayer to. It is also very common practise to have one single patron deity. This patron deity is the one who will when you die come and pick you up. If you don't have a patron deity or are one of the "false" (who changes their deity about as often as they changes their clothing) you'll end up in the Wall. Love Hanne The Faithless end up in the Wall, the False end up in the City of the Damned to receive their punishment for being False. Sometimes the Baatezu that have the contract with Kelemvor to take souls back to the Nine Hells even render punishments on the False in the City of the Damned as part of their contract. Regarding having patrons, in Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, the only characters who have to have declared patrons before they die are divine spellcasters, who must have a patron to receive divine spells. Everyone else's patron is determined at the instant of death. (Of course because of respawn on FRC, any character that has died has a patron, even if they don't know it themselves.)
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on May 29, 2009 9:11:41 GMT -5
I'd like to reopen the topic.
in terms of spells such as energy drain enervation bestow curse, vampiric touch, control undead. as well as Dominate monster/person
These are spells that are looked down at by folk, but they do not have any descriptors of being such. the only one I am not sure about is bestow curse. enervation does a lot of good to a caster, in terms of being effective, I'm just curious what others feel like on the good/evil scale?
|
|
|
Post by EDM Neo on May 29, 2009 9:36:48 GMT -5
None of those spells (even bestow curse) have evil descriptors, meaning not all uses for them are evil... and so like all unaligned spells, it falls to how they're used, rather then the fact that they're used at all.
That's really all there is to it, I think; some characters will ICly find them innately distasteful, but that's just a matter of taste, not of actual good or evil.
They all -can- be easily abused, and regularly are, but so can all of the other gruesome offensive spells in the game. An unaligned fireball can decimate the evil invading orcish army, saving the lives of dozens of soldiers, or it can horribly burn a dozen innocent commoners to death.
|
|
|
Post by jensmann on May 29, 2009 10:10:58 GMT -5
First as i read this all i came across someone saying positive energy is conjuartion. yes it is, but not was. in ADD Healing spells were Necromancy also. so as stated before they are both neutral.
And i personally think Conroll undead shouldn't be used by good aligned priests and hopefully mages. Isendir won't use this cause he thinks its the same evil to use a existing undead as to create one. But for example the wizard that cast controll undead on the vampie messenger before the siege of Isinhold, to gain informations about the enemy, this is a gray zone.
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on May 29, 2009 10:37:37 GMT -5
I'd like to reopen the topic. in terms of spells such as energy drain enervation bestow curse, vampiric touch, control undead. as well as Dominate monster/person Casting evil spells is an evil act. Energy drain, enervation, bestow curse, vampiric touch and control undead do not have the evil descriptor as far as i remember. And as for the dominate monster and the like spells, here is what it is said in the book of exalted deeds: ...Also within the context of respectful relationships, good characters exercise caution in the use of compulsion magic to force others’ behavior. Spells such as dominate person, geas, and suggestion allow a caster to control another person, robbing that person of free will. This may not be an inherently evil act, but it certainly carries a tremendous ethical responsibility. Forcing anyone to commit an evil act, of course, is evil. Furthermore, a creature under compulsion should be treated the same as a helpless prisoner, since that creature no longer poses a threat, at least for the duration of the spell. Once an enemy is dominated, for example, he should not be killed, but shown mercy and treated the same as a prisoner who had willingly surrendered. (The same holds true for charmed and compelled creatures.)...Our good aligned characters should be more careful with the use of such spells. How many times did they kill opponents under the effects of mind-affecting spells? Too many times IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on May 29, 2009 10:51:09 GMT -5
They all -can- be easily abused, and regularly are, but so can all of the other gruesome offensive spells in the game. An unaligned fireball can decimate the evil invading orcish army, saving the lives of dozens of soldiers, or it can horribly burn a dozen innocent commoners to death. On the fireball topic, Book of Exalted Deeds: Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil, since the noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenseless.
|
|
|
Post by Aodhan the Unusual on May 29, 2009 11:44:49 GMT -5
They all -can- be easily abused, and regularly are, but so can all of the other gruesome offensive spells in the game. An unaligned fireball can decimate the evil invading orcish army, saving the lives of dozens of soldiers, or it can horribly burn a dozen innocent commoners to death. On the fireball topic, Book of Exalted Deeds: Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil, since the noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenseless.*groans* Thus the never ending debate of: ARE orc women and children REALLY innocent and not a threat or are all orcs created evil and should just be taken out? And what about the orc perspectives? Erm... Yeah... Don't answer those. Like I said, never ending debate. Back to your regularly scheduled "What is Good and What is Evil?"
|
|
|
Post by soulfien on May 29, 2009 12:15:24 GMT -5
Well, I once was in an adventure where I was not allowed to kill the goblin children after we cleared the cave.... This was a PnP game. I was playing an NE thief with a paladin in the party which meant I had to behave. But my satisfaction was that those kids were sure to die of starvation and exposure after we left
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on May 29, 2009 12:17:56 GMT -5
On the fireball topic, Book of Exalted Deeds: Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil, since the noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenseless. *groans* Thus the never ending debate of: ARE orc women and children REALLY innocent and not a threat or are all orcs created evil and should just be taken out? And what about the orc perspectives? Erm... Yeah... Don't answer those. Like I said, never ending debate. Back to your regularly scheduled "What is Good and What is Evil?" The text says "defenseless" and not "innocent". You can replace orc with anything else. "Opponent" would be more suited i guess. I just pointed out that good characters should not kill defenseless opponents, evil or not, and thus whatever their gender is of course.
|
|
|
Post by Aodhan the Unusual on May 29, 2009 13:51:05 GMT -5
The text says "defenseless" and not "innocent". You can replace orc with anything else. "Opponent" would be more suited i guess. I just pointed out that good characters should not kill defenseless opponents, evil or not, and thus whatever their gender is of course. I'm gonna keep this in mind next time some good guys corner a few "evils." *keeps hand over alignment shift button*
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on May 29, 2009 14:22:28 GMT -5
really sucks for those who use bigby's/hold person/ disarm abilities. ;D
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 29, 2009 14:27:39 GMT -5
Or knockdown, hm?
|
|
|
Post by EDM Neo on May 29, 2009 14:46:55 GMT -5
Just putting these two sections here for easy reference, both from Ancient's post quoting the Book of Exalted Deeds:
And now that I've gotten that out of the way... this is just my opinion, but, here goes: I think it's only neccesary to avoid killing disabled foes if there's any reason at all to believe they'll actually surrender and stop posing a threat, and that they can be contained and prevented from doing harm afterwards.
As it says above, "Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done." If you're killing an evil foe who surrendered and who you can prevent from going and doing more evil as soon you let them go, then you're being evil.
But, if you're against a paralyzed evil doer who you have no other way of containing but killing them, and who would, so far as you can tell, likely stab you in the back and go back to doing evil as soon as you drop your guard, it isn't neccesarily evil to finish them off, as long as you aren't intentionally drawing it out or anything.
|
|
|
Post by Quadhund/Greenhouse on May 29, 2009 23:42:34 GMT -5
From d20srd Helpless A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks gets no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets. As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets her sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity. Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace. As can be seen, helpless means having dexterity of zero, so knockdown, disarm, and technically even bigbies do not make player's helpless (forceful hand is considered a grapple which does not make you helpless even if you are pinned). For reference Pinned Held immobile (but not helpless) in a grapple.
|
|
|
Post by EDM Neo on May 29, 2009 23:56:47 GMT -5
Things like knockdown and Bigby hands don't make characters technically helpless by the PnP definition of it, but, so far as NWN mechanics are concerned, there's no distinction. Unlike in PnP, knocked down or grappled characters in NWN can't attempt any actions at all, as if they were paralyzed or stunned.
|
|
|
Post by soulfien on May 30, 2009 2:04:21 GMT -5
So casting hold person on someone and killing them as fast as you can (like finger of death or slitting the throat) is not evil, but casting hold person and then combust is.
|
|
|
Post by Dachshund on May 30, 2009 2:43:12 GMT -5
So casting hold person on someone and killing them as fast as you can (like finger of death or slitting the throat) is not evil, but casting hold person and then combust is. *evil grin*
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on May 30, 2009 6:10:31 GMT -5
as suggested by neoseansters post above, if that creature were to still be a threat after the spell wore off, and would not surrender.
then no.. not an evil act
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on May 30, 2009 6:28:23 GMT -5
as suggested by neoseansters post above, if that creature were to still be a threat after the spell wore off, and would not surrender. then no.. not an evil act Assuming that the creature will not surrender is bad IMO. The characters who casted a hold person on an opponent can use a rope to tie him up before the spell wears off. And here is the limit of NwN, such action is difficult to do without the help of a DM. Some people kill OOCly animals, why not doing the same with all kind of spawns?
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on May 30, 2009 7:26:44 GMT -5
I dunno depends on the creature type. IMO
|
|
|
Post by EDM Neo on May 30, 2009 7:55:12 GMT -5
I think that, in some cases, it is reasonable ICly to assume they won't surrender... but if there's any reason at all to doubt that, yes, it'd be wrong to kill them while they don't have the option. That said, keep in mind that even if you just tie someone up with rope while they're paralyzed... that's not the same as ensuring they won't be a threat. You can't release them afterwards in a "good" manner unless you can be certain you won't be giving them freedom to go out and do more evil (thus making you indirectly responsible by allowing it when you could have ended their threat), and you can't restrain them in a "good" manner unless you can both be sure they won't escape to cause harm (also partially on your head because you tried and failed to restrain them instead of ending the danger while you had the chance), and you can provide for their well being without being abusive of them (keep them sheltered and fed, etc). It's really all very situational, but unless the Cormyrian legal/jail system wants to rearrange itself to both better accomodate for dozens of PC captured monsters, and to be more willing to actually persecute without any evidence but the unconfirmed word of adventurers... most PCs don't have the resources to run a privately owned jail, and so there isn't much option. So casting hold person on someone and killing them as fast as you can (like finger of death or slitting the throat) is not evil, but casting hold person and then combust is. Yes, I think that basically sums it up. If combust is the fastest way you have of killing them, fine, but if you're capable of expediating the process, and instead you light them on fire and watch for your amusement, it's evil.
|
|