OOTS #1116 - The Discussion Thread

[The_Weirdo]

then settles for "merely" impoverishing her clan via fraud instead

Impoverishing the people that tried to marry you off by force in order to no longer be in the marriage in which they put you by force is not an Evil act.

On a different note: can summoners summon any "fiendish, anarchic, axiomatic or celestial" animal of the same HD/level of the appropriate animal or is this summon homebrew?

[Jasdoif]

Hilgya's not a spontaneous caster, though. Clerics can spontaneously convert a spell to Cure/Inflict, but it's still one of their previously memorized spells.

They don't convert the spell, they lose the spell to be able spontaneously cast the cure/inflict spell.

Which is an awkward way to have worded spontaneous casting above and beyond the ability literally being called "Spontaneous Casting". But much more clear is....

Spontaneous Casting and Metamagic Feats
A cleric spontaneously casting a cure or inflict spell can cast a metamagic version of it instead. Extra time is also required in this case. Casting a 1-action metamagic spell spontaneously is a full-round action, and a spell with a longer casting time takes an extra full-round action to cast.

[Kish]

Hilgya's not a spontaneous caster, though. Clerics can spontaneously convert a spell to Cure/Inflict, but it's still one of their previously memorized spells.

Spontaneous Casting and Metamagic Feats

A cleric spontaneously casting a cure or inflict spell can cast a metamagic version of it instead. Extra time is also required in this case. Casting a 1-action metamagic spell spontaneously is a full-round action, and a spell with a longer casting time takes an extra full-round action to cast.

So, no. If Hilgya casts Quickened Cure Light Wounds that was a prepared spell.

[hamishspence]

On a different note: can summoners summon any "fiendish, anarchic, axiomatic or celestial" animal of the same HD/level of the appropriate animal or is this summon homebrew?

It would be homebrew - but Redcloak summoning Fiendish Elephant (Celestial Elephant but not Fiendish Elephant is on the list) suggests that it's likely that The Giant has something like this in play.

I would speculate that it's something like "Evil clerics may summon Fiendish versions of any Celestial animal on the list, Chaotic clerics may summon Anarchic versions of any animal, Fiendish or Celestial, on the list, and so on).

Or Possibly "Clerics of gods with the Evil domain may..." "Clerics of gods with the Chaos domain may..."

We know (Class & Geekery thread) that Redcloak does not have the Evil domain himself (his are Law and Destruction), even if other clerics of The Dark One do- hence my theory not being "Clerics with the Evil domain may..."

[Ironsmith]

As mentioned above, the author disagrees with you. "Caring for your friends" is not a Good trait, because both Good and Evil people have friends (and likewise, there are both Good and Evil people who don't have them). As an indicator of alignment, it provides no evidence on any direction. Good is defined as the willingness to put your resources/health/life/etc. on the line for those that are NOT your personal friends, without an expectation of a reward.

I respectfully disagree, since having friends tends to be proof that a character is capable of putting aside their own needs for someone else, and occasionally even a sign that they do... however, this doesn't outweigh the fact that the vast majority of the time, with the vast majority of people, they just don't. For instance, Belkar cares about Mr. Scruffy, which is inherently Good of him, and he's shown on occasion that he cares enough to sacrifice personal resources. However, that doesn't make him Good or even Neutral, because he still defaults to "stab it in the eye/face" for most interactions with people. Tarquin provides another example, in that he clearly cares for Malack and to some extent, his sons, but his own ambitions outweighed any love he had for Nale or Elan, and one can only wonder what he would have done had Malack well and truly gotten in the way...

He literally just used it in this comic. It is in his hand. He also, as referenced above, used it in the desert search montage after he was brought back from the dead.

Sorry. It's in the last panel there, I think I missed it for the punchline.

[hamishspence]

I respectfully disagree, since having friends tends to be proof that a character is capable of putting aside their own needs for someone else, and occasionally even a sign that they do... however, this doesn't outweigh the fact that the vast majority of the time, with the vast majority of people, they just don't. For instance, Belkar cares about Mr. Scruffy, which is inherently Good of him, and he's shown on occasion that he cares enough to sacrifice personal resources.

I don't think it's Good enough to "ping as a Good act" depriving character of class features that rely on them never committing a Good act (there's very few of those out there though).

While Belkar has no levels in Paladin of Slaughter, if Belkar had taken one level in Paladin of Slaughter (Unearthed Arcana) and made a personal sacrifice for Mr Scruffy, I wouldn't "fall" him and remove all his class features for that.

Making a personal sacrifice for people he had no positive emotional connection to - like the bounty hunters, might qualify - but I don't think releasing Bloodfeast in the arena qualified as self-sacrificing.

[Jasdoif]

It would be homebrew - but Redcloak summoning Fiendish Elephant (Celestial Elephant but not Fiendish Elephant is on the list) suggests that it's likely that The Giant has something like this in play.

I would speculate that it's something like "Evil clerics may summon Fiendish versions of any Celestial animal on the list, Chaotic clerics may summon Anarchic versions of any animal, Fiendish or Celestial, on the list, and so on).

Or Possibly "Clerics of gods with the Evil domain may..." "Clerics of gods with the Chaos domain may..."

We know (Class & Geekery thread) that Redcloak does not have the Evil domain himself (his are Law and Destruction), even if other clerics of The Dark One do- hence my theory not being "Clerics with the Evil domain may..."

The whole thing is particularly muddy because monster manuals do include lines like

Treat the carnage demon as if it were on the 4th-level list on the Summon Monster table (PH 287).

, so a setting with a lot of creatures (possibly giraffes and/or their extraplanar cousins) could have very expansive summon monster lists, without needing a general rule.

[courtjester]

I want the giraffes as small icon on the left side of a black polo shirt.

[Kish]

Looking at the characters in the comic, I think genuinely caring for your friends is a Good trait.
Tarquin claimed to love both his sons and care about Malack, and actually treated them all as pawns to be jerked around, or broken if they refused to be.
Redcloak

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

capped his descent into darkness by murdering the one person he cared about

.
Tsukiko enslaved those she supposedly loved so that she could order them to act like they loved her.
Belkar has been getting less evil ever since he started caring about Mr. Scruffy.
What Nale and Sabine felt for each other, and what their feelings will mean to the rest of Sabine's story, remains ambiguous at this time.
And Xykon simply doesn't care about anyone else or pretend to.

In every case except maybe Nale/Sabine, healthy, positive relationship=either nonevil character to begin with, or redemption hook.

[Ironsmith]

I don't think it's Good enough to "ping as a Good act" depriving character of class features that rely on them never committing a Good act (there's very few of those out there though).

While Belkar has no levels in Paladin of Slaughter, if Belkar had taken one level in Paladin of Slaughter (Unearthed Arcana) and made a personal sacrifice for Mr Scruffy, I wouldn't "fall" him and remove all his class features for that.

Making a personal sacrifice for people he had no positive emotional connection to - like the bounty hunters, might qualify - but I don't think releasing Bloodfeast in the arena qualified as self-sacrificing.

I'm really not so sure, given that a sourcebook Paladin can't knowingly associate with evil characters (like Roy does with Belkar, despite being Lawful Good). Haven't actually seen a Paladin of Slaughter, though, so I can't really say for sure, but I suspect it's more stringent than just "must be Evil".

[hamishspence]

I suspect it's more stringent than just "must be Evil".

Pretty stringent (unlike Belkar, they wouldn't even be able to associate with Good characters) - but "may not commit a good act" is the first rule:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/cl...rClassFeatures

[Ironsmith]

Pretty stringent (unlike Belkar, they wouldn't even be able to associate with Good characters) - but "may not commit a good act" is the first rule:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/cl...rClassFeatures

Additionally, a paladin of slaughter's code requires that she disrespect all authority figures who have not proven their physical superiority to her, refuse help to those in need, and sow destruction and death at all opportunities.

That looks like a ping to me...

[Lord Torath]

I'm not touching the Hilgya alignment argument and its constant flirting with the "morally justified" moratorium, but I have to say - I don't think there's a single person in this alignment argument arguing that Hilgya's primary alignment feature isn't "Chaos". It's just a debate over if she's Evil or Neutral.

A debate I'd very much like to request just be taken to a dedicated separate thread already, guys.

I agree. Let's move the Hilgya's Alignment discussion here, please: Is Hilgya Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Neutral (or Lawful Good)

I can hardly wait to see how Durkon and Pastor Expiration react when they see Hilgya and Kudzu!

[hamishspence]

That looks like a ping to me...

My guess is that it wouldn't apply to a Henchmen, Cohort, or Follower who is under attack - even a very selfish person might have reason to rescue their own minions (they can't run a Campaign of Destruction as well if they run out of minions, after all).

Rescuing a Familiar or Blackguard Fiendish companion has similar selfish reasoning (you don't want to lose that XP). Or a steed (you don't want to walk the rest of the way).

Rescuing a pet is "greyer" but can still qualify as a similar principle - avoiding one's own emotional pain, rather than any real "respect for life".

[Ironsmith]

My guess is that it wouldn't apply to a Henchmen, Cohort, or Follower who is under attack - even a very selfish person might have reason to rescue their own minions (they can't run a Campaign of Destruction as well if they run out of minions, after all).

Rescuing a Familiar or Blackguard Fiendish companion has similar selfish reasoning (you don't want to lose that XP). Or a steed (you don't want to walk the rest of the way).

Rescuing a pet is "greyer" but can still qualify as a similar principle - avoiding one's own emotional pain, rather than any real "respect for life".

That makes sense, I guess.

[Kish]

I think the person who wrote paladins of slaughter and tyranny subscribed to the silly notion that the alignments can be treated as simple mirrors of each other. A blackguard, written by someone who actually thought about practical functioning, isn't restricted from helping people, but a paladin of slaughter mirrors all a paladin's restrictions. Yes, the result is a nonfunctional character, but the house rule "paladins of slaughter are actually functional, being able to help their henchmen and followers" is a house rule, not something you can wring out of the text.

[hamishspence]

BoED makes the point that Good characters, while they have to try to help the innocent in need, don't have to help the Evil in need, especially if they'd use that help for evil purposes.

Mirroring, Evil characters don't have to "refuse to help everybody".

Yes, the result is a nonfunctional character, but the house rule "paladins of slaughter are actually functional, being able to help their henchmen and followers" is a house rule, not something you can wring out of the text.

There's cases where a certain amount of "wringing sense from the moral rules" becomes necessary. "Refuse help to those in need" may become "Refuse help to those in need who are innocent sapients" - this might be a better parsing.



The Paladin of Tyranny changes it to "help only those who help him maintain or improve his status" - and has the same "no good acts" restriction - suggesting that the help itself doesn't qualify as Always A Good Act.

[Rockphed]

I can't find any stat blocks for a giraffe anywhere, can anyone help out?

What level is she, does anyone know? If she can cast Summon Monster IX, then she either used the Summon Monster IIX list (1d3, getting the max result) or the Summon Monster VII list (1d4+1, getting the average result).

Celestial elephants are on the VII list and they have much more HP than most on that list. Maybe elephants served as a template? Does look like the giraffes are coming in for a trample/slam.

People are pretty sure she used a 5th or 6th level slot to summon 1d4+1 anarchic giraffes from the summon monster III/IV lists. We know she goet 1d4+1 because there are more than 3 of them. While a bunch of elephant equivalents would be awe-inspiring, I'm pretty sure Hilgya does not have enough 9th level slots that using one for a few summons is "cheap". She might, just might, have 9th level slots, but that is unlikely. People are generally guessing that giraffes use some variant of either the bison or rhino stats.

D&D-wise, I'm only aware of two precendent-ish approaches that would account for Hilgya turning undead now when she was Evil back in book one.

• If Loki were in fact CN rather CE (difficult to judge since, as you've noted, deity alignments are rather transmogrified from the usual in OOTS), and Hilgya was Good at some point between then and now, and Hilgya was never Evil after that point; she would turn undead.
• At least one prestige class (Eberron's bone knight) replaces turn undead with rebuke undead of the same effectiveness, and doesn't exclude Good characters from taking it; an inverse that gives turn undead to Evil characters could exist.

Doesn't Heironeous have some rule about how his clerics can't be evil? Maybe there is a similar rule vis-a-vis clerics of Loki (who doth decree that undead are icky and stuff). I'm pretty sure that Hilgya is still a straight cleric of Loki.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Heironeous is LG. By RAW, his clerics must be LG, NG or LN (same alignment or one step removed).

[hamishspence]

Doesn't Heironeous have some rule about how his clerics can't be evil? Maybe there is a similar rule vis-a-vis clerics of Loki (who doth decree that undead are icky and stuff). I'm pretty sure that Hilgya is still a straight cleric of Loki.

LN St Cuthbert has a rule about how his clerics can't be Lawful Evil despite being Within One Step.

"all clerics of Loki have access to the option to take Turn instead of Rebuke - regardless of alignment of cleric or Loki" is my theory at the moment.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Well, St Cuthbert used to be LG until WOTC decided they needed a LN Greater Deity.

[factotum]

Heironeous is LG. By RAW, his clerics must be LG, NG or LN (same alignment or one step removed).

We already know that RAW does not apply in this regard in OotS, because the LG Durkon is a cleric of a likely CG Thor.

[Kish]

We already know [...] because [...] likely [...].

Reason why this argument doesn't work isolated.

[Jasdoif]

Doesn't Heironeous have some rule about how his clerics can't be evil? Maybe there is a similar rule vis-a-vis clerics of Loki (who doth decree that undead are icky and stuff). I'm pretty sure that Hilgya is still a straight cleric of Loki.

The general case prevents the LG Heironeous from having Evil (or Chaotic) clerics.

St. Cuthbert doesn't allow Evil clerics, and his LN clerics must turn undead (rather than being allowed to choose). Obad-Hai's morally-Neutral clerics must turn undead rather than choose whether they turn or rebuke undead; but his Evil clerics still rebuke undead. Similarly, Wee Jas' morally-Neutral clerics must rebuke undead rather than choose whether they turn or rebuke undead, but her Good clerics still turn undead.

And those are all morally-Neutral deities themselves; Evil deities' clerics rebuke undead, and Good deities' clerics turn undead. For a similar rule to apply, Loki would still need to be CN. The edge case where Loki's CN, has a rule about his morally-Neutral clerics turning instead of rebuking, and Hilgya being CN instead of CE...doesn't seem notably more likely than Hilgya taking an extended alignment trip up to Good and possibly back.

[hamishspence]

Well, St Cuthbert used to be LG until WOTC decided they needed a LN Greater Deity.

Even in 3.0 he's Intermediate, not Greater. Though, Fiendish Codex 2 suggests he used to be Greater.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Cuthbert was a Greater in 2E. Looks like they downgraded him as well as moving him.

[Elkad]

I can't find any stat blocks for a giraffe anywhere, can anyone help out?

What level is she, does anyone know? If she can cast Summon Monster IX, then she either used the Summon Monster IIX list (1d3, getting the max result) or the Summon Monster VII list (1d4+1, getting the average result).

Celestial elephants are on the VII list and they have much more HP than most on that list. Maybe elephants served as a template? Does look like the giraffes are coming in for a trample/slam.

They are in Pathfinder. We discussed it way upthread.
Or if you want 3.5, slap a new hat on a Celestial Bison.

Either way, they are probably Summon III creatures. Using Summon V to call Summon III creatures, she gets 1d4+1 of them (4 in the comic). So only a 5th level slot. We don't know what her level is, but assuming she's tracked fairly close to the party, she used a good-but-not-top-level slot. Her 6s and 7s should be available (and maybe a couple 8s if she the same level as V).

For 120+HP worth of disposable creatures. And if they all drop dead, she has enough 5th level slots she may be able to do it again.

[hamishspence]

They are in Pathfinder. We discussed it way upthread.
Or if you want 3.5, slap a new hat on a Celestial Bison.

It looks to me almost like Pathfinder upgraded a Heavy Warhorse to Huge (keeping its number of Hit Dice the same) and changed its Bite to a Slam:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/h...#warhorseHeavy

[Snails]

"all clerics of Loki have access to the option to take Turn instead of Rebuke - regardless of alignment of cleric or Loki" is my theory at the moment.

That is sensible. The rules in the PHB make sense as defaults.

Good clerics and paladins and some neutral clerics can channel positive energy, which can halt, drive off (rout), or destroy undead.

Evil clerics and some neutral clerics can channel negative energy, which can halt, awe (rebuke), control (command), or bolster undead.

But specific gods could have different rules on this. For some gods, even some evil gods, only destroying or turning undead is the appropriate ability.

[Runeclaw]

We already know that RAW does not apply in this regard in OotS, because the LG Durkon is a cleric of a likely CG Thor.

In the absence of firm evidence, wouldn't it make more sense to assume that RAW does apply and that Thor is NG?