PDA

View Full Version : Turn Undead



Weedo
10-30-2007, 11:10 AM
I just finished reading the notes for mod 6 and didnt notice any comments regarding turn undead...

never played dnd on pen and paper so im not too sure on the mechanics of turn undead but am i to understand that turn undead is currently working as intended?
any turn undead characters out there notice any differences in mod 5?

i started my cleric off with a 15 charisma in hopes that eventually they would make turn undead useful, but even with the improved turn undead feat, a 22 charisma, and a sacred shield i still fail to turn undead that are my level.

*edit* actually the only undead i can turn are in deleras, even the skeletons inside stormcleave laugh...and im lvl 14 lol

what the frick!

tihocan
10-30-2007, 11:49 AM
What do you mean by "turn"? You should be able to make many undead cower with this kind of build (though it scales badly on elite I believe).

Impaqt
10-30-2007, 12:11 PM
Someday I hope they FIx Cleric Turning..... Really Fix it....

My Null Cleric was a Carry over from my PnP Cleric....

14 Base CHR
3 Reaver Tome
1 Cleric CHR
6 Item
---
24 CHR now.. (Pnp version only has his CHR at 18)

I have Sacred Adamantine Full Plate
I have the Reaver GLoves.

Most of my Turns still fail.....

Once I get him the Sheild, I may add a TUrning enhancement or 2 and see how he does.....

Of course, What I really want fixed is the abilty to Command Undead rather than just Turn.....

Mad_Bombardier
10-30-2007, 12:22 PM
Someday I hope they FIx Cleric Turning..... Really Fix it....I have Sacred Adamantine Full Plate
I have the Reaver GLoves.

Most of my Turns still fail.....

Once I get him the Sheild, I may add a TUrning enhancement or 2 and see how he does...Impaqt, just an FYI: Gauntlets of Eternity don't stack with Sacred. They are essentially Sacred + Hallowed + 4 total HD (not labelled on any other named item). The shield will replace the +4 total HD with +6 total HD (Silver Flame ability from Aegis of Flame).

Impaqt
10-30-2007, 12:31 PM
I've never Paid attention to the turn checks much with and without the sacred on.. Its just there so I dont think about it much....

Neiter item describes what kind of Bonus the +2 to turning is.... Yet another failure in Item descriptions on Turbines part.......

Mad_Bombardier
10-30-2007, 01:01 PM
Neiter item describes what kind of Bonus the +2 to turning is.... Yet another failure in Item descriptions on Turbines part.......Correct on that part. There is nowhere in DDO to see the Turn Undead rolls/mechanic. You have to check PnP rules for Turn or Rebuke Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#turnOrRebukeUndead).

Sacred adds +2 to the Turn Check roll. Hallowed adds +2 to max HD affected (result of Turn Check). Gauntlets add +4 and Silver Flame adds +6 to total HD turned (Turn Damage).

Weedo
10-30-2007, 01:43 PM
What do you mean by "turn"? You should be able to make many undead cower with this kind of build (though it scales badly on elite I believe).

i mean like make them disapear into wherever it is they come from. not the cowering thing.

thanks for the link Mad_bombardier if only ddo followed those rules.

Palmetto
10-30-2007, 01:45 PM
Someday I hope they FIx Cleric Turning..... Really Fix it....

My Null Cleric was a Carry over from my PnP Cleric....

14 Base CHR
3 Reaver Tome
1 Cleric CHR
6 Item
---
24 CHR now.. (Pnp version only has his CHR at 18)

I have Sacred Adamantine Full Plate
I have the Reaver GLoves.

Most of my Turns still fail.....

Once I get him the Sheild, I may add a TUrning enhancement or 2 and see how he does.....

Of course, What I really want fixed is the abilty to Command Undead rather than just Turn.....
Yeah, yeah ................. and some day I hope ......................

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb145/surroundedbyidiots97/flyingpig.jpg

:rolleyes:

Mad_Bombardier
10-30-2007, 03:49 PM
thanks for the link Mad_bombardier if only ddo followed those rules.DDO does follow those rules. We now have items that boost specific parts of the Turn Undead calculations. So, there is proof of the mechanic in DDO, even if we don't get to see the roll.

MysticTheurge
10-30-2007, 04:11 PM
So, there is proof of the mechanic in DDO, even if we don't get to see the roll.

The rolls and the results are (or at least were) in the combat log.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/CJGMURPG/pics/newturning.jpg

It just doesn't explain the modifiers or how the rolls arrive at the results

Weedo
10-30-2007, 04:16 PM
so turn undead is working?
where are the devs?

MysticTheurge
10-30-2007, 04:18 PM
i mean like make them disapear into wherever it is they come from. not the cowering thing.

That's not Turning. That's Destroying.

You only Destroy undead if you would otherwise Turn them and they have fewer HD than half your relevant turning level. This won't happen a lot at higher levels. Basically never in DDO. And almost never in D&D (unless you have additional turning related abilities).

When they run away from you, kind of sparkling. That's them being Turned.

Aesop
10-30-2007, 04:25 PM
Which is why I'd liketo see a certain Feat show up from PnP. a feat that I can't recall the exact name of... um... just a sec I'm thinking... DISCIPLE OF THE SUN... that's it ... Disciple of the Sun usese an extra turn attempt when used but destroys all Turned Undead.


Aesop

Mad_Bombardier
10-31-2007, 08:39 AM
Absolutely Aesop! With the number of undead and number of things that get turned versus destroyed, that would be a VERY good use of a feat and 2 turn attempts per use.

Aesop
10-31-2007, 09:36 AM
Absolutely Aesop! With the number of undead and number of things that get turned versus destroyed, that would be a VERY good use of a feat and 2 turn attempts per use.

Yeah me love it long time :)

And Radiant Servant for a PrC :)

Aesop

Vorn
10-31-2007, 09:41 AM
I was playing out in the Orchard with my cleric to investigate turning at bit more. She seems to consistently get 18-20 HD turned. Unfortunately that seems to translate into a wraith or maybe a rat or two.
Since she's true neutral it would be much more fun to get the command undead going. Then the wraith and the shadows could duke it out.
:rolleyes:

captain1z
11-01-2007, 07:54 PM
I just finished reading the notes for mod 6 and didnt notice any comments regarding turn undead...

never played dnd on pen and paper so im not too sure on the mechanics of turn undead but am i to understand that turn undead is currently working as intended?
any turn undead characters out there notice any differences in mod 5?

i started my cleric off with a 15 charisma in hopes that eventually they would make turn undead useful, but even with the improved turn undead feat, a 22 charisma, and a sacred shield i still fail to turn undead that are my level.

*edit* actually the only undead i can turn are in deleras, even the skeletons inside stormcleave laugh...and im lvl 14 lol

what the frick!






Oddly enough my paladin of 30 charisma with a sacred item as of late has had no effect on undead. I can get an effective HD of 12 on average and get no reaction from an 11 HD skelly standing right next to me. I do test it sometimes and I used to be able to make them run but now nothing happens. I dont know.....maybe I should pay more attention and try more often ...but I feel something is wrong.

captain1z
11-01-2007, 07:57 PM
Which is why I'd liketo see a certain Feat show up from PnP. a feat that I can't recall the exact name of... um... just a sec I'm thinking... DISCIPLE OF THE SUN... that's it ... Disciple of the Sun usese an extra turn attempt when used but destroys all Turned Undead.


Aesop




that'd be nice

Talon_Moonshadow
11-02-2007, 10:52 AM
What do you mean by "turn"? You should be able to make many undead cower with this kind of build (though it scales badly on elite I believe).


I agree, turn undead does work.....but it does take a lot of enhancements, feats, Charisma to do it effectively. Cowering is the most comon result....but they way to game engine works it seems they continue to get a series of attacks before they cower......I've notice that sometimes it takes so long for the results to appear that most of the undead are redead by then.

Most clerics have given up on turn undead in the game.....but my lvl14 is actually specced for it quite well...(wish I had maxed out Char at first lvl though :( ).......but the sad thing is, that although i turn at lvl20, my turn undead has only medicocre results in most quests in this game...shouldn't be that way.

And yes, you are right, it scales very badly on elite.....an elite quest seems to be several levels higher than a hard quest for turning anyway.......like 5lvls maybe.....maybe more, since I think I noticed that even at lvl14 I can not turn some undead in some much lower quests on elite.....Blackbones are really tough!

Talon_Moonshadow
11-02-2007, 10:57 AM
i mean like make them disapear into wherever it is they come from. not the cowering thing.

thanks for the link Mad_bombardier if only ddo followed those rules.

That doesn't really happen after a certain lvl in this game.........but i agree with you that it should.........I think in anyquest after delera's it won't happen......not sure why....part of it is the type of undead change....you'll notice that Turbine creates lots of new names for undead which are other wise the same as lower undead......seems they add some godlike turning resistance to them when they change their names.

Talon_Moonshadow
11-02-2007, 11:00 AM
Oddly enough my paladin of 30 charisma with a sacred item as of late has had no effect on undead. I can get an effective HD of 12 on average and get no reaction from an 11 HD skelly standing right next to me. I do test it sometimes and I used to be able to make them run but now nothing happens. I dont know.....maybe I should pay more attention and try more often ...but I feel something is wrong.

Yeah, I've notice the same thing.......you don't seem to have any effect unless your turn HD is WAY above thhe HD of the undead you are trying to turn.

Talon_Moonshadow
11-02-2007, 11:05 AM
I was playing out in the Orchard with my cleric to investigate turning at bit more. She seems to consistently get 18-20 HD turned. Unfortunately that seems to translate into a wraith or maybe a rat or two.
Since she's true neutral it would be much more fun to get the command undead going. Then the wraith and the shadows could duke it out.
:rolleyes:

:)
I can actually turn most of the undead in the orchard.....except those white skellie types......ot at least they manage to keep killing me with their spells, even though it looks like I have turned some of them......still trying to figure that one out exactly.
But none of them in the orchard stay turned for long.....except the rats maybe......
then there is the annoying habit of running from me untill they leash back to home....now full of health and unturned. :( How's a low DPS cleric supposed to kill things out there?! :)

MrCow
11-02-2007, 11:14 AM
Oddly enough my paladin of 30 charisma with a sacred item as of late has had no effect on undead. I can get an effective HD of 12 on average and get no reaction from an 11 HD skelly standing right next to me. I do test it sometimes and I used to be able to make them run but now nothing happens. I dont know.....maybe I should pay more attention and try more often ...but I feel something is wrong.

First of all, CR is NOT the same as HD, especially for undead.

Second, some undead have or gain turning resistance (either legitimately or not).

Third, as a paladin, you can never affect more than your paladin level + 1 on a high rolled turning check. As a 14th level paladin this means with a sacred item on at best you will spook up to 17 HD undead (hard dread zombies) and destroy 8 HD undead (normal shadows/normal wight priests/normal wraiths). More information on turning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#turnOrRebukeUndead) can be found in the SRD.

I am doing a case study on Hit Points as HD rises and I'm using undead as my focus for the data (as undead have no CON score to muck up the math). Hopefully I have some useful information for you in the next few hours... when I get some time to post the results. :D

alchilito
11-02-2007, 11:14 AM
At lvl 14, my cleric finds turn undead useless. Would much rather give Dvs to the caster and destroy em faster.

draeconius
11-02-2007, 11:44 AM
I spec'd my cleric for turning. I can turn just about anything. I noticed that I get two roll but I'm not sure how it works but here are the numbers I get. For the first roll I get 20+D20 and the second roll I get is 32+D20. Can some one enlighten me on what it all means. Also I thought that if two bonuses were named differently then they were supposed to stack. I really wish turbine would be more descriptive but I would be happy with a response from a dev so I know for sure what is supposed to stack with what.

MysticTheurge
11-02-2007, 11:48 AM
I spec'd my cleric for turning. I can turn just about anything. I noticed that I get two roll but I'm not sure how it works but here are the numbers I get. For the first roll I get 20+D20 and the second roll I get is 32+D20. Can some one enlighten me on what it all means. Also I thought that if two bonuses were named differently then they were supposed to stack. I really wish turbine would be more descriptive but I would be happy with a response from a dev so I know for sure what is supposed to stack with what.

Check the link above for how Turning rolls work.

The first is your turning check. It's D20 plus charisma modifier plus some other miscellaneous modifiers. That determines the max HD of a single target you can turn based your cleric level according on a table.

The second is your turning damage. That's 2d6+cleric level+charisma+miscellaneous modifiers. That determines the total HD you can turn.

captain1z
11-02-2007, 06:38 PM
First of all, CR is NOT the same as HD, especially for undead.

Second, some undead have or gain turning resistance (either legitimately or not).

Third, as a paladin, you can never affect more than your paladin level + 1 on a high rolled turning check. As a 14th level paladin this means with a sacred item on at best you will spook up to 17 HD undead (hard dread zombies) and destroy 8 HD undead (normal shadows/normal wight priests/normal wraiths). More information on turning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#turnOrRebukeUndead) can be found in the SRD.

I am doing a case study on Hit Points as HD rises and I'm using undead as my focus for the data (as undead have no CON score to muck up the math). Hopefully I have some useful information for you in the next few hours... when I get some time to post the results. :D






call Mr cow thats his name...that name again is Mr cow






sorry couldnt help myself :)

MrCow
11-03-2007, 02:21 PM
call Mr cow thats his name...that name again is Mr cow

Sorry, you can't call me. I don't believe in using phones. :p

Elthbert
11-03-2007, 02:34 PM
Of course, What I really want fixed is the abilty to Command Undead rather than just Turn.....

So you want them to allow evil alignments and the spells and abilities useful to being evil.

Elthbert
11-03-2007, 02:36 PM
i mean like make them disapear into wherever it is they come from. not the cowering thing.

thanks for the link Mad_bombardier if only ddo followed those rules.

Well the cowering thing is turning, you mean destroy and that is supposed to be hard.

Olaustt
11-03-2007, 02:40 PM
Turn Undead Sucks and they will never fix it it because they don't want it to work.

MrCow
11-03-2007, 05:16 PM
Actually, turn undead is working as it is supposed to be. The biggest issue is that turn undead isn't all that useful in Pen and Paper, and to further enlarge the issue, undead get a HD boost on hard and elite difficulties (the main difficulties people play on).

MysticTheurge
11-04-2007, 04:10 PM
So you want them to allow evil alignments and the spells and abilities useful to being evil.

Neutral Clerics can decide whether to channel positive or negative energy.

No evil required.

Mad_Bombardier
11-04-2007, 05:08 PM
Neutral Clerics can decide whether to channel positive or negative energy.

No evil required.Lawful Good is for Lawful Suckers. :D

Elthbert
11-04-2007, 06:31 PM
Neutral Clerics can decide whether to channel positive or negative energy.

No evil required.

But. Channeling negative energy is always an evil act--- so evil is indeed required. One has to be able to do things that D&D has specifically stated is evil and an evil power. Therefore, they want evil alignments and spells and abilities useful to Evil alignments.

Talon_Moonshadow
11-05-2007, 11:50 AM
This past weekend I did POP with my cleric (on elite I assume, but didn't actually check).
The group wiped at the end fight.
When we came back in there were some shadows running around that attacked us as soon as we feather falled down to redo the end fight.

My lvl14 Clr with 26Char, Sacred necklace, Improved Turning Feat, Improved turning III enhancement.............destroyed them all!!!!!

I got some amazed comments from the group I was in. :)

Mad_Bombardier
11-05-2007, 12:23 PM
Turn Undead Sucks and they will never fix it it because they don't want it to work.From the new WDA. Seek Eternal Rest, L2Cleric/L1 Paladin Spell: +4 sacred bonus to Turn Checks. Sounds to me like they want Turning to work. ;)

Aesop
11-05-2007, 12:29 PM
Actually There are some really major spells in The complete Champions book related to turning. One gives a bonus to effective level another to HD truned and another gives a significant turn damage bonus. Adding those in would also help... and of course DIsciple of the Sun wouldn't hurt at all.


Aesop

schroebj13
11-05-2007, 12:38 PM
I had read the Dev Report earlier this morning and saw this

NEW - Seek Eternal Rest
Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Clr 2, Pal 1
Grants a +4 Sacred bonus to level for the purposes of turning undead.

I am assuming this is going to help in turn undead. As my cleric is lvl 3 right now I am not all that up todate on all of the working of the cleric, but this is something

MrCow
11-05-2007, 03:14 PM
This past weekend I did POP with my cleric (on elite I assume, but didn't actually check).
The group wiped at the end fight.
When we came back in there were some shadows running around that attacked us as soon as we feather falled down to redo the end fight.

My lvl14 Clr with 26Char, Sacred necklace, Improved Turning Feat, Improved turning III enhancement.............destroyed them all!!!!!

I'm guessing you did Prison of the Planes on either normal or hard. With your given information you would be destroying undead things of a maximum of 12 HD (14 from cleric levels, 4 from a lucky roll, 2 from sacred, 1 from improved turning feat, 3 from improved turning enhancement, total of 24 to cower, divide by 2 for a total of 12 to destroy via turning). Shadows have 8 HD + 2 turning resistance on normal and 10 HD + 2 turning resistance on hard. So I'm banking on the idea that you did it on hard.

Either way, congratz on the successful turn. :)

parvo
11-05-2007, 04:44 PM
Someday I hope they FIx Cleric Turning..... Really Fix it....

My Null Cleric was a Carry over from my PnP Cleric....

14 Base CHR
3 Reaver Tome
1 Cleric CHR
6 Item
---
24 CHR now.. (Pnp version only has his CHR at 18)

I have Sacred Adamantine Full Plate
I have the Reaver GLoves.

Most of my Turns still fail.....

Once I get him the Sheild, I may add a TUrning enhancement or 2 and see how he does.....

Of course, What I really want fixed is the abilty to Command Undead rather than just Turn.....

I have to side with the devs on this one. First of all Clerics are very powerful and the most vesatile class in the game already. They don't need to be made more powerful. Second, I find turning works well (can turn or destroy undead in dungeons that are the same level as my cleric) so long as you start with a good base charisma, spend one feat for improved turning and some enhancement points.

Not sure if it's mentioned here but there is a new spell comming in mod six that give clerics Sacred +4 bonus.

Vorn
11-06-2007, 08:36 AM
Took my cleric, lvl 13, 22 cha, no enhancements, with seraphim and a command item (does this help or not, any know?) into PoP on elite. Turned the named vampire successfully almost at will but couldn't destroy him even on a "20" which got me 21 or 22 lvls of turning, forget which. Unfortunately when he cowers he disappears--pretty smart guy!

Talon_Moonshadow
11-06-2007, 10:05 AM
Took my cleric, lvl 13, 22 cha, no enhancements, with seraphim and a command item (does this help or not, any know?) into PoP on elite. Turned the named vampire successfully almost at will but couldn't destroy him even on a "20" which got me 21 or 22 lvls of turning, forget which. Unfortunately when he cowers he disappears--pretty smart guy!

LOL, I think I turned a wraith in there before.....he ran away and we had to wait for him to come back so we could kill him and get the barrier down. Everyone was going "huh, why is the barrier still up?" :)

Talon_Moonshadow
11-06-2007, 10:12 AM
I have to side with the devs on this one. First of all Clerics are very powerful and the most vesatile class in the game already. They don't need to be made more powerful. Second, I find turning works well (can turn or destroy undead in dungeons that are the same level as my cleric) so long as you start with a good base charisma, spend one feat for improved turning and some enhancement points.

Not sure if it's mentioned here but there is a new spell comming in mod six that give clerics Sacred +4 bonus.

I just think you should be able to turn things in a dungeon your lvl, without feats etc., with a decent roll.....pallies too. Maybe the roll should be very high for some undead and some quests, and maybe the pallie should not be able to turn the most powerful undead.......but you should have a chance without spending so much resources on turning. IMHO.

I'm not sure what the balance is, but one thing I do not like about this game is the NEED to specialize in something to have any reasonable chance of success.....be that turning or trap finding, or getting something fail a save, or even melee. It seems to me this game almost requires you to specialize in something or your toon is mediocre at best.

Mercules
11-06-2007, 10:30 AM
But. Channeling negative energy is always an evil act--- so evil is indeed required. One has to be able to do things that D&D has specifically stated is evil and an evil power. Therefore, they want evil alignments and spells and abilities useful to Evil alignments.

No... Channeling Negative Energy is NOT always an evil act. Negative Energy is harmful to life, but so is Electrical.

Mad_Bombardier
11-06-2007, 11:17 AM
No... Channeling Negative Energy is NOT always an evil act. Negative Energy is harmful to life, but so is Electrical.Yes it is. From the Turn (rebuke) Undead entry under Neutral Clerics and Undead.

Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.

Elthbert
11-06-2007, 11:11 PM
No... Channeling Negative Energy is NOT always an evil act. Negative Energy is harmful to life, but so is Electrical.

Read the rules my friend channelling negative energy is ALWAYS an evil act. Give me a minute and I will cite the page for you.


Edit: 3.5 PH page 160 " Even if a cleric is Nuetral, channelling positive energy is a good act, and channelling negative energy is an evil act."


There are more referances but that one should do.

Elthbert
11-06-2007, 11:16 PM
Yes it is. From the Turn (rebuke) Undead entry under Neutral Clerics and Undead.

oops Here you already quoted it.

Mercules
11-07-2007, 07:28 AM
So a Neutral Cleric of a Neutral deity who can channel Negative Energy uses a Turning check to command several Undead that had been rampaging the area and forces them to walk into a fire and immolate themselves. This is an evil act? Next you will tell me that Neutral Cleric who channels Negative Energy who uses a feat to use a Turning check to cure blindness on a person is doing an "evil" act.

Talon_Moonshadow
11-07-2007, 09:50 AM
Read the rules my friend channelling negative energy is ALWAYS an evil act. Give me a minute and I will cite the page for you.


Edit: 3.5 PH page 160 " Even if a cleric is Nuetral, channelling positive energy is a good act, and channelling negative energy is an evil act."


There are more referances but that one should do.

We have other "evil" things in this game though. Inflict wounds, and that Unholy smite (not sure of the name). Also cause disease, Bestow Curse, Poison, Cause Blindness should all be considered "evil" spells......at least they would if I was the DM. Doesn't mean you can't cast them, especially if you are neutral, but I think it goes against your argument.

Elthbert
11-07-2007, 03:07 PM
So a Neutral Cleric of a Neutral deity who can channel Negative Energy uses a Turning check to command several Undead that had been rampaging the area and forces them to walk into a fire and immolate themselves. This is an evil act? Next you will tell me that Neutral Cleric who channels Negative Energy who uses a feat to use a Turning check to cure blindness on a person is doing an "evil" act.

Channeling negative energy is evil, period. In real world ethics lingo it is Objectively evil. Therefore, yes the Nuetral cleric in both of your above examples is perfoming evil, any good results from the act are immaterial, the act itself is still evil. By your logic intentionally killing innocent people to save more innocent people would be good and of course it isn't.

Elthbert
11-07-2007, 03:28 PM
We have other "evil" things in this game though. Inflict wounds, and that Unholy smite (not sure of the name). Also cause disease, Bestow Curse, Poison, Cause Blindness should all be considered "evil" spells......at least they would if I was the DM. Doesn't mean you can't cast them, especially if you are neutral, but I think it goes against your argument.

Chenneling negative enrergy is evil. It is always evil, take that as you will. Does cause blindness channel negative energy? I'll have to check that out but I don't think that using magic to blind someone is anyworse than using magic to cook them. Bestow curse, in fantasy good people do lay curses on bad people, but I think it would have to be a very serious matter, still I am not sure if cursing is always bad. D&D has traditionally held poison use agianst sapiant creatures is evil, so I would agree there, and cause desiese as well.

Talon_Moonshadow
11-07-2007, 03:36 PM
Channeling negative energy is evil, period. In real world ethics lingo it is Objectively evil. Therefore, yes the Nuetral cleric in both of your above examples is perfoming evil, any good results from the act are immaterial, the act itself is still evil. By your logic intentionally killing innocent people to save more innocent people would be good and of course it isn't.

I think he was saying that intentionally killing guilty people to save innocent people was ok......or at least that's a closer analogy.

But the neutral guy uses good or evil acts to support his goals as he sees fit. Neutral is between good and evil. The good guy would never do an evil act (if he sticks to his ethics anyway) but the evil guy would do an evil act sometimes.....maybe half the time, but I think doing evil acts half the time still makes you evil.

Right now Turbine lets us play neutral toons, but only lets us do a small amount of evil with them.......and lets the good guys do the same amount of evil.........not really how it should be and makes alignment pointless for most aspects of this game.

I made a toon named Drkpriestess AlmostEvilBattleClr who is CN and tries to cast "evil" type spells with a specialty in Inflict wounds. I was a little upset that all of the quests have me helping someone out of the goodness of my heart.........role playing and NPC dialog doesn't really matter in this game, but at least having a dialog option that let me go on the quest for a selfish reason would be more appropriate for a neutral alignment toon. On this particular toon i wish I had the comand undead turning option as well.

Elthbert
11-07-2007, 03:52 PM
I think he was saying that intentionally killing guilty people to save innocent people was ok......or at least that's a closer analogy.

But the neutral guy uses good or evil acts to support his goals as he sees fit. Neutral is between good and evil. The good guy would never do an evil act (if he sticks to his ethics anyway) but the evil guy would do an evil act sometimes.....maybe half the time, but I think doing evil acts half the time still makes you evil.

Right now Turbine lets us play neutral toons, but only lets us do a small amount of evil with them.......and lets the good guys do the same amount of evil.........not really how it should be and makes alignment pointless for most aspects of this game.

I made a toon named Drkpriestess AlmostEvilBattleClr who is CN and tries to cast "evil" type spells with a specialty in Inflict wounds. I was a little upset that all of the quests have me helping someone out of the goodness of my heart.........role playing and NPC dialog doesn't really matter in this game, but at least having a dialog option that let me go on the quest for a selfish reason would be more appropriate for a neutral alignment toon. On this particular toon i wish I had the comand undead turning option as well.




No it is not a closer analogy,, because in D&D killing guilty( Read Evil) people is not Evil, in fact it is GOOD, so killing guilty people to save the innocent is a GOOD means [/I]of achieving a GOOD end./ However killing the innocent ( Read Good) is an evil act, so Killing the inocent to save the innocent is a EVIL means of achieving a GOOD end. This is exactly analgous to channelling negative energy, an evil means, to achieve a good end.

Aesop
11-07-2007, 03:54 PM
No it is not a closer analogy,, because in D&D killing guilty( Read Evil) people is not Evil, in fact it is GOOD, so killing guilty people to save the innocent is a GOOD means [/I]of achieving a GOOD end./ However killing the innocent ( Read Good) is an evil act, so Killing the inocent to save the innocent is a EVIL means of achieving a GOOD end. This is exactly analgous to channelling negative energy, an evil means, to achieve a good end.

wait what if you kill evil people with Negative Energy to save a bunch of Innocents... is that still evil?



(JUst messin with ya I hate black and white ethics and all the bs that comes with it)

Aesop

Elthbert
11-07-2007, 03:59 PM
I think he was saying that intentionally killing guilty people to save innocent people was ok......or at least that's a closer analogy.

But the neutral guy uses good or evil acts to support his goals as he sees fit. Neutral is between good and evil. The good guy would never do an evil act (if he sticks to his ethics anyway) but the evil guy would do an evil act sometimes.....maybe half the time, but I think doing evil acts half the time still makes you evil.
Right now Turbine lets us play neutral toons, but only lets us do a small amount of evil with them.......and lets the good guys do the same amount of evil.........not really how it should be and makes alignment pointless for most aspects of this game.



Reesponse to the Green--- Well that is an over simplification of neutrality. Those that are Neutral with regards to good and evil may believe is a balance between life and destruction, they however may also simply be people who do evil things sometimes but also do truely good things, this may or may not be to further there agenda, it very well may be because they have never really thought about it at all, having not concidered their actions does nto make them evil, but that does nto mean there acts are not evil acts.


Response to orange-- I agree I have issue with the way aliengment has been played in thiss game.

Elthbert
11-07-2007, 04:02 PM
wait what if you kill evil people with Negative Energy to save a bunch of Innocents... is that still evil?



(JUst messin with ya I hate black and white ethics and all the bs that comes with it)

Aesop



YES!

D&D has black and white ethics, it allows the game to be played without philosophical debates at the gaming table. However, since personally I do not think the end justifies the means, I have no problem with this particular rule.

Elthbert
11-07-2007, 04:03 PM
wonder why my italics didn't work?

Aesop
11-07-2007, 04:19 PM
YES!

D&D has black and white ethics, it allows the game to be played without philosophical debates at the gaming table. However, since personally I do not think the end justifies the means, I have no problem with this particular rule.

Except you've now contradicted yourself as you've said in one case that Channeling Negative Energy is Evil and KIlling Evil People to save innocent is Good...see what I mean.


DnD also has Neutral. We shall just differ on the ends justifies the mean thing... I believe every situation in life is... well situational. Something that would be "evil" in one situation may be the correct action in another. To me there are almost no absolutes just shades of Gray. I'm still only coming up with one series of actions that I can't see a "good" reason for.

Aesop

Talon_Moonshadow
11-07-2007, 04:38 PM
No it is not a closer analogy,, because in D&D killing guilty( Read Evil) people is not Evil, in fact it is GOOD, so killing guilty people to save the innocent is a GOOD means [/I]of achieving a GOOD end./ However killing the innocent ( Read Good) is an evil act, so Killing the inocent to save the innocent is a EVIL means of achieving a GOOD end. This is exactly analgous to channelling negative energy, an evil means, to achieve a good end.

This is what I read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercules
So a Neutral Cleric of a Neutral deity who can channel Negative Energy uses a Turning check to command several Undead that had been rampaging the area and forces them to walk into a fire and immolate themselves. This is an evil act? Next you will tell me that Neutral Cleric who channels Negative Energy who uses a feat to use a Turning check to cure blindness on a person is doing an "evil" act.

Channeling negative energy is evil, period. In real world ethics lingo it is Objectively evil. Therefore, yes the Nuetral cleric in both of your above examples is perfoming evil, any good results from the act are immaterial, the act itself is still evil. By your logic intentionally killing innocent people to save more innocent people would be good and of course it isn't.

He talked about commanding undead to walk into a fire. And then you said that killing innocent people to save other innocent people was evil.
My point of view was that the undead were evil people (guilty) and that undead being killed to save other people (innocent) was a better analogy.
One of us is very confused, but since e-messages is such a limited form of communication (and the fact that I did not read all of the posts(s) I guess it is expected........

it doesn't really matter....and I'm not sure where the communication breakdown occured.

If I shoot an enemy soldier who is is marching toward my homeland with a gun I would argue that that is not evil.
But if I capture an enemy soldier and execute him to keep him from being a threat in the future, I would argue that that is an evil act.
Now.....I have a president and many fellow Americans that think that anything done to the terrorists to protect Americans is ok. (not evil)
I disagree.......but I would argue that those people who think it is ok to torture or kill in an execution style to protect others are neutral people by D&D alignment standards.
They think that it is ok to do an evil act if it support their personnal goals.

Whether or not I understood your original point or what you were commenting on, that was the point I was trying to make.

Talon_Moonshadow
11-07-2007, 04:46 PM
Reesponse to the Green--- Well that is an over simplification of neutrality. Those that are Neutral with regards to good and evil may believe is a balance between life and destruction, they however may also simply be people who do evil things sometimes but also do truely good things, this may or may not be to further there agenda, it very well may be because they have never really thought about it at all, having not concidered their actions does nto make them evil, but that does nto mean there acts are not evil acts.


Response to orange-- I agree I have issue with the way aliengment has been played in thiss game.

You're right. In general the neutral alignment has been viewed a number of different ways in D&D. doing evil to support one's own agenda is not necessarily a selfish act. His agenda might be to protect his own family or community. But them again it might be selfish act......I've always viewed neutral alignment as a selfish one. selfish can be good for the individual and his friends.....stealing food to feed his family. Or it can just be steeling food so he himself is not hungry.
A good person might be driven to perfom an evil act in some situations, but I would say that a neutral one would perfom evil acts under almost any circumstance "if" he had a justifiable reason.....

Actually it is very difficult for me to quantify neutral as an alignment.

But to get somewhat back on subject, D&D has said that neutral clerics have the option to command undead. Well, in DDO we have neutral clerics without that option.

Elthbert
11-07-2007, 05:01 PM
This is what I read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercules
So a Neutral Cleric of a Neutral deity who can channel Negative Energy uses a Turning check to command several Undead that had been rampaging the area and forces them to walk into a fire and immolate themselves. This is an evil act? Next you will tell me that Neutral Cleric who channels Negative Energy who uses a feat to use a Turning check to cure blindness on a person is doing an "evil" act.

Channeling negative energy is evil, period. In real world ethics lingo it is Objectively evil. Therefore, yes the Nuetral cleric in both of your above examples is perfoming evil, any good results from the act are immaterial, the act itself is still evil. By your logic intentionally killing innocent people to save more innocent people would be good and of course it isn't.

He talked about commanding undead to walk into a fire. And then you said that killing innocent people to save other innocent people was evil.
My point of view was that the undead were evil people (guilty) and that undead being killed to save other people (innocent) was a better analogy.
One of us is very confused, but since e-messages is such a limited form of communication (and the fact that I did not read all of the posts(s) I guess it is expected........

it doesn't really matter....and I'm not sure where the communication breakdown occured.

If I shoot an enemy soldier who is is marching toward my homeland with a gun I would argue that that is not evil.
But if I capture an enemy soldier and execute him to keep him from being a threat in the future, I would argue that that is an evil act.
Now.....I have a president and many fellow Americans that think that anything done to the terrorists to protect Americans is ok. (not evil)
I disagree.......but I would argue that those people who think it is ok to torture or kill in an execution style to protect others are neutral people by D&D alignment standards.
They think that it is ok to do an evil act if it support their personnal goals.

Whether or not I understood your original point or what you were commenting on, that was the point I was trying to make.



In the D&D universe, channelling negative energy is evil, it is always evil no matter what, it is an inhrently evil act, even if it is used for a good end, it is by it's nature evil, vile, without merit. I could give examples of equilly vile acts but children could be on here. That someone my do a inherently dispicable thing for a good end does not render the at morally acceptable.

Elthbert
11-07-2007, 05:03 PM
You're right. In general the neutral alignment has been viewed a number of different ways in D&D. doing evil to support one's own agenda is not necessarily a selfish act. His agenda might be to protect his own family or community. But them again it might be selfish act......I've always viewed neutral alignment as a selfish one. selfish can be good for the individual and his friends.....stealing food to feed his family. Or it can just be steeling food so he himself is not hungry.
A good person might be driven to perfom an evil act in some situations, but I would say that a neutral one would perfom evil acts under almost any circumstance "if" he had a justifiable reason.....

Actually it is very difficult for me to quantify neutral as an alignment.

But to get somewhat back on subject, D&D has said that neutral clerics have the option to command undead. Well, in DDO we have neutral clerics without that option.

Well it is an Evil option, which is all I said. I for one have issue with the fact that goodclerics can cast Create undead.

Vorn
11-07-2007, 05:19 PM
Well it is an Evil option, which is all I said. I for one have issue with the fact that goodclerics can cast Create undead.

And my "true neutral" cleric keeps trying to use it on dead party members...one day she will succeed!
;)

Talon_Moonshadow
11-07-2007, 05:29 PM
And my "true neutral" cleric keeps trying to use it on dead party members...one day she will succeed!
;)

That would be so much fun! Dave the barbarian dies.....then sees his body stand up with a yellow name above his head, and preceed to fight just like a summoned monster............only to be taken control of by the evil hobgoblin cleric and turned against the party!!!!!!
This game is missing so many fun options. :(

Mercules
11-08-2007, 06:16 AM
In the D&D universe, channelling negative energy is evil, it is always evil no matter what, it is an inhrently evil act, even if it is used for a good end, it is by it's nature evil, vile, without merit. I could give examples of equilly vile acts but children could be on here. That someone my do a inherently dispicable thing for a good end does not render the at morally acceptable.

I know what the rules say, but using Negative Energy in a positive manner balances out the difference.

Evil <-----*-----> Good

I channel Negative Energy, using a turn undead action up for the day.

Evil <---*-------> Good

Using that energy I focus on one of the feats that allows me to transform a turn action into something else and Cleanse someone of Blindness. I do this in a non-selfish means on a stranger who is blind.

Evil <-----*-----> Good

Net result in alignment change, none, even by the rules you gave.

I use Raise Dead to bring corpses of condemned criminals (who's execution according to you was a Good Act) to life and then have them build an orphanage for those children who's parents have been killed in a war and then march those zombies off to war so that no more living parents of innocent children die, thus protecting the innocent. Good Act balancing out the "Negative Energy is bad for no particular reason other than we say so."

D&D is hypocritical in it's rules.

"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."

How does channeling negative energy debase or destroy innocent life? :confused:

Elthbert
11-08-2007, 12:39 PM
I know what the rules say, but using Negative Energy in a positive manner balances out the difference.

Evil <-----*-----> Good

I channel Negative Energy, using a turn undead action up for the day.

Evil <---*-------> Good

Using that energy I focus on one of the feats that allows me to transform a turn action into something else and Cleanse someone of Blindness. I do this in a non-selfish means on a stranger who is blind.

Evil <-----*-----> Good

Net result in alignment change, none, even by the rules you gave.

I use Raise Dead to bring corpses of condemned criminals (who's execution according to you was a Good Act) to life and then have them build an orphanage for those children who's parents have been killed in a war and then march those zombies off to war so that no more living parents of innocent children die, thus protecting the innocent. Good Act balancing out the "Negative Energy is bad for no particular reason other than we say so."

D&D is hypocritical in it's rules.

"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."

How does channeling negative energy debase or destroy innocent life? :confused:

Negative energy is, in D&D, for lack of a better term the energy of Death, so channelling it, bringing it into the world from the Plane of Negative energy, quite literally brings more death into the world. Therefore it is harmful to all life innocent and otherwise.

Mercules
11-08-2007, 01:06 PM
Negative energy is, in D&D, for lack of a better term the energy of Death, so channelling it, bringing it into the world from the Plane of Negative energy, quite literally brings more death into the world. Therefore it is harmful to all life innocent and otherwise.

You can also immolate people with Positive Energy which in your comparison would be the energy of Life. Is this a good act even if you wander around immolating orphans with it? ;)

Elthbert
11-08-2007, 01:30 PM
You can also immolate people with Positive Energy which in your comparison would be the energy of Life. Is this a good act even if you wander around immolating orphans with it? ;)


Actually, on the Material plain I don't think you can immolate anyone with positive energy, positive energy is what fuels healing spells, turns undead and the like. Still if you could the answer would be " depends what your asking". See one of the nice things about Morality in D&D is that it is easier to do evil than good just like in real life. Channeling positive energy is a good act, it is always good no matter what, it litterally brings more life into the world, intentionally using that energy for an evil purpose would be a perversion of that and would be an additional evil ver and above the evil performed by the act itself.

Mercules
11-08-2007, 01:46 PM
Actually, on the Material plain I don't think you can immolate anyone with positive energy, positive energy is what fuels healing spells, turns undead and the like. Still if you could the answer would be " depends what your asking". See one of the nice things about Morality in D&D is that it is easier to do evil than good just like in real life. Channeling positive energy is a good act, it is always good no matter what, it litterally brings more life into the world, intentionally using that energy for an evil purpose would be a perversion of that and would be an additional evil ver and above the evil performed by the act itself.

You do see the irony in your statement considering what you have been arguing about channeling Negative Energy, yes? :D

Positive Energy is not life. It has the effect of making life more "healthy". Negative Energy is not death. It has the effect of making life less "healthy". Negative Energy could be used to promote life by selectively applying it to certain bacteria(which is life but is harmful to other life) or using it to weaken weeds to grow crops or even to destroy cancerous cells in the human body which is life out of control and harmful to the person that has it.

ahpook
11-08-2007, 02:08 PM
You do see the irony in your statement considering what you have been arguing about channeling Negative Energy, yes? :D

Positive Energy is not life. It has the effect of making life more "healthy". Negative Energy is not death. It has the effect of making life less "healthy". Negative Energy could be used to promote life by selectively applying it to certain bacteria(which is life but is harmful to other life) or using it to weaken weeds to grow crops or even to destroy cancerous cells in the human body which is life out of control and harmful to the person that has it.

I am with elthbert on this one. Negative Energy is evil. Its like the dark side of the force. You cannot tap into without supporting evil.

All the real world comparisons with guns etc are meaningless because in the real world we do not have access to evil or good energy sources. Guns are not evil (or good), only the use of it is evil is or good. This is not the same as negative energy in DnD which is evil by definition.

So good characters can never use it. Neutral characters can use it because they believe that both good and evil have a role in the world. The desired goals and outcome is completely immaterial in this case.

Elthbert
11-08-2007, 02:14 PM
You do see the irony in your statement considering what you have been arguing about channeling Negative Energy, yes? :D

Positive Energy is not life. It has the effect of making life more "healthy". Negative Energy is not death. It has the effect of making life less "healthy". Negative Energy could be used to promote life by selectively applying it to certain bacteria(which is life but is harmful to other life) or using it to weaken weeds to grow crops or even to destroy cancerous cells in the human body which is life out of control and harmful to the person that has it.

No I don't see any irony at all. Positive and negative energy are not vitamins and pesticide, they have a moral value independant of their use. Negative energy is in and of itself BAD. Channelling it is wrong, and no one should do it EVER! ( Like eating kittens!, a cookie if you get that referance) it's use is evil, plain and simple. Using it for an act with good reprecussions does not make it okay to use. It is vile and channelling it is accordingly a vile act. Once again, I am loath to give examples, but I am sure you can imagine something that is evil in and of itself, something that has no redeeming value. Even if that act was performed to do something else that was "good" that does not make the act itself okay, it does not mitigate the evil of the act at all. THus it is with the channelling of negative energy.

Mercules
11-08-2007, 02:29 PM
No I don't see any irony at all. Positive and negative energy are not vitamins and pesticide, they have a moral value independant of their use. Negative energy is in and of itself BAD. Channelling it is wrong, and no one should do it EVER! ( Like eating kittens!, a cookie if you get that referance) it's use is evil, plain and simple. Using it for an act with good reprecussions does not make it okay to use. It is vile and channelling it is accordingly a vile act. Once again, I am loath to give examples, but I am sure you can imagine something that is evil in and of itself, something that has no redeeming value. Even if that act was performed to do something else that was "good" that does not make the act itself okay, it does not mitigate the evil of the act at all. THus it is with the channelling of negative energy.

Ok.. invert your argument then.

Positive energy is in and of itself GOOD. Channeling it is right, and everyone should do it ALWAYS! It's use is good, plain and simple. Using it for an act with Evil repercussions does not make it wrong to use. It is wonderous and channeling it is accordingly a wonderous act. I am sure you can imagine something that is good in and of itself, something that has redeeming value. Even if that act was performed to do something else that was "evil" that does not make the act itself wrong, it does not mitigate the goof of the act at all. Thus it is with the channeling of positive energy.

Positive and Negative are opposite sides of the same coin. You can't apply rules to one side and NOT apply them to the other.

Mercules
11-08-2007, 02:34 PM
I am with elthbert on this one. Negative Energy is evil. Its like the dark side of the force. You cannot tap into without supporting evil.

All the real world comparisons with guns etc are meaningless because in the real world we do not have access to evil or good energy sources. Guns are not evil (or good), only the use of it is evil is or good. This is not the same as negative energy in DnD which is evil by definition.

So good characters can never use it. Neutral characters can use it because they believe that both good and evil have a role in the world. The desired goals and outcome is completely immaterial in this case.

There is a lot of argument about the Force comparison. Luke Skywalker tapped into the dark side numerous times and yet in the end everyone would consider him good(I am speaking of the novels). While the darkside can corrupt it doesn't have to. I also find it hard to believe that passionless acting is innately a "good" way to use an ability. While passion can lead one to misuse an ability I also believe that the emotional void most Jedi strive for is also a trap. Luke, Qui-Gon Jinn was known for his passion although he never let it get the better of him.

Elthbert
11-08-2007, 02:35 PM
Ok.. invert your argument then.

Positive energy is in and of itself GOOD. Channeling it is right, and everyone should do it ALWAYS! It's use is good, plain and simple. Using it for an act with Evil repercussions does not make it wrong to use. It is wonderous and channeling it is accordingly a wonderous act. I am sure you can imagine something that is good in and of itself, something that has redeeming value. Even if that act was performed to do something else that was "evil" that does not make the act itself wrong, it does not mitigate the goof of the act at all. Thus it is with the channeling of positive energy.

Positive and Negative are opposite sides of the same coin. You can't apply rules to one side and NOT apply them to the other.


I am not. That arguement holds water. Channeling Positive energy is good, channeling it and misusing it for evil is wrong becuase of the perverse nature of that, butthe channeling f the positive energy is indeed good, independant of whatever you do with the power.

Elthbert
11-08-2007, 02:37 PM
There is a lot of argument about the Force comparison. Luke Skywalker tapped into the dark side numerous times and yet in the end everyone would consider him good(I am speaking of the novels). While the darkside can corrupt it doesn't have to. I also find it hard to believe that passionless acting is innately a "good" way to use an ability. While passion can lead one to misuse an ability I also believe that the emotional void most Jedi strive for is also a trap. Luke, Qui-Gon Jinn was known for his passion although he never let it get the better of him.

Well I wouldn't probably choose the force as a comparison. But QUi-gon was not good, he was, I would argue, True neutral and was okay with doing evil things as long as things stayed in balance.

Mercules
11-08-2007, 03:13 PM
I am not. That arguement holds water. Channeling Positive energy is good, channeling it and misusing it for evil is wrong becuase of the perverse nature of that, butthe channeling f the positive energy is indeed good, independant of whatever you do with the power.

Thus... Channeling Negative energy is evil(because of some arbitrary rule), but using it for good is still right. Otherwise using Positive energy is right even when used for evil. You can't change your rules mid stream. Either the energy determines the morality of it and doing wrong with Positive is always good and doing right with Negative is always bad -=OR=- use the energy is put to modifies the morality of the energy. This applies equally to both sides of the equation or your argument is invalid.

You can't say Good is always Good but using it for wrong is wrong, but Bad is always Bad even when used for right.

Mercules
11-08-2007, 03:15 PM
Well I wouldn't probably choose the force as a comparison. But QUi-gon was not good, he was, I would argue, True neutral and was okay with doing evil things as long as things stayed in balance.

And?

In the end he supported the Republic and that governing body was mostly good. He also actively opposed evil(which you labeled as a good act).

Elthbert
11-08-2007, 03:32 PM
Thus... Channeling Negative energy is evil(because of some arbitrary rule), but using it for good is still right. Otherwise using Positive energy is right even when used for evil. You can't change your rules mid stream. Either the energy determines the morality of it and doing wrong with Positive is always good and doing right with Negative is always bad -=OR=- use the energy is put to modifies the morality of the energy. This applies equally to both sides of the equation or your argument is invalid.

You can't say Good is always Good but using it for wrong is wrong, but Bad is always Bad even when used for right.




Sure you can. Doing inherently evil things is wrong no matter what. Doing something that is good but using in it for evil is also wrong. Being good is harder than being evil, to be a good person you have to do good things with good intentions, for good causes. It is a hard standard, but thats the way it is.

Mercules
11-08-2007, 03:53 PM
Sure you can. Doing inherently evil things is wrong no matter what. Doing something that is good but using in it for evil is also wrong. Being good is harder than being evil, to be a good person you have to do good things with good intentions, for good causes. It is a hard standard, but thats the way it is.

Nobody is talking about being a "good person". We are talking about morality. The two are NOT the same thing.

Saying something is inherently a subjectively defined quality is a naive view. Even in D&D there are "evil" races that have good individuals among them and "good" races that have evil individuals among them. Dwarves are usually LG but CE individuals exist. The writers were hypocritical to state the Channeling Negative energy is ALWAYS evil when killing sentient beings can be good. :confused:

They define Good and Evil based off of motives and actions but then go on to say no matter what your motive, this is wrong. :confused:

GramercyRiff
11-08-2007, 04:42 PM
Has anyone found that Turn Undead is off by 2 on the turning check when referencing the Turn Undead chart in the SRD?

Elthbert
11-08-2007, 04:50 PM
Nobody is talking about being a "good person". We are talking about morality. The two are NOT the same thing.

Saying something is inherently a subjectively defined quality is a naive view. Even in D&D there are "evil" races that have good individuals among them and "good" races that have evil individuals among them. Dwarves are usually LG but CE individuals exist. The writers were hypocritical to state the Channeling Negative energy is ALWAYS evil when killing sentient beings can be good. :confused:

They define Good and Evil based off of motives and actions but then go on to say no matter what your motive, this is wrong. :confused:

But in D&D Evil is not subjectively defined, evil is a real thing, it has form in a way. And just as a note, virtually all systems of morality concede that there are situations that killing sapiant creatures is good. If you eat hamburger you are killing a sentiant creature, you mean a sapiant creature.

MrCow
11-08-2007, 05:51 PM
Has anyone found that Turn Undead is off by 2 on the turning check when referencing the Turn Undead chart in the SRD?

Did you factor your CHA into the turning check part of the turning table?

If you could be more clear on what you mean by "off by 2" I would be willing to test it.

GramercyRiff
11-08-2007, 06:19 PM
Did you factor your CHA into the turning check part of the turning table?

If you could be more clear on what you mean by "off by 2" I would be willing to test it.

For instance, it'll say in the combat log you roll a 16 for your turning check. When you consult the SRD turning table you get cleric level +2. This means that without gear or feats/enhancements at level 14 you'd turn as a 16th level cleric, turning up to a maximum of 16 HD.

EDIT (corrected actual scenario): (Combat): You roll to see how effective your turn undead is. You roll a 13 : you hit foes up to 15 hit dice. The cleric was level 8, has a sacred item as well as Improved Turning and Cleric Improved Turning enhancement. So cleric level 8 + 2 (sacred) + 1 (imp turning) +1 (cleric imp turning enhancement) +1 (rolled a 13 on the table) = 13 effective cleric level, yet the result in the combat log is 15. The apparently phantom extra 2 HD is constant up and down the table no matter what you roll.

Here is a link to the turn undead table.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#turnOrRebukeUndead

MrCow
11-08-2007, 10:09 PM
GramercyRiff, you aren't factoring in your CHA to alter how your turning roll works in the table.

If you keep getting a "mysterious +2 to turns" then I'm guessing you have... 22 CHA? Pretty much, the table makes every +1 CHA modifier scale up by one on that dice roll (or down if you have negative CHA) and this modifier doesn't get reflected in the combat log.

Based on your example this is what your turning check would look like if the CHA was properly in the combat log:


(Combat): You roll to see how effective your turn undead is. You roll a 13 + 6 (19) : you hit foes up to 15 hit dice.

So cleric level 8
2 (sacred)
1 (imp turning)
1 (cleric imp turning enhancement)
3 (rolled a 19 on the table) = 15 effective cleric level.

GramercyRiff
11-08-2007, 10:53 PM
GramercyRiff, you aren't factoring in your CHA to alter how your turning roll works in the table.

If you keep getting a "mysterious +2 to turns" then I'm guessing you have... 22 CHA? Pretty much, the table makes every +1 CHA modifier scale up by one on that dice roll (or down if you have negative CHA) and this modifier doesn't get reflected in the combat log.

Based on your example this is what your turning check would look like if the CHA was properly in the combat log:

The cleric in question has a 26 CHA. But it stills works as it'd be 13 + 8 = 21 which is still +3 cleric level. The red flag shoulda gone up when we rolled under the cleric's actual CHA mod, but alas, it did not. Thanks for the help.

Mercules
11-09-2007, 08:13 AM
But in D&D Evil is not subjectively defined, evil is a real thing, it has form in a way. And just as a note, virtually all systems of morality concede that there are situations that killing sapiant creatures is good. If you eat hamburger you are killing a sentiant creature, you mean a sapiant creature.

GOOD VS. EVIL

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

This is subjective and the definition of Good and Evil alignments from the same book. If it wasn't a subjective system words and phrases like "implies", "usually", "can be" wouldn't be used so much. You own statement that systems of morality concede that there are times when, killing is (you said good I wouldn't say that) not evil, is subjective.

"This is wrong, except in this exception." is subjective as we then end up deciding if that exception applies. "It's wrong to kill people, unless you are protecting yourself or someone innocent." Great rule, but deciding if you are actually protecting yourself is subjective. Is a preemptive strike on another group's homeland "protecting yourself or someone innocent"? In most cases no, but if we discovered they were going to strike at us in a way that we would be unable to protect ourselves or others then maybe the "good" course would be to remove that ability and strike first.

What if I defend myself but am much better trained than my opponent and harm him? Should I have tried to do something that would neutralize his ability to hurt me and not hurt him because with my skill making it possible, even if it might not protect me? Or should I have used a technique that assures he will not hurt me, but will end up hurting him? Which is the "good" choice. This becomes a judgment call, and is something courts struggle with when a combat trained person ends up being assaulted by an untrained person and the untrained person gets hurt.

If, as a NG character I summon a Demon to gather information from it and do so only because I know I am strong enough to control it, intelligent enough to see through its tricks, and wise enough to avoid its temptations, am I doing an evil act? Yes and no. In the end, if best source for that information was demonic and it served to help the innocent then it was a good act and sacrifice, even if summoning a demon is an evil act.

I agree that the end result is not all you have to look at. You do have to look at how they got there. However, you also need to look at what means they had. If the only way a Neutral Cleric could preform this good act was to channel Negative energy and that good act accomplished more good than the channeling did harm then it was a good act. Now if he had a spell loaded that didn't call upon Negative energy but decided to go the channeling route anyway, well, then it wasn't very good.


Oh, and I meant sentient, that would be why I said it. Sapient more or less means "wise" and I would hesitate to apply that term to human beings in general.

Talon_Moonshadow
11-09-2007, 01:11 PM
I think we all know what is good and what is evil (sorta anyway).
But this original argument had to do with a NEUTRAL cleric using negative energy to command undead in DDO.

Soo.....what is neutral?
Not animal neutral.....that is more like no alignment at all.
Human neutral.
What is a neutral human? What do they think is ok?
Well.....actually I should not even ask, because I know this has been debated in D&D for years with no real good answer IMO.

But I would argue that a neutral cleric can use negative(evil) energy in a way that might not actually be evil.

stonecircle
11-09-2007, 08:52 PM
On my pally I can turn 22-23 HD stuff on elite(depending on Chr). Some seem immune or extra saves, like the wraith lords in Orchard and arent affected despite the die roll. I have the eternal gloves, seriphim, and improved turning 3 enhancement. Plus 7Chr bonus (most of time) They all seem to stack, based on the math formula given in the tooltip in game for turning. Turning isnt broke but you need to invest in it.

I think cleric turns should be based off wisdom but I cant complain as pally. The Charisma bonus is essential to get your turn level high enough for stronger foes.

I have noticed however that I cannot "destroy" creatures half my turn level. That math is off somehow or the enhancements dont add to this. Ill have to try on some level 3's or something and see.

Elthbert
11-09-2007, 11:05 PM
GOOD VS. EVIL

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

This is subjective and the definition of Good and Evil alignments from the same book. If it wasn't a subjective system words and phrases like "implies", "usually", "can be" wouldn't be used so much. You own statement that systems of morality concede that there are times when, killing is (you said good I wouldn't say that) not evil, is subjective.

"This is wrong, except in this exception." is subjective as we then end up deciding if that exception applies. "It's wrong to kill people, unless you are protecting yourself or someone innocent." Great rule, but deciding if you are actually protecting yourself is subjective. Is a preemptive strike on another group's homeland "protecting yourself or someone innocent"? In most cases no, but if we discovered they were going to strike at us in a way that we would be unable to protect ourselves or others then maybe the "good" course would be to remove that ability and strike first.

What if I defend myself but am much better trained than my opponent and harm him? Should I have tried to do something that would neutralize his ability to hurt me and not hurt him because with my skill making it possible, even if it might not protect me? Or should I have used a technique that assures he will not hurt me, but will end up hurting him? Which is the "good" choice. This becomes a judgment call, and is something courts struggle with when a combat trained person ends up being assaulted by an untrained person and the untrained person gets hurt.

If, as a NG character I summon a Demon to gather information from it and do so only because I know I am strong enough to control it, intelligent enough to see through its tricks, and wise enough to avoid its temptations, am I doing an evil act? Yes and no. In the end, if best source for that information was demonic and it served to help the innocent then it was a good act and sacrifice, even if summoning a demon is an evil act.

I agree that the end result is not all you have to look at. You do have to look at how they got there. However, you also need to look at what means they had. If the only way a Neutral Cleric could preform this good act was to channel Negative energy and that good act accomplished more good than the channeling did harm then it was a good act. Now if he had a spell loaded that didn't call upon Negative energy but decided to go the channeling route anyway, well, then it wasn't very good.


Oh, and I meant sentient, that would be why I said it. Sapient more or less means "wise" and I would hesitate to apply that term to human beings in general.

I will respond to this but I can't right now, just didn't want you to think I was bowing out.:D