Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

johnlocke90's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,611 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,611 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Unfortunately, the rules just flat out contradict on this. There is no RAW answer. Which leaves with trying to determine intent. I think that it can be parried. Two reasons.

1. Under critical hits, it says "When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class". This suggests that the autosuccess is targeted at AC specifically.

2. The natural 20 doesn't allow you to overcome concealment, so its not a "you hit regardless of circumstance" thing. This backs up that autohit is aimed at AC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mysterious Avenger's Greater Charmed Life doesn't specify a duration. How long is the charisma to AC bonus is supposed to last?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/swashbuckler/archetypes/paiz o---swashbuckler-archetypes/mysterious-avenger


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
GM Rednal wrote:

As a GM, I appreciate limits on casters running amok.

I would also like to remind players of the kinds of things GMs like me could do to you if enemy casters were allowed to hide stuff from you as effectively as some of you want to hide stuff from them. o wo Boy, wouldn't it SUCK to charge into a boss fight and get told that invisible casters had secretly stacked a ton of debuffs on you without you noticing?

That is how many GMs play casters already.

Despite what the FAQ says, a lot of the monsters that hide among humanity sure look like they should be secretly casting charm spells and spell like abilities(Succubus for instance).

The succubus charming an NPC doesn't work as well if flashy glowing lights appear around her.

Actually it does... if the NPC fails their save. And many NPCs aren't going to have the protections that player characters load up on.
James Jacob said otherwise. Even if the NPC fails its save, it still knows that something was attacking its mind. The Succubus does get a bluff check, but the specifics of the manifestation would matter here.
You're being dangerously incomplete. He said that the target may know, but the spell/effect changes it's mindset so that it does not care... at least until said effect wears off.

Yes, I didn't men to be incomplete. For Charm Person, they wouldn't care until it wears off. But stuff like Detect Thoughts they will still care though.

Another interesting area is Detect Evil. Its common for players to spam it, but depending on the emanation that could terrify the locals.


Snowblind wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
GM Rednal wrote:

As a GM, I appreciate limits on casters running amok.

I would also like to remind players of the kinds of things GMs like me could do to you if enemy casters were allowed to hide stuff from you as effectively as some of you want to hide stuff from them. o wo Boy, wouldn't it SUCK to charge into a boss fight and get told that invisible casters had secretly stacked a ton of debuffs on you without you noticing?

You mean like the way most people used to play?

Though I don't think the FAQ touches on whether you know you've been hit with debuffs. I suppose it depends on the spell, but most seem like they'd be obvious.

Or were GMs really telling their players "There's someone you can't see casting a spell silently over on the other side of the room."

According to Jacobs, you always know if you attempt to make a save(barring one specific feat).I don't know if a FAQ says this though.

James Jacobs is not a rules person.

Let me repeat that.

James Jacobs is not a rules person.

Seriously, he routinely gives out information which is blatantly and demonstrably false, and if others correct him then he will criticize them for bringing up pedantry. James is a setting information source, not a rules source, because he just doesn't appear to give a damn about getting the rules right. He is a terrible person to be asking hard rules questions to.

Well can you point to another dev or a text source that contradicts what he has said?

What I have said is all pretty vague on whether or not someone who fails his save notices that he had to make a save.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
GM Rednal wrote:

As a GM, I appreciate limits on casters running amok.

I would also like to remind players of the kinds of things GMs like me could do to you if enemy casters were allowed to hide stuff from you as effectively as some of you want to hide stuff from them. o wo Boy, wouldn't it SUCK to charge into a boss fight and get told that invisible casters had secretly stacked a ton of debuffs on you without you noticing?

That is how many GMs play casters already.

Despite what the FAQ says, a lot of the monsters that hide among humanity sure look like they should be secretly casting charm spells and spell like abilities(Succubus for instance).

The succubus charming an NPC doesn't work as well if flashy glowing lights appear around her.

Actually it does... if the NPC fails their save. And many NPCs aren't going to have the protections that player characters load up on.

James Jacob said otherwise. Even if the NPC fails its save, it still knows that something was attacking its mind. The Succubus does get a bluff check, but the specifics of the manifestation would matter here.


CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Or were GMs really telling their players "There's someone you can't see casting a spell silently over on the other side of the room."

I don't tell my players that now... because I don't believe that's how it works.

Rather, "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast". If you can't see the caster... then you can't see the spell they are casting.

Just think of it like weapon attacks. If you could see someone attacking you with a weapon then you can see that same person casting a spell. Too far away / too much concealment to locate who fired that arrow? Then you aren't going to spot a spell being cast from that location either.

That all depends on the specifics of the manifestations. If Charm Person involved blinking lights around the target, then you could spot the spell without spotting the caster.


thejeff wrote:
GM Rednal wrote:

As a GM, I appreciate limits on casters running amok.

I would also like to remind players of the kinds of things GMs like me could do to you if enemy casters were allowed to hide stuff from you as effectively as some of you want to hide stuff from them. o wo Boy, wouldn't it SUCK to charge into a boss fight and get told that invisible casters had secretly stacked a ton of debuffs on you without you noticing?

You mean like the way most people used to play?

Though I don't think the FAQ touches on whether you know you've been hit with debuffs. I suppose it depends on the spell, but most seem like they'd be obvious.

Or were GMs really telling their players "There's someone you can't see casting a spell silently over on the other side of the room."

According to Jacobs, you always know if you attempt to make a save(barring one specific feat).I don't know if a FAQ says this though.


GM Rednal wrote:

As a GM, I appreciate limits on casters running amok.

I would also like to remind players of the kinds of things GMs like me could do to you if enemy casters were allowed to hide stuff from you as effectively as some of you want to hide stuff from them. o wo Boy, wouldn't it SUCK to charge into a boss fight and get told that invisible casters had secretly stacked a ton of debuffs on you without you noticing?

That is how many GMs play casters already.

Despite what the FAQ says, a lot of the monsters that hide among humanity sure look like they should be secretly casting charm spells and spell like abilities(Succubus for instance).

The succubus charming an NPC doesn't work as well if flashy glowing lights appear around her.


Thanael wrote:

Incidentally i've just recently started rereading the awesome epic fantastic D&D 3e fanfic/campaign log Tales of Wyre on ENWorld where they do this on page 2, to a Balor. Lets just say things get worse from there... Though not necessarily due to that ploy. I do not remember anymore if the Balor escapes or is freed. But his master sure is pissed about that.

(Todd do you know that one?)

The good thing about the soul gem strategy is the enemy can't escape or be freed. Its soul gets permanently destroyed when you use it as a spell component.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
deuxhero wrote:

Racism is clearly neutral or good.

See how all the deities of race are either neutral or good, even if their race has no "common" alignment, except for the ones where the entire race is always evil.

Thats a good point. Aroden was the god of humanity and he was lawful neutral. Angradd mostly cares about dwarves and he is lawful good.

Caring about your own kind isn't being racist.

Putting down everyone that isn't your own kind for the sole reason that they aren't your own kind, IS being racist.

The two are not equivalent.

That certainly isn't how racism is interpreted IRL. A group or organization that dedicated itself to helping whites would definitely be viewed as racists.


deuxhero wrote:

Racism is clearly neutral or good.

See how all the deities of race are either neutral or good, even if their race has no "common" alignment, except for the ones where the entire race is always evil.

Thats a good point. Aroden was the god of humanity and he was lawful neutral. Angradd mostly cares about dwarves and he is lawful good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Rysky wrote:

There's no point to this. I haven't done anything like that.

I'm done.

I can quote you saying unholy water is evil aligned. That is no different than me saying "scimitars are good aligned". So, yes, you have.

(Feel better after I've slept)

Unholy water is evil, you analogy is just plain stupid.

If this is so obvious, you should be able to cite that in the text.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:

Are we arguing that unholy water isn't evil aligned? It's unholy.

The semantics people go to in this game.

How about find me one example were unholy anything else isn't evil aligned? Or holy isn't good aligned? The evidence (and common sense) tells us the burden of proof is to prove that some how in some way unlock water is somehow different from every other unholy thing in the game.

Plenty of people argue that inflict light wounds is "obviously" evil, even though its not.

You need more than that to demonstrate something is actually inherently evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Um, yes they are.

Holy water hurts undead (something positive energy does) and evil outsiders (something positive energy doesn't do) and it's made by a Good Aligned spell.

Unholy water hurts Good outsiders (something negative does) but nothing else (something negative energy doesn't do) and is made by an Evil Aligned spell.

Find one line of text that states "The outcome of an aligned spell is aligned, on top of casting the spell which is an aligned action" or "holy water is good/unholy water is evil". Or are you trying to argue your table rules?

-_-

Find me one of text that says they aren't.

And having everything I mention dismissed as "house rules" is going oust simply annoying.

Then stop arguing house rules as fact? That would make things much simpler for me as well.

I already showed where positive energy is not good aligned. You can check the Pathfinder cosmology if you want, the positive plane is not good aligned. This holds true for the opposite negative energy, it is not evil. Nothing in the spell says they are good or evil, nothing in the item descriptions say they are good or evil...

Basically, you are arguing that "if it doesn't say it isn't x, I can say it is x and then it is fact". In other words, "all barbarians gain a fly speed because no book says they do not gain a fly speed" can be true because no book says they don't gain a fly speed. Which is a bad argument and if you say all barbarians fly that is a definite house rule.

They are NOT house rules, they are, to me, the rules. Not s%$~ that I've made up.

There's no point in talking with you anymore, you're not going to change your mind, I'm not going to change my mind, and I have other things I rather do than sit here and be insulted.

If you can't cite text supporting it, then they are house rules you made up.


zainale wrote:
hand crossbow and repeating crossbow. basically a crossbow pump shotgun for a world where guns don't exist but alchemists and grenades do. would love it if my DM allowed pistols. trying to cobble together an combat/field operative. it needs a ranged weapon.

You can already get reloading a light crossbow as a free action with rapid reload and a regular crossbow with Crossbow Mastery.

Crossbows suck though unless you are a Bolt Ace.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

One of the big problems in Golarian is that killing chaotic evil people just leads their souls to the abyss where they become food for demons. Which just makes team evil stronger.

That got me thinking, why not use soul gems to trap and then destroy the chaotic evil souls(by using them as crafting materials for instance)? Seems like the logical alternative.

This sounds like the kind of twisted logic Asmodeus would utilise to conquer the Abyss.

You can apply the logic to lawful evil people too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbral Reaver wrote:

This sounds like a job for self-replicating berserker probes.

Souleater probes are intelligent, magic-using machines with the following directive:

Reduce the number of evil souls in existence to zero.

The Souleaters are capable of using magic and as ageless beings that can traverse the universe, they have plenty of time to duplicate themselves and become more powerful. Any time a Souleater gains experience, that knowledge is copied amongst all other Souleaters. Eventually, there will be more stupidly high level wizard machines in the universe than any other kind of being. Surely, that is enough to complete their task. Using up soulgems as material components to build more Souleaters is ideal but not necessary. Most of them will probably be built out of dismantled star systems.

To be absolutely certain that evil souls do not spontaneously arise, it's best that they convert all available matter and energy across all planes into Souleaters.

This might be a bigger problem than all evil.

Better versioN: souleater probes use the evil soul gems themselves to build more souleater probes. That way they aren't destroying starsystems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I didn't intend to suggest I would starve the entire abyss alone. More like a side job I do during normal adventuring.

Like "Oh, we just killed the Chaotic Evil BBG, lets soul gem and destroy his soul instead of it going to the Abyss".


Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

The exact number doesn't matter. Protection From Evil/Good/Law/Chaos are 1st level spell with no cost associated. If a 5th wizard has a free week he can cast it 50+ times.

All he really needs to know is an order of magnitude. IE If casting 10 good spells is generally enough, then he can cast 50 and be pretty sure his alignment has shifted(verified by someone with detect good ideally).

Incidently, this is how a lot of real life science is done. Data has noise and uncertainty, but you can compensate through probabilistic analysis.

Not when there is this many variables, and no controls.

You're assuming the caster in question would be comepletely detached and conservative with how they went about changing their personality and mindset, when that's contradictory in and of itself right there.

Obviously a full study would have to be more rigorous. The goal here is to minimize change to personality in mindset.

You could view evil spells like addictive drug use. That also alters a persons mindset, but thanks to careful research and proper prescriptions millions of people are able to take the drugs without being addicted.

The way to minimize change would be to not cast the spell. Drugs give you an up and then fades, whereas casting an aligned spell builda and builds.

Where do the rules say the alignment effects build up rather than cancels out with each other?


Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Rysky wrote:
That's just the thing, they wouldn't know how much aligned magic it takes. Knowing how many rounds it lasts is vastly different than how much it would affect your Alignemnt due to all the factors at play.
Determining that experimentally seems like something a wizard's guild would be into. Would also help inform lawmaking bodies of whether access to it should be controlled.

Soemthing that someone would try somewhere? Maybe? But it would, if not fail, produce no useful results other than "hey, this s#+$ is evil and doing this would make us eviler."

With each person's mindset, and circumstances, and their alignment, it would be borderline impossible to accurately measure "how much" it takes from spells to shift your personality to a specified amount. In game I would view the personality change as gradual anyway rather than 1-2-3-Ding! anyway.

That and finding people who would agree to do this in the first place would be a thing in and of itself.

It would produce some very useful results. Using alignment detection spells, we can find the point where people's alignment changes.

By repeatedly performing the experiment, I could determine something like "It takes a mean of 5 Good spellcastings to switch from Neutral to Good, with a Standard Deviation of 0.7 spellcastings. By contrast, it only took 3 Evil spellcastings to switch from Good to neutral with a standard deviation of 0.3 spellcasts. So then I can be 99.9% confident if I cast 8 Good spells for every 2 Evil spells, then I will remain Good".

No, not really. You're assuming this all occurs in a vaccuum, and that the alignment change would be just a letter difference and not drastically change their personality. Their thoughts might align a certain way so now it's harder to switch, or easier. And that's if they even want to go through with it afterwards. You're giving the lack of of control in the test too much credit....

Thats no different than say, drug addiction. Yet we have plenty of very useful studies on how frequently people can take drugs without suffering the addictive effects and what measures can be taken to prevent addiction.


Tacticslion wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

Consider this: all those Soul Gems have to be stored somewhere, eternally.

That is quite the prize for the demon that is clever enough to steal it.

Not a question of if, only when and how many. You could have an imp jump straight to demon lord or even godhood with that many stored souls.

Missed the part about them being used as spell components? EDIT: ninja'd by the OP himself. :)

But my question is this: why stop at CE? Why not shoot for all the Es? Go big or go home, right?

(Incidentally, this sounds like perfect villain territory, but, you know, I'm curious; if you're going for it, why stop there.)

Chaotic Evil is an easier target for agreement, but yeah, it makes sense to use it on any Evil person you are going to kill anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
Assuming this works, what do you intend to do about the armies of Qlippoth and Devils that are now no longer busy fighting Demons?

Pathfinder isn't 3.5, we don't have the Blood Wars. And based on the Book of the Damned series, Demons and Devils spend more time killing innocent people and Good outsiders than they do each other.

As for Qlippoths, they are clearly less of a threat than Demons, seeing as how easily the Demons defeated the Qlippoths.

Edit: Also IIRC Qlippoths only want to wipe out humanity because it would starve the demons. If demons weren't a threat anymore, they would probably go back to not caring.


Lorewalker wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

That is an interesting point. The rules say that good and evil spells follow the same rules.

So if using infernal healing is a minor Evil act regardless of how much good it does, then logically murdering someone with Holy Word is still a Good action.

Murder is a stronger evil action than casting an aligned spell is aligned(good in this case).

Horror Adventures disagree with you. It states that regardless of what purpose you use for the spell, casting it too much shifts your alignment.

For that to be the case, the spell itself has to outweigh whatever actions you take with the spell.


Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

The exact number doesn't matter. Protection From Evil/Good/Law/Chaos are 1st level spell with no cost associated. If a 5th wizard has a free week he can cast it 50+ times.

All he really needs to know is an order of magnitude. IE If casting 10 good spells is generally enough, then he can cast 50 and be pretty sure his alignment has shifted(verified by someone with detect good ideally).

Incidently, this is how a lot of real life science is done. Data has noise and uncertainty, but you can compensate through probabilistic analysis.

Not when there is this many variables, and no controls.

You're assuming the caster in question would be comepletely detached and conservative with how they went about changing their personality and mindset, when that's contradictory in and of itself right there.

Obviously a full study would have to be more rigorous. The goal here is to minimize change to personality in mindset.

You could view evil spells like addictive drug use. That also alters a persons mindset, but thanks to careful research and proper prescriptions millions of people are able to take the drugs without being addicted.


Rysky wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Rysky wrote:
That's just the thing, they wouldn't know how much aligned magic it takes. Knowing how many rounds it lasts is vastly different than how much it would affect your Alignemnt due to all the factors at play.
Determining that experimentally seems like something a wizard's guild would be into. Would also help inform lawmaking bodies of whether access to it should be controlled.

Soemthing that someone would try somewhere? Maybe? But it would, if not fail, produce no useful results other than "hey, this s#+$ is evil and doing this would make us eviler."

With each person's mindset, and circumstances, and their alignment, it would be borderline impossible to accurately measure "how much" it takes from spells to shift your personality to a specified amount. In game I would view the personality change as gradual anyway rather than 1-2-3-Ding! anyway.

That and finding people who would agree to do this in the first place would be a thing in and of itself.

It would produce some very useful results. Using alignment detection spells, we can find the point where people's alignment changes.

By repeatedly performing the experiment, I could determine something like "It takes a mean of 5 Good spellcastings to switch from Neutral to Good, with a Standard Deviation of 0.7 spellcastings. By contrast, it only took 3 Evil spellcastings to switch from Good to neutral with a standard deviation of 0.3 spellcasts. So then I can be 99.9% confident if I cast 8 Good spells for every 2 Evil spells, then I will remain Good".

This is very useful info for someone who wants to safely use evil spells.


Rysky wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
That's like saying "character A has 5 gems worth 100 gold each and 100 gold pieces. He wants to buy a 500gp item... but can't afford it since using gems is meta."

-_-

These are completely different things and you know that.

Lorewalker wrote:
Both gold and gems have worth and the character knows this. So he can use both. The character knows "if I kill someone, that is evil and the universe says my very nature changes so that I am evil" and he knows "if I cast evil spell x, I will become evil faster than if I was selfish or greedy but not as fast as murder". So, if a character wants the universe to recognize them as evil immediately then the character knows casting spells is the fastest way to do that without murdering someone. The character would know this. Just as they know how many rounds a spell lasts and how much area the spell covers.

That's just the thing, they wouldn't know how much aligned magic it takes. Knowing how many rounds it lasts is vastly different than how much it would affect your Alignemnt due to all the factors at play.

Lorewalker wrote:
And if you refuse to allow them to know what any number of casters would have figured out over the many years that magic has been practiced in the world... they can cast an evil spell 4 or however many times and change alignment and then they would know how much it takes. As there is a recognizable in world change for the characters to notice.

You're assuming they would test this like it's an exact and perfectly calculable science. It's not. There's so many accountable factors, not to mention you're operating under the assumption that they wouldn't know the affects of Alignemnt likes its completely alien. They know that murder is evil, they know that casting evil spells is evil. There would be no need for a "Okay let's see how far we can go before your personality changes."

Lorewalker wrote:
So, how can it be meta to use what a character knows?
Becauee your character doesn't know stealing (+1 Evil),...

The exact number doesn't matter. Protection From Evil/Good/Law/Chaos are 1st level spell with no cost associated. If a 5th wizard has a free week he can cast it 50+ times.

All he really needs to know is an order of magnitude. IE If casting 10 good spells is generally enough, then he can cast 50 and be pretty sure his alignment has shifted(verified by someone with detect good ideally).

Incidently, this is how a lot of real life science is done. Data has noise and uncertainty, but you can compensate through probabilistic analysis.


Lorewalker wrote:
Rysky wrote:
You've argued about all the evidence though.

Again, I didn't argue that Infernal Healing was not evil. I argued against certain evidence given as it was bad evidence. But I highlighted the evidence that clearly shows it is evil magic. So, considering I agree it is evil... I don't know why you keep saying I'm arguing that it isn't. I don't have to agree with every word someone says to agree that their conclusion is correct.

Rysky wrote:
Perhaps, but there are plenty of things in Pathfinder that falls under Objective. Intentionally annointing someone with Fiend's blood I believe would fall under that.

And that is fine... for your tables. My only point is that it isn't set in stone. Or, rather, written officially in a book or FAQ. Until then it isn't true, it is opinion.

Rysky wrote:
It's as much a tool as the keys to your car, or the gas and the oil. Unless you take feats to get around them they don't just help, they are required. You think the items are crutches while I think they're "batteries", even if they are crutches, how does that diminish what they are? Devil's Blood and Unholy Water are, quite literally, liquid evil. How does using them to cast a spell make them anything but?
I'm not arguing that a material component isn't part of a spell, nor that it isn't required to cast a spell without some method to be rid of the necessity. My argument is that they are not batteries and do not power a spell. Thus, using devil blood in such a way is not powering a spell but it is a requirement to cast the spell. Utilizing an objective evil substance is not evil much in the same way that the spell Command Undead is not evil. Sure, you are putting a use to evil... but what you do with it decides whether the action is evil or not. So, casting Infernal Healing is evil, but using the component is not evil. That is one more-than-minor action, instead both minor and more-than-minor actions. (more-than-minor is what the degree I call aligned casting, since it has a...

That is an interesting point. The rules say that good and evil spells follow the same rules.

So if using infernal healing is a minor Evil act regardless of how much good it does, then logically murdering someone with Holy Word is still a Good action.


Snowlilly wrote:

Consider this: all those Soul Gems have to be stored somewhere, eternally.

That is quite the prize for the demon that is clever enough to steal it.

Not a question of if, only when and how many. You could have an imp jump straight to demon lord or even godhood with that many stored souls.

No they don't. You can use the soul gems as spell components or for magical crafting and the soul is permanently destroyed.

"In these cases, souls should be assigned values based on the categories presented here and then treated as material components, reducing the gold expenditure necessary to cast the spell according to the souls’ value. (Thus a spell that requires 400 gp to cast might instead cost 300 gp and a basic-level soul.) Souls used in this manner are consumed and destroyed utterly."


Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
They may start out as that, as Saethori pointed out, but they don't stay that way. They definitely don't stay Good, which is what altruisitc, selfless, and kind tend to encompass.
Well, that mostly depends on how many counterbalancing good acts they perform in between casts. It's only if they cast it multiple times in succession that they're likely to run into the issue of suddenly wanting to burn down an orphanage instead of donating to it.
Which is why if you want to maintain a Good alignment you should regularly casting of Protection From Evil or Celestial Healing to counterbalance it.
That would leave you Neutral, not good. Or if you cast too many you'd probably stop casting the other as you settled into your new Alignemnt.
I can control what spells my character casts, so no I won't stop casting Evil spells. I will just case enough Good spells to maintain my alignment.
Putting that much of a dissection on your characters's actions would make them more neutral aligned than good though.

Which is when my character casts Protection From Evil enough to become Good.


Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
They may start out as that, as Saethori pointed out, but they don't stay that way. They definitely don't stay Good, which is what altruisitc, selfless, and kind tend to encompass.
Well, that mostly depends on how many counterbalancing good acts they perform in between casts. It's only if they cast it multiple times in succession that they're likely to run into the issue of suddenly wanting to burn down an orphanage instead of donating to it.
Which is why if you want to maintain a Good alignment you should regularly casting of Protection From Evil or Celestial Healing to counterbalance it.
That would leave you Neutral, not good. Or if you cast too many you'd probably stop casting the other as you settled into your new Alignemnt.

I can control what spells my character casts, so no I won't stop casting Evil spells. I will just case enough Good spells to maintain my alignment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FatR wrote:
loc wrote:
While it does make sense logically, it is the same argument of why don't we just kill all the people in the town jails?

No, it is the same argument of why don't we just painlessly euthanize all those people 99.999% of whom are going to be tortured and consumed in the most horrific fashion and the remaining 0.001% will wriggle out of that fate by having enough willingness and ability to horrifically torture their fellow unfortunates. Oh, and none these people would even know WHY they are suffering, because acts that consigned them to such fate were committed by what were effectively different entities - from whom they hatched but whose lives they do not remember.

"But you cannot destroy all Evil souls therefore why even bother?" is literally the same argument as "But you cannot defeat all Evil forever therefore why even bother?"

In Pathfinder cosmology there is no moral downside to destroying souls of creatures that detect as Evil. At worst, and even that is arguable, you're speeding up destruction of the universe - or the net result of your efforts may actually be delaying it by reducing power of fiends. And even if you ARE speeding it up, as the final triumph of darkness, void and eternal oblivion for everyone is inevitable anyway, it is still arguable whether buying the opportunity for more creatures to enjoy existence is worth horrible suffering of creatures already in existence. If some planar powers say that soul destruction is bad without even presenting an argument along these lines, they are either unimaginably vengeful and vindictive, or side with fiends for selfishly pragmatic reasons - whatever differences there are between uppper and lower planes, souls must flow!

The only reason why people argue otherwise seem to be the baggage associated with the word "soul", and that word is a rather poor fit for the cast-off ecloplasm you leave after your death in Pathfinder anyway.

Exactly. Best case scenario, killing a chaotic evil person consigns them to horrible torture with them either becoming a demon or making another demon more powerful(worst case would be they get resurrected or come back as undead to cause even more harm).

The only realistic alternative I see is with Create Soul Gem.


Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
They may start out as that, as Saethori pointed out, but they don't stay that way. They definitely don't stay Good, which is what altruisitc, selfless, and kind tend to encompass.
Well, that mostly depends on how many counterbalancing good acts they perform in between casts. It's only if they cast it multiple times in succession that they're likely to run into the issue of suddenly wanting to burn down an orphanage instead of donating to it.

Which is why if you want to maintain a Good alignment you should regularly casting of Protection From Evil or Celestial Healing to counterbalance it.


Envall wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:


Someone could be altruistic selfless and kind while thinking its okay to cast evil spells. Maybe my character isn't concerned with the overarching constructs of "Good" and "Evil", he just wants to help people and sees that these particular spells will do that.

You have detached the spell from its context.

The [evil] tag is not a feeling, it is not currency. People who want to help people do not have access to this spell because they personally know it has [evil] tag on it and feel being evil by using it.

The real reason because the scenario where people get the access to Infernal Healing involves selfish and evil culture. The reason to use the spell needs to have selfish motivations, that is what the [evil] tag is trying to say.

Consider this. Cure Light Wounds and Inflict Light Wounds are not tagged by any alignment. Why do they not have alignment tags? Because they are common place spells, they do not have an specific personal culture attached to them. You are allowed to use Inflict Light Wounds as a good character, because there is no implied context.

I also understand people wanting to rebel against this "implied context", but I think that is silly when the material in question comes from setting books.

Thats objectively not true per Horror Adventures. People can use evil spells for good reasons. It even lists that as a grey area morally.

So no, you don't have to have selfish reasons.


DM Beckett wrote:

Personally, I'm starting to think it might be better off to remove, (at least from PFS) the Wand of Infernal Healing entirely.

As a flavor item (the spell), it actually fails very hard because there is no actual penalty/downside/repercussions for using it. That is, it doesn't actually cause anyone to become more evil or tempt anyone towards anything.

It tends to be better off that Cure Light Wounds in most cases, healing more in most cases, and not requiring a roll for effectiveness. I personally also see the overabundance of healing in the game as a very bad thing all around.

It really should be balanced against CLW, or even CMW, and in many cases, I think it blows the Cure spells out of the water.
* Effective against a greater range of targets, so you don't have to worry about accidentally harming an ally you didn't know was allergic to Positive Energy
* Accessible by a much, much wider range or casters
* Is outright a better/more efficient at party healing (wand or spell form) <the one real exception is for in combat critical healing, but even then Cure spells are risky and my very well be the worse option>

Even comparing it to Celestial Healing, it is just hands down the better, mechanically speaking, option, and I really feel that at the very least, these two spells should at least have pros and cons against each other, and flavor isn't enough to off set this.

If folks, especially in PFS are so build dependent on having free access to a Wand of Infernal Healing, then honestly that sounds like a very good reasoning to show that it is just way too good.

As far as Infernal Healing, and other Evil (or even questionably dark) magic turning you evil, I really don't see any issues with it, and kind of wish they would enforce that even more. Especially in PFS, (I know, a lot of paperwork) where it breaks the mood to hear players and characters talk about using Evil (or Evil-like) options willy-nilly and then expecting no one else to have an issue with that, or even just accept it because...

In PFS being evil means you get kicked from the game, and they definitely do not want GMs having to decide whether to kick a player from the table for casting an evil spell too often.


Saethori wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
So you really can have an evil alignment while being altruistic, respecting life, and making sacrifices to help others.

You can't. Your alignment is based on your personality, according to the alignment rules. Your personality comes first (altruism, selflessness, kindness), and from it your alignment (Good, likely Neutral Good).

If such a selfless character is casting Evil spells, then one of the following must be true:
1) The character is undergoing a change in philosophy, and is ceasing to be good. In this case, their other good traits should gradually be undermined as well.
2) The character is doing what must be done by the circumstances for a good cause, and is using Evil magic only because there is literally no other choice. They may require atonement afterward, either personally or of the clerical variety.
3) They are acting drastically out of character. In this situation, the GM should pull the player aside and talk to them about their character, and what alignment best suits them.
4) The character somehow does not understand the gravity of the magic they are casting. Once informed, they can reevaluate their decisions, and either seek to atone and do better, or decide to dispense with such unnecessary morals.

People don't fit into boxes so easily. Heck, take things that we "know" are wrong today(like racism or slavery). Look back in history and you will find people who were altruistic, kind and selfless who still supported those things.

Someone could be altruistic selfless and kind while thinking its okay to cast evil spells. Maybe my character isn't concerned with the overarching constructs of "Good" and "Evil", he just wants to help people and sees that these particular spells will do that.


Rysky wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Changing alignment magically doesn't automatically change your personality.

Yes it does.

Normally your behavior and actions determine your alignment, because that's how you get an alignment in the first place.

Forcibly changing your alignment by magic would forcibly change your personality along with it, which is a lot of people don't do it.

According to the developers, it isn't a forcible change in your personality. The alignment change is simply a result of your actions, not a forcible change in your behavior.

So you really can have an evil alignment while being altruistic, respecting life, and making sacrifices to help others.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=1298?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Q uestions-Here#64899


HyperMissingno wrote:
Okay so apparently Melee cohorts have trouble staying alive during mythic trials because our barbarian kicked it in the middle of our second mythic trial. Thankfully she got back up after breath of life.

Melee is a bad choice for cohorts. Melee characters are the most gear and level dependent.

Ideal choices for cohorts are classes that can provide buffs and debuffs from afar and focus on surviving. Clerics, wizards, bards, etc.


Is the alignment shift from casting several good descriptor spells considered voluntary or involuntary?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saethori wrote:

If they begin to cast Protection from Evil, then the character has, presumably, a reason to perform a good act. If it is persistently cast, then they must be very inclined to do good.

Fighting evil is a good reason to cast Protection from Evil. So by your logic, demons are good because they spend a lot of time fighting evil creatures.


BadBird wrote:

Shatter Defenses is an awful lot of work for a minor AC drop against your attacks after you've intimidated them and then hit them once already.

If you're really interested in Dazzling Display, I'd consider going into Performance feats to use Hero's Display with Performing Combatant. At least that way you can fear-bomb while fighting.

Shatter Defenses is mostly good for rogues who want to ensure sneak attacks.


Main issue I see is that a Red Mantis Assassin NPC basically would try to sneak up on a player, 1 shot him then leave. Thats really all its built to do.

And from what I have heard, that is really unfun for the players.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Saethori wrote:


If a character regularly performs both a clearly evil action, and also good actions, they may be suffering from a severe mental problem, up to and potentially...

No, you just defined Neutral. You can't do good acts without a little evil or you can't stay neutral.

Apparently, complex characters aren't allowed. Either you are 100% good/evil all the time, or you are crazy.


Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Someone could think evil spells are okay while otherwise being a good person. That isn't a mental problem, just a difference of philosophy.
Except in Pathfinder it is.

Pathfinder has rules for mental issues and none of them talk about performing both good and evil actions.


I have GMed 2 players just fine.

Just make sure they build somewhat flexible characters. If one of them plays a spellcaster it will help things a lot. I also advise not starting at level 1. Start them at level 3 so they have some more skills and abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saethori wrote:
Alignment wrote:

A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

A character's personality is represented by their alignment. It mentions this twice, so I suppose it's relevant.

That means one's alignment originates from their attitudes, their preferences, their identity. For something to change one's alignment, it must also change their attitude, as the Helm of Opposite Alignment does.

This ends up being a little self justifying, but the effect amounts to the same. If the attitude shifts due to a change in viewpoint, then the alignment shifts with it. If the alignment is shifted, then either the attitude has to adapt, or the alignment shifts back. The quoted text seems to support this.

If an otherwise good character ends up wanting to cast Infernal Healing, which is actively stated earlier in the Alignment rules as a minor act of evil, then one of the following must be true:
1) The character's viewpoint is shifting, so that they no longer see casting the evil spell as taboo. In this instance, their alignment slips a little closer to evil.
2) The character is acting out of character. On occasion, this is fine; as the rules say, not everybody is consistent. Repeated infractions, however, mean the character is in fact acting evil on a regular enough basis that their viewpoint has to have shifted, thus resulting in outcome 1.

If a character regularly performs both a clearly evil action, and also good actions, they may be suffering from a severe mental problem, up to and potentially...

Plenty of evil people do good things, and good people regularly disagree over what the good thing to do is.

Someone could think evil spells are okay while otherwise being a good person. That isn't a mental problem, just a difference of philosophy.


Ectar wrote:

Relevant text: Alternatively, a cleric can make a very powerful request. Casting such a miracle costs the cleric 25,000 gp in powdered diamond because of the powerful divine energies involved. Examples of especially powerful miracles of this sort could include the following:

Swinging the tide of a battle in your favor by raising fallen allies to continue fighting.

So, if a cleric chooses this option, how does this work?
How many allies can get rezzed?
What condition are they in? Full hp? Half hp?
Negative levels?

With as non-specific as this is, for the low cost of 25000gp a cleric could get standard action true resurrections on all nearby allies?
This seems broken. Well, more broken than maybe some other uses of this spell.

Its a 9th level spell subject to a lot of GM fiat, of course its going to be broken.


Rysky wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Changing alignment magically doesn't automatically change your personality.

Yes it does.

Normally your behavior and actions determine your alignment, because that's how you get an alignment in the first place.

Forcibly changing your alignment by magic would forcibly change your personality along with it, which is a lot of people don't do it.

Do you have a source for that?

The helm of opposite alignment explicitly say it does that, but I can't find anything that makes it a general rule.


Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Daw wrote:

Free use of Infernal Healing is the nearly definitive victory of Rule Over Fluff.

Imagine the disappointment when this victory was backdoor crocked by attacking it through its allignment descriptor, which also attacks several other clever but sleazy flavorwise tricks.
The alignment descriptor rules are a huge victory for rules over fluff. Now a wizard can be any alignment he wants by casting the right protection spell regardless of how he behaves.
No, it is EXACTLY because of how he behaves, in this case choosing to do an aligned act.

What I mean is that it puts alignment firmly in the hands of the players based on hard rules instead of a vague sense of how the GM feels the character has behaved.

GM wants to shift my alignment towards neutral? Well I can cast protection from evil enough times and go back to good.

And when your GM shifts your Alignment to CN for being a smartass? :3

In that example it would be you the player exerting influence to change your character's alignment, rather than your character choosing to change their alignment.

If the GM wants to houserule like that its fine, but RAW the player can always cast protection from chaos and protection from evil enough times to go back to being Lawful Good.
Not if his other actions outweigh that.

The player can always cast more Protection from Evil. Its a level 1 spell, take a week off between adventures and cast a few dozen of them.

The sidebar was very clear repeated castings do cause an alignment shift, even if your actions outweigh casting an aligned spell occasionally.

Repeated in a row, yes. But that's where the "Typically" comes in to play.

Why is your Nuetral aligned character wanting to change alignment?

Why is your Evil aligned character wanting to change alignment?

Plenty of reasons. Everyone wants a shortcut into Heaven. Plenty of evil people aren't devil worshippers and don't want to go to hell. Or maybe he just wants to avoid getting detected/smited by Paladins.


Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Daw wrote:

Free use of Infernal Healing is the nearly definitive victory of Rule Over Fluff.

Imagine the disappointment when this victory was backdoor crocked by attacking it through its allignment descriptor, which also attacks several other clever but sleazy flavorwise tricks.
The alignment descriptor rules are a huge victory for rules over fluff. Now a wizard can be any alignment he wants by casting the right protection spell regardless of how he behaves.
No, it is EXACTLY because of how he behaves, in this case choosing to do an aligned act.

What I mean is that it puts alignment firmly in the hands of the players based on hard rules instead of a vague sense of how the GM feels the character has behaved.

GM wants to shift my alignment towards neutral? Well I can cast protection from evil enough times and go back to good.

And when your GM shifts your Alignment to CN for being a smartass? :3

In that example it would be you the player exerting influence to change your character's alignment, rather than your character choosing to change their alignment.

If the GM wants to houserule like that its fine, but RAW the player can always cast protection from chaos and protection from evil enough times to go back to being Lawful Good.
Not if his other actions outweigh that.

The player can always cast more Protection from Evil. Its a level 1 spell, take a week off between adventures and cast a few dozen of them.

The sidebar was very clear repeated castings do cause an alignment shift, even if your actions outweigh casting an aligned spell occasionally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You aren't supposed to interpret it literally. Its obvious that the intent is to use the backpack to carry stuff.

1 to 50 of 1,611 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.