Antimagic field wouldn't remove the aura, but it would definitely suppress it as long as the BG remains in the field. Supernatural effect and all. But on Amia, beholder antimagic works like a disjunction anyway, so mechanically you'd have to accept that the beholder cones remove it (until you re-initiate it). P&P-wise the aura would reactivate as soon as the central eye closed or the beholder was killed, so I guess the BG's aura would be active by the "always on" rule, even if it wasn't having a mechanical effect.

I guess the same could apply to dispel: It removes the mechanical effect (because the NWN engine is a troll) but it's still there.

_________________
@Thanatopsis#6293

Solution: Make the blackguard Aura of Despair widget infinite uses per day.

_________________
Sion of Nimlith
Shadow Disciple

Here's two (probably irreverent but still with respect) cents from me, even if you didn't want it. although it is likely unneeded or functionally silly of me to post.

From d20srd.org:

Supernatural Abilities (Su)
Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks. Unless otherwise noted, a supernatural ability has an effective caster level equal to the creature’s Hit Dice.

I have emphasized the appropriate portions.

While yes, "absence of proof is not proof of absence", I will not walk into a burger place and insist they give me waffles because they can't prove they're not on the menu. That's asking for proof of a negative which simply can't be done.

I haven't bothered to post the Spell-Like Abilities text (as it is referenced by the Supernatural Abilities text) because that's too long. But go look it up if you like. Either way, neither of the definitions give any option for "always on". In fact, the options given are "Use limit or usable at will". It is also distinctly noted that using it requires a standard action. Always-on would mean never having to use it in the first place.

It kind of boils down to always-on being simply contradictory of the language in the definition of a supernatural ability. I've tried again and again to find anything in the rules that would support an 'always-on' status, but at the moment the only 'support' I can find for that exists solely in this thread. Please correct me if there is any real textual support from any source material I'm not aware of aside from D&D's Rule Zero (The DM may make house rules).

TL:DR version: In the definition provided, we are given Choice A or Choice B (unlimited use or usable at will). There is no option given for Choice C (Always-on). Always-on, under the given definition, has as much support under the definition as "Only on Tuesday" (See: Flying Spaghetti Monster). Hence, the interpretation is a House Rule.

Note: I'm not intending this to be a personal attack on anyone, merely a reasoned disagreement with cited sources. If the DM says it's so, it's so (see: House Rule), but that doesn't mean I have to agree- only go along with the ruling.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

If a Blackguard's aura is (Su), then yes, that's how it works. If it is a class feature like monsters have, such as a lich's aura, then it works as I described. Alternatively, it works as I described if the Blackguard is balls to the wall awesome and better than all other Blackguards.

This is why I love the DMs here.

And I'm pretty much cool with whatever the ruling happens to be, it was just requested that I voice the dissent after a discussion with a friend. So no disrespect intended. I don't even have a blackguard.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

Here we go:
Divine Grace (Su): Always on
Aura of Courage (Su): Always on unless the character is unconscious or dead
Diamond Body (Su): Always on
Dark Blessing (Su): Always on

You seem to have ignored the "Unless otherwise noted" and the "May"



The actual wording, supports Ainjylls assertion that the AoD is always on, because it is simply worded in that fashion. It doesn't say, "Beginning at third level, the blackguard can/may/has the option of radiating a malign aura" its states rather specifically that "the blackguard radiates a malign aura. . .".

Other examples would be that all Psionic feats regardless of what they do are considered Supernatural so feats like Improved Metapsionics, Narrow Mind and Combat Manifestation are always considered on, even if the effect is related to circumstance.

I don't actually mind either way, but in all the campaigns I've played, not a single DM has ever asked "Do you want to turn your AoD on"

_________________
I play: Gage le Gris
Socially and recently politically Inept Knight of Xymor

I guess it boils down to fairness: it doesn't say that it can't be turned off, but neither does it say anyone can feel its effects. It seems fair to either stick to the letter and assert nothing more, or to give both sides the benefit of the doubt. If you want the interpretation that people "feel bad" around the aura and can sense the save penalty, then it's reasonable that you also acknowledge the possibility of restraining this malign power. If you don't insist that it can be sensed, then I suppose the issue of turning it off is trivial.

It must be noted that even now, mechanically in game and in the PnP rules, it can be turned off in a way: it only applies to enemies. NWN recognizes friendly, neutral and hostile PvP relations. People in the former two shouldn't feel a thing. And it seems quite reasonable that the Blackguard is free to determine who are his enemies and who he directs his dark powers of despair towards. Just because a kid throws a rotten tomato at you on the street doesn't mean your aura automatically kicks into play (though I imagine you might turn to scare them).

Yoss has the opposite interpretation on "enemy." I don't know which is better. It seems strange that the aura would be out of the blackguard's control, since the actual way it works would probably have to do with acting ominous and badass and staring with your cold eyes or whatever. If you're dressed up as a granny selling apples, I don't see how you can be very threathening or cause despair. Sure, it's ultimately a supernatural ability, but magic without any physical manifestation is rather lame.

If we're thinking about the meaning of "enemy" further, I would almost say that it requires mutual consent. Two people can be enemies, but it's highly unconventional (and thus perhaps contrary to the word's meaning) to say "he is my enemy but I'm not his enemy." Then again, this opens up issues about sneak attacks made on unaware targets, but the same applies to Yossarin's suggestion. And mine, in the case the Blackguard is the target. I don't mean to take it that far, but simply investigate what's a reasonable definition of "enemy." All this is irrelevant if we concede that you can't identify a Blackguard just by "feeling his aura", though.

_________________

You mean the "unless otherwise noted" in:

?

That has nothing to do with the discussion- it's part of a different statement entirely.

As for the "may" in:

I didn't ignore it and in fact addressed it. To whit:


To use the same example as before, you walk into a burger place and they can tell you that you may order a burger or a taco. But you order a waffle because they said 'may'. The option wasn't given, you simply chose to define 'may' in a way that allows you to presuppose additional choices not listed even when there is no textual support for those choices within the statement.

Here's the thing- and I know this is where the weak point of my argument is- there's nothing in the description of any of those that states that they're always on. I think the people writing the descriptions simply assumed that these are wholly beneficial and you'd never want to turn them off anyway, hence the thought of noting "Usable at will" never entered their mind. An understandable oversight if that's the case, but it just as well might not be.

For example:

It never actually states that it's 'always on', and the only thing I actually have that I can go off of is that little (Su). Now, I'm no expert. I simply read the rules as written and interpret as best I can. Hence, after reading the text for Supernatural Abilities, the only options I can find are "Usable at will" and "Use limit". Since "Always on" is never mentioned once in the text, I tend to give more weight to the only options actually presented until such time as another option is presented with a textual source. If there's some place that actually does say "always on", then I'm more than happy to concede the point entirely.

On the other hand, Diamond Body is indeed a 'class feature' like Yoss mentioned, and a Blackguard's aura probably is as well. While the evidence for 'always on' is circumstantial at best without a textual source, there's no rule that circumstantial evidence is invalid. Hence, there does seem to be a significant implied possibility of "always on". NWN may simply have an engine limitation that requires the actual application of the aura for what it does and can't have it constantly active.

So really, there's support for it to go either way. I personally like to lean towards having a blackguard be able to deactivate the aura, but that's mostly personal bias against spells showing your alignment or class- I think it's getting way too close to metagaming and is just asking for trouble.

Additionally, as to:

This is actually your best argument, though it is slightly underdeveloped. But the point is solid- the game designers seem to be vary particular about including "may", "can", and "has the option to" in feats and abilities when it's called for. For example:




Hence, it can be circumstantially inferred that if a Blackguard's AoD was not "always on", there would be some sort of indication that it could be activated when the Blackguard chooses. Frankly, it's a very strong piece of circumstantial evidence and I actually tend to agree with the inferred statement.

Nothing more to add, really, I think there's plenty of support for the present interpretation as well as good support for the other, should it ever be changed. Good discussion.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

Why does the Aura have to have a visual effect (the red dotted circle line)?

I think it resembles the presence of a Blackguard. Same as aura of fear around dragon, for example. These things are so strong they are almost touchable, and thus visible IG. Same as dragon is fearful to a sight, Blackguard makes one quite uncomfortable when close.

_________________
Mercadier - *sleeps six feet under the warm sands of Khem*
Alex - Life is adventure or nothing!
Eddie - Sex, drugs and rock'n... more sex.
=========
Obsidian (inactive)

Well, the DM posts in this topic seem to say otherwise.

The Paladins Aura of Glory doesn't have a visual effect, and that is strong enough to be felt.

I'm wondering why the Blackguard aura has to have that visual effect that everyone can see, if there is an actual reason that it does, not why you think it might.

Probably to help the Blackguard's player out so they know the extent of their aura would be my guess. I don't think there is an actual reason, no.

Having that visual indicator is a godsend for RP purposes and I wouldn't mind if the paladin aura had a matching ring.

If you've got the aura kicking and I see myself within that red dotted circle, I know to change how I'm RPing. If we're non-hostile to each other, I don't see the effects on the status bar so wouldn't have any indication that I should be under the influence of said malign aura.

_________________

A shame I have had quite some players shuffling out of the big red dotted circle surrounding my blackguard or trying to stay out of it before they ever got into it.

Anyone who has seen Schindler's List has a good example of one take on a blackguard in the camp commander Amon Goeth.
Charming and charismatic to those he he wants and cold dread inducing to those who are his enemies, just watch the scene where Goeth rants at his maid making her shake in abject terror without raising his voice or hand.

I think the way that DMs & players handle extremes of good and evil need careful study without resorting to just anecdotal evidence or the poorly written 3.0 series of books.

More to follow on this once out of work!

_________________
Æ special character = ALT+0198

Party chat filtered, RP or it didn’t happen

Something interesting came to mind.

The entry in the 3.5 DMG says the requirement for Blackguard is, "Peaceful contact with a summoned evil outsider" (paraphrased). Does this mean that evil outsider PCs could theoretically broker the deal? For example, an evil tiefling, or an evil genasi... I'm doubting it, because if the outsider channels the power on behalf of a more powerful divine entity or powers the BG directly, I don't think it's the sort of power a PC has. That and they're native outsiders, so, banishability aside, different kettle of fish compared to fiends and such. That, and they can't fulfill the "summoned" requirement, presumably.

A more realistic and interesting question, then: would an efreet be able to do it? It seems by rules-as-written they could, and it definitely seems like the sort of thing an evil genie would do...

_________________
@Thanatopsis#6293

I would love to play it if it was like this <_< *cough*

_________________
Earylith Ju'ein- ”Never let your guard down around dhaerow, their natural impulse is to kill you”

L'chuno d'Vilrath- ”Usstan orn xun jal dos quarth ilharess”

Absolutely. People just tend to read "evil outsider" as tanar'ri or baatezu, but yugoloths, night hags, rakshasa and evil elementals seem just as viable. Or evil planar dragons, if there are any.

If I were to be a rules lawyer and read the prerequisite pedantically, anything that was evil, outsider and summoned (perhaps with just a letter?) would fulfill the requirement. Nowhere in the Blackguard entry is it actually said that the outsider you make contact with grants you any powers or brokers any sort of a deal. But Amia has traditionally accepted the interpretation that some kind of a deal or transfer of power is involved, and that's probably how it's meant to be read. But I'm generally wary about making too restrictive claims about Blackguard requirements because the book simply doesn't say much.

_________________

Okay... here's the way I've always looked at it: Becoming a Blackguard requires contact with an evil outsider... because no mention is made of a specific type of outsider, any evil outsider will do. The concept of a deal, pact or contract is more to reference the tit-for-tat that seems to saturate most stories of mankind's dealings with evil spirits, though I suppose in some instances an evil outsider could just give the power away for the sheer sake of causing mischief that might further their prerogatives. Though, I really think that the latter form of deal should be left to the purview of the DM's.

There are several evil native outsiders running around Amia (some more than others) and as far as I'm concerned, they shouldn't be making any types of BG pacts. That comes dangerously close to interpretation of the god's will and the will of the god's is the strict area of DMs alone.

_________________


"I once took the high road and it took me straight to hell and I stood there all by myself." -Hank III

I've always wondered if it's possible for an FR (not necessarily Amia-specific) blackguard to serve a non-evil deity, e. g. Kelemvor or even Mystra (since NG Midnight accepts LE worshippers inherited from LN Mystra) and what sort of "peaceful contact" with an evil outsider must a blackguard-to-be have (friendly chat with a baatezu over a cup of tea possibly qualifies... ).

To be noted, it's explicitly stated in FRCS (page 23) that one cannot become a blackguard without serving a deific power: "It is simply impossible for a person to gain divine powers (such as divine spells) without [patron deity]". So I doubt that one can become a blackguard by means of simple faustian pact with a random lesser fiend. Disclaimer: I do not dispute traditional Amian interpretation, and if I decide to roll a blackguard, I'll follow established traditions.

And one more question: what does distinguish blackguard of <insert_deity_name_here> from evil cleric of the same deity outside of game mechanics? I mean, the very first sentence of class description states: "The blackguard epitomizes evil". One conclusion I made from this topic is that paladins have paladin-specific code of conduct in addition to their deity's dogma. But what about blackguards? Are they generally "more evil" than average evil cleric?

I'll really appreciate any clarifications.

P. S. English isn't my first language, so there may be some mistakes above. I apologize.

_________________
«I always play fair. Exactly as fair as my opponents.»
Mara Jade

The FRCS is somewhat inaccurate on the matter of divine magic. It's a distinction to Greyhawk, where clerics can get spells from ideals. You do need someone to give you spells, but not necessarily a deity. Many powerful outsiders could do it. There are demon and devil cults, and the Lords of the Nine are quite comparable to gods in power. But they're not gods. No, I don't think just any random evil outsider (like a homeless thief from another Prime Material) would do. But the required "power level" isn't specified anywhere. I would put beings like Efreeti, Rakshasa, Succubi and planar dragons as possible patrons, whereas Imps probably wouldn't be appropriate.

There's a very recent topic about Blackguards of Kelemvor here. The general consensus would be that it depends on the deity. Kelemvor probably doesn't have the kind of evil servants who could broker the deal and wouldn't approve the skill set anyway, whereas someone like Hoar or Garagos might be less of a problem. And that only applies to getting spells from the god; you could very well be a lay worshiper of just about any god and a blackguard to some independent fiend, but there's no guarantee your afterlife will be pleasant.

_________________

IronAngel, thank you for your explanation.

_________________
«I always play fair. Exactly as fair as my opponents.»
Mara Jade

I apologise if this is not the place to do it, but I figured it was my best shot asking here anyway. I'm trying to build up a concept that will be using epic fiend, lore wise Arcanaloths best fit it but I'm having a hard time envisioning howy RP would look without seeing what the Amia Arcanloth minion looks like in game. If its possible could someone PM me a screenshot of one, I'd very much appreciate it.

_________________

_________________

"Let's unwrite these pages and replace them with our own words."

Thanks Sune, I had visions that you might use the female wolf rakasha model so this has definately cleared some things up. Just out of curiousity does the summon itself use a crossbow? What I've read of arcanaloths is if they resort to physical combat they would do so using their posioned claws. Secondly without trying to go too off topic, are the epic fiendish servants able to undergo custom skin changes akin to the mummy dusts/druid companions?

_________________