|
This is why I argue strongly for the rules to specify that a group should talk these things out beforehand, agree to how alignment works in their campaign (in any areas where alignment rules are left vague, which I hope will be fewer in PF2.0) and all be bound by those agreements, DM and players alike.
I basically disagree with the interpretation here. Players can make choices and weigh decisions with action-based alignment more easily. Intent-based alignment either adds a second dimension of uncertainty to argue about, on top of the action-based model, or requires the DM to be entirely subject to player fiat in terms of players claiming intention justifying anything, which is no more appealing than the other way around.
Alignment based on intent allows the player to weigh the choices and make decisions based upon the side they are fighting for. It will leave DMs who don't want players to be able to choose the best weapon for their fight unable to intervene because intent-based alignment is rational; it is not subject to DM fiat.No, sorry. But intent-based alignment will always be a thing. You argue that there is no need to interpret actions?
Under that argument a character could easily summon celestial spiders all day and have them chasing the village elderly (while accompinied by the slight hymn of the divine that resonates from their blessed mandibles). No problem, its not like he used some undiscerned part of the game like an attack action, he only used a spell with the good descriptor.
But that has to less to do with intent than the fact that it's two different actions. Summoning a Celestial creature into the world (good), and sic'ing monsters on the elderly (evil) are two different things. Though this raises the question of why someone who was infused with so much good would do such a thing.
then why are you arguing since you think that no word in any of the texts have no more value than any other? Why did you argue the component rules if you didn't believe they have any authority on the assumed setting?Yesyou can't possibly be arguing that the only description of how a golem works that is found in the same paragraphs as the rules for creating golems is just as optional as a system that describes itself as an addon. Do you consider the existence of Constitution as a stat just as optional as the condensed skill set in unchained?that's an optional rule so I don't think it should be given the same weight as the only information on golem construction.
Also since its a fragment of their spirit just like undead that means it probably hurts as much as tearing a nail and is therefore evil.
All rules are optional, as defined in the CRB.
You cannot simply dismiss a set of rules because they don't fit your agenda.
Fake news.
Mostly because you are asking loaded questions coming from a conclusion that any rule that isn't core is less valid when the CRB straight up tells you any such rule can be treated as null.
Literally any of them, you want to combine STR and CON for your games? Go for it.
It makes no difference to me if a rule is optional if the only reason I'm reading it is to extrapolate lore of the game world.
Your 'No true Scottsman' to dismiss anything you deem not worthy of recognition will not hold with me. It's part of the game or it isn't, either way it's not decided until a group sits down at the table and interacts with it.
We are back to Marshmallow fallacy.
I don't see how you can argue no true scottsman when the text itself describes the rule you're using to argue this as optional while the text you're talking about in the core rulebook states " While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games.". Change implies there being a standard you can shift from using houserules which would mean that rules are "opt out" unless they are described as optional which makes them "opt in" rules. Like if I or most other people join a pathfinder campaign the fighter isn't assumed to be out of play if the GM says nothing about it you'd have to explain that you are using explicitly optional rules like ac to dr or talisman components (which the game stresses repeatedly is something to be added later, can you point me to the section of the fighter class that says "If the GM wants to use the fighter class"?)
Also no one knows what the Marshmallow fallacy is
...It has a medieval charm to it in the sense in medieval times murder was defined simply as an act, so if you killed someone (assuming you were not a noble) you were put to death, even if it was accidental or in self defense; the reason for the medieval charm is because it is divorced from the intellectual underpinnings of modern philosophy and law...
Minor nitpick, but first of all "medieval law" was quite a broad selection of legal traditions and customs that changed markedly over the around 900-1000 years that is commonly labeled the Middle Ages.
So looking at how the charge of murder was tried in 8th century Scandinavia would inevitably differ from the definition from the same charge tried in 13th century Scandinavia.
Heck, even the murder = a death sentence would in most cases be wrong. The two most often cited punishments in sources from the Middle Ages, were first and foremost fines (or various forms of weregild in the early Middle Ages) and being declared an outlaw.
Now this did increasingly change as time progressed into the high/late middle ages with things like arson, banditry and large scale thievery (defined as thievery over a set value) increasingly pop up as carrying a death sentence (often hanging or beheading), though murder outside of "royalty" didn't seem to do so.As an example for the Code of Jutland (Codex Holmiensis) of 1241 states that:
Book 2, article 34
"If a man's horse, horn-cattle, pig, dog or other livestock which the man in question is allowed to keep, kills another man, and a oath-sworn is provided that the animal in question did kill the person in question. Then the owner of the animal must pay a fine of nine marks of money* and must swear by oath, that he had no prior knowledge of the animal in question having such a habit. Though if such a thing happens three times, while the animal in question is in the property of the owner, he is to pay full restitution to the affected/court**.* This is hard...
You are correct. I was being imprecise. The definition of murder as being an act without intent was for a limited geography for a limited number of years. My point is that it does have a "medieval charm," which you may or may not like. I was also off when implying "modern" philosophy was the only philosophy that considered intent when determining goodness. It is also found in classical philosophy.
I know few if any DM that would actually accept that excuse and not tack them as Evil after the first or second straight up random murder.
Like wise I don't know a lot of DMs that would think Necromancy isn't evil due to how varied the actual effect is. Are you just moving the bones about? Did you just trap an unwilling soul? Espically if intelligent that's probably the case. Are they suffering or has the magic twisted their soul to the point they don't go back to the afterlife they had? If you tell the undead to do X but X goes...
I don't know if it was intentional, but this is a straw man. Nobody has said a player can commit random murders and then say their intentions were pure. There are at least two reasons for that: 1) random and 2) murder. If you randomly kill creatures, then you certainly lack the intent to protect innocent lives and, indeed, lack even a neutral intent to not feel the need to protect innocent lives, while having no desire to destroy innocent life. Clearly, the only option for someone who kills randomly is Evil under any rules that have yet been discussed. As to murder, you cannot do it without intent. There is a word for murder without intent and that is manslaughter. However, you cannot go around doing random manslaughters, either, because that is depraved heart MURDER; the intent to commit acts that are likely to result in death is murder.
As to necromancy being evil, there is no question that it is if you follow the rules. Animate Dead has an evil descriptor and skeletons and zombies, as of D&D 3.0 have been evil for a while. The question is whether using a tool that is evil (like a nuclear bomb) to do something good (like end a war) makes you evil. I would allow my players to "drop the bomb" or not based upon their consciences, even though I think the bomb is, if the world actually had alignments, evil.
As DM, I have enough power. I don't need to steal the ability to form intent from my players. If I'm really unhappy, a company of LG knights attack (because they have concluded the necromancer is evil or will soon be) and the player can decide whether necromancy is "worth it" when they do.
I basically disagree with the interpretation here. Players can make choices and weigh decisions with action-based alignment more easily. Intent-based alignment either adds a second dimension of uncertainty to argue about, on top of the action-based model, or requires the DM to be entirely subject to player fiat in terms of players claiming intention justifying anything, which is no more appealing than the other way around.
This just is not true. A player may state "I am going to torture this criminal to get information about the BBEG because my character is not smart enough to figure it out any other way." Player fiat that doesn't harm the DM in the slightest.
Later, the LG ruler finds out through divination that the player tortured. The LG ruler has stated torture under any circumstances is illegal and punishes the player. Just because "player fiat" lets the player determine the intent of their own character does not mean you are powerless as DM. You're acting like your players can do what they want and you have no ability to drop an 8 million ton boulder on their heads. You do. It just isn't any fun.
What you want to do is say, "Oh, you wanna use necromancy in my game? Fine. God reaches down from the heavens and makes paladins want to kill you even though you are trying to do good." Hurray! No player fiat!
I don't see how you can argue no true scottsman when the text itself describes the rule you're using to argue this as optional while the text you're talking about in the core rulebook states " While they...then why are you arguing since you think that no word in any of the texts have no more value than any other? Why did you argue the component rules if you didn't believe they have any authority on the assumed setting?Yesyou can't possibly be arguing that the only description of how a golem works that is found in the same paragraphs as the rules for creating golems is just as optional as a system that describes itself as an addon. Do you consider the existence of Constitution as a stat just as optional as the condensed skill set in unchained?that's an optional rule so I don't think it should be given the same weight as the only information on golem construction.
Also since its a fragment of their spirit just like undead that means it probably hurts as much as tearing a nail and is therefore evil.
All rules are optional, as defined in the CRB.
You cannot simply dismiss a set of rules because they don't fit your agenda.
Fake news.
Mostly because you are asking loaded questions coming from a conclusion that any rule that isn't core is less valid when the CRB straight up tells you any such rule can be treated as null.
Literally any of them, you want to combine STR and CON for your games? Go for it.
It makes no difference to me if a rule is optional if the only reason I'm reading it is to extrapolate lore of the game world.
Your 'No true Scottsman' to dismiss anything you deem not worthy of recognition will not hold with me. It's part of the game or it isn't, either way it's not decided until a group sits down at the table and interacts with it.
We are back to Marshmallow fallacy.
What are you trying to argue about here? Do you even know the context within which I even cited those rules?
I'm not forcing you to use them, I'm not even suggesting you should.
I get that throwing shade makes you feel superior, but the conversation piece was about the rules behind the process of crafting magic items and whether or not there is anything to do with taking parts of creatures for the sole reason of making items and I cited a rules section that supports this.
Whether or not it's optional doesn't mean it doesn't exist to read and try and find context. Seriously read the conversation before you get hostile.
But that has to less to do with intent than the fact that it's two different actions. Summoning a Celestial creature into the world (good), and sic'ing monsters on the elderly (evil) are two different things. Though this raises the question of why someone who was infused with so much good would do such a thing.This is why I argue strongly for the rules to specify that a group should talk these things out beforehand, agree to how alignment works in their campaign (in any areas where alignment rules are left vague, which I hope will be fewer in PF2.0) and all be bound by those agreements, DM and players alike.
I basically disagree with the interpretation here. Players can make choices and weigh decisions with action-based alignment more easily. Intent-based alignment either adds a second dimension of uncertainty to argue about, on top of the action-based model, or requires the DM to be entirely subject to player fiat in terms of players claiming intention justifying anything, which is no more appealing than the other way around.
Alignment based on intent allows the player to weigh the choices and make decisions based upon the side they are fighting for. It will leave DMs who don't want players to be able to choose the best weapon for their fight unable to intervene because intent-based alignment is rational; it is not subject to DM fiat.No, sorry. But intent-based alignment will always be a thing. You argue that there is no need to interpret actions?
Under that argument a character could easily summon celestial spiders all day and have them chasing the village elderly (while accompinied by the slight hymn of the divine that resonates from their blessed mandibles). No problem, its not like he used some undiscerned part of the game like an attack action, he only used a spell with the good descriptor.
Since you raised the question, follow it on down that rabbit hole! You are DM, so if it was an NPC that did it, you know the answer. If it was a PC that did it, what would be their reaction to your suggestion that murdering innocent elderly folk might be illustrative of evil intentions?
I basically disagree with the interpretation here. Players can make choices and weigh decisions with action-based alignment more easily. Intent-based alignment either adds a second dimension of uncertainty to argue about, on top of the action-based model, or requires the DM to be entirely subject to player fiat in terms of players claiming intention justifying anything, which is no more appealing than the other way around.No, sorry. But intent-based alignment will always be a thing. You argue that there is no need to interpret actions?
I argue that there is less need to interpret actions.
Under that argument a character could easily summon celestial spiders all day and have them chasing the village elderly (while accompinied by the slight hymn of the divine that resonates from their blessed mandibles).
Nope, because everything before the "and" is one action and everything after is a different (Evil) action.
(Though summoning to any great extent is something I very often houserule out, because it slows stuff down a lot to have a bunch of summoned entities around to be tracked.)
And if intent-based alignment will always be a thing, there is the possibility that evil methods may be used for the greater good. That an evil character may redeem himself by his deeds (I hate to say it, but see Goblins as a core race).
I see no reason for an evil character's ability to redeem themselves to require intent-based alignment; just doing the good deeds suffices in an action-based model.
But intent based alignment is supported by the rules, specifically we understand this because of the antipaladin code of conduct.
If it was a PC that did it, what would be their reaction to your suggestion that murdering innocent elderly folk might be illustrative of evil intentions?The question of Evil intentions would not come up in a system where murdering innocent elderly folk was defined as an inherently Evil act.
(Insert regular reminder that I am approaching this from a perspective of making alignment-based systems coherent, fun to play, and good at generating interestingly dramatic situations, rather than reflect a real-world moral perspective I find appealing or positive.)
Murder is an inherently evil act. With this we agree. However, I believe it is an inherently evil act because murder requires intent. If a doctor's hand slips during surgery to try to save one of the innocent elderly folk, and he thereby kills that innocent elderly patient (and let's just say they would have survived but for the wound inflicted by the doctor), saying the doctor did evil is absurd.
The rules are poorly drafted as relates to this, and are in places inconsistent. In the alignment section, it makes it pretty clear alignment is based on intent, but then elsewhere, it talks about "willfully committing evil acts," which is at best redundant. If you say "willfully commit murder" it makes no sense because you can only commit murder willfully. If you say "willfully kill innocent folks" then it makes sense in one way, because that is the definition of murder, but fails in another because the "evil act" is replaced with an act that is neither good nor evil without considering intent. See my prior paragraph about the doctor.
It is clear we are unlikely to ever agree on this point. I don't have to house rule the alignment section of PF1, but if the rules moved more in the direction you champion, I would be forced to do so. Being told my character is evil even though the character's intentions are to do good robs the player of the chance to repent, feel guilt, fall from grace, etc. in favor of a DM fiat to cut all dramatic tension from the choice. Suddenly you just grow horns and a tail and maybe lose a few powers. It is so much more meaningful and narratively interesting to allow players to choose the wrong path for the right reasons and watch the characters deal with it. How does the father of the son you knowingly sent to his death because you could think of no better way to win the war react to your "evil" choice? How does the town react to your saving them by summoning an evil spirit? I don't believe "You can't do that; it's evil" is more interesting than "Are you sure? There may be repercussions..."
But intent based alignment is supported by the rules, specifically we understand this because of the antipaladin code of conduct.I know; I am arguing for action-based alignment being easier to implement consistently, come to agreement on, and avoid alignment fights with. (I've not ever DMed or played with an antipaladin, so this has not come up for me in practice; having difficulty thinking of anything I am interested in running where one would fit. Playable antipaladins could go away without upsetting me in the slightest.)
Particularly if it is clearly labelled in the rules as "this is done this way for playability reasons. Do not mistake it for an actual moral perspective."
If you want to avoid alignment fights, you simply have to ask the player what was the intent of the character. How would that ever result in a fight? I suppose I could answer that question: Because the DM is not satisfied with the player's answer and wants to force an alignment onto the character with which the player disagrees.
Action-based alignment is not core now. At best, it is an exception. (The exception is what I hope to avoid in PF2; I am confident action-based alignment will not be added.)
|
I think that an easy middle ground is to create an offshoot that mechanically does something similar to what animate/create dead do and then let people play that. I mean make a summoner archetype off unchained summoner that does the following.
1. Your summon monster ability, have it replace the previous and give it a cooler name, now can only "summon" creatures whose corpse are present.
2. This new creature last hours per level as opposed to a minute per level.
3. You can only control a number creatures whose total HD are equal to or less than your CL.
I think that an easy middle ground is to create an offshoot that mechanically does something similar to what animate/create dead do and then let people play that. I mean make a summoner archetype off unchained summoner that does the following.
1. Your summon monster ability, have it replace the previous and give it a cooler name, now can only "summon" creatures whose corpse are present.
2. This new creature last hours per level as opposed to a minute per level.
3. You can only control a number creatures whose total HD are equal to or less than your CL.
The problem with that is, I believe, a lot of us like undead. And we like our undead evil. The big issue is whether you can have evil undead and non-evil characters who make use of them.
|
|
The problem with that is, I believe, a lot of us like undead. And we like our undead evil. The big issue is whether you can have evil undead and non-evil characters who make use of them.I think that an easy middle ground is to create an offshoot that mechanically does something similar to what animate/create dead do and then let people play that. I mean make a summoner archetype off unchained summoner that does the following.
1. Your summon monster ability, have it replace the previous and give it a cooler name, now can only "summon" creatures whose corpse are present.
2. This new creature last hours per level as opposed to a minute per level.
3. You can only control a number creatures whose total HD are equal to or less than your CL.
Sure but we are getting to fluff then and in this case, you can easily use the same logic as a summoner summoning an evil creature. They are not permanent, they are forced to do your bidding, and you can separate it from the evil and necromancy descriptor. Say "You conjure a spirit/elemental/outsider/whatever to puppet the body of a slain creature." It doesn't have to be a true undead to satisfy those of us wanting to play necromancers they just need to fill that niche.
Or you could just make your necromancer some flavor of neutral and still just do good things but using evil means
Has this just morfed into another Alignment Thread then? Have we asked the IMPORTANT questions yet?
Like:
Who chooses whether a given action is EVIL or GOOD, by what degree and does doing GOOD move your PCs Alignment to be closer to GOOD?
Or are we just tracking EVIL actions?
For that mater, how can a player tell if any given action is LAWFUL/CHAOTIC or GOOD/EVIL?
and is there a difference in Degree?
Does "Kicking a Puppy" move your PC closer to EVIL than "Refusing to Heal a Beggar" does?
What if the Beggar is an Evil person? Or if the Puppy is EVIL?
Does doing EVIL acts to Evil creatures as bad as doing EVIL acts to Good creatures?
The answer to all of these is - 'whatever the whim of your GM is - by the rules - and if you don't like it too bad it's core rules so fair game anytime the gm wants to use the rules'
- at least - that's the actual 'rules as written' answer, expect (more than any other system in the game) table variation.
Your logic only works if you assume the ends justify the means.
Not true. I did not say the ends justify the means. I said people are guided by their own consciences. Some good people believe the ends justify the means; other good people do not.
Or you could just make your necromancer some flavor of neutral and still just do good things but using evil means
You have provided insufficient data to determine the alignment of this necromancer. Doing good things doesn't make you good if you are trying to get a good reputation in an elaborate ruse to get close to the innocent princess and cut her throat. You may very well be neutral and doing good things because you would refuse to do good things for innocent folk you don't know. And you may be good for using the tools the good lord gave you (your talent for necromancy) to protect innocent life to the best of your ability.
"End justify the means" and other rhetoric phrases are just excuses in the end. There is always some underlying truth to the action of the character, because you cannot lie to your own ego. There is always one unbroken context for actions deep down, even if it would be hidden behind multiple layers.
But here is my shtick. I think too layered or rather too complex plans are just poor writing. Convoluted reasons why someone is actually good because in the end the only reason they defiled souls, desecrated all that is sacred and murdered people is because they really really wanted to save the world is not an alignment problem, that is a writing problem. "Kindly let me help you or you will drown!" said the monkey, putting a fish safely up a tree.
Or you could just make your necromancer some flavor of neutral and still just do good things but using evil meansYou have provided insufficient data to determine the alignment of this necromancer. Doing good things doesn't make you good if you are trying to get a good reputation in an elaborate ruse to get close to the innocent princess and cut her throat. You may very well be neutral and doing good things because you would refuse to do good things for innocent folk you don't know. And you may be good for using the tools the good lord gave you (your talent for necromancy) to protect innocent life to the best of your ability.
Except animating the dead is an evil act and if you do it a lot you wont be good.
Needlessly complicating what is, really a fairly simple system is one of the worst aspects of gamers.
There is always some underlying truth to the action of the character, because you cannot lie to your own ego. There is always one unbroken context for actions deep down, even if it would be hidden behind multiple layers.I don't agree with this, and I'd rather the game was not built on it as an assumption about the nature of conscious beings because it seems really unappealingly limiting.
Limiting in what way? I mean, could you please elaborate, because I see person being controlled by his or her personality as normal behavior.
Actions have agendas. If you don't have agenda, you can have apathy, which does result to some actions, but usually passive ones. We don't need to explain why we all breathe, merely existing is fairly apathetic.
Perhaps we should draw more of a distinction between Evil (as it works in the game) and evil (whatever that may mean in reality), then. Because I don't actually think dwelling on the latter helps figure out how to make the former more workable as a mechanic,
One can't exist without the other - without a subjective understanding of what evil is there is no definition in game that makes sense.
Your subjective definitions of alignment are the only things that allow alignment to work as a mechanic - because alignment has no hard rules and must rely on the subjective whims of the GM - vs the subjective ideas of what 'evil' and 'good' (and 'law and chaos') mean for the player.
Real people have argued these things for all of recorded history and we don't have a simple answer - this is the entire reason the alignment rules are wishy/washy and have few hard lines - even every day activities that adventurers do is predicated on ignoring 'hard rules' about murdering a sentient being.
Pretending that one doesn't influence the other is just trying to justify an argument by ignoring the parts you know hurt your cause.
Or you could just make your necromancer some flavor of neutral and still just do good things but using evil meansYou have provided insufficient data to determine the alignment of this necromancer. Doing good things doesn't make you good if you are trying to get a good reputation in an elaborate ruse to get close to the innocent princess and cut her throat. You may very well be neutral and doing good things because you would refuse to do good things for innocent folk you don't know. And you may be good for using the tools the good lord gave you (your talent for necromancy) to protect innocent life to the best of your ability.
This is a good reason why spells shouldn't have alignment descriptors - but they do so intent doesn't matter in the current game.
Intent matters for any *other* action your character does - but for spells intent doesn't matter - casting 'protection from evil' is just as soul changing as 'animate dead'.
Non-intent based alignment mechanics like this are one hardcore way that min-maxers will use to 'gamify' the alignment system though - which will always happen if you have any kind of 'meter' to determine alignment, as soon as it's trackable and you know 'X = light side points, Y = dark side points' you can game your alignment, given the numerous stories I've seen from people who love alignment and what it brings to their game, you'd think we'd all be on the same side in getting rid of this kind of system, as it really turns alignment into just another 'subsystem game' rather than the 'ethos and pathos' that people seem to want from the system.
Those of you who love alignment should really consider what you get in return for spells being aligned in the new context, instead of just assuming that more alignment is good.
Well Anathema just dropped with Clerics. How codified or subjective it will be remains unseen. Sounds like we will find out more on Friday. Then we will get a peak at how gameable alignment is going to be in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could just make your necromancer some flavor of neutral and still just do good things but using evil meansYou have provided insufficient data to determine the alignment of this necromancer. Doing good things doesn't make you good if you are trying to get a good reputation in an elaborate ruse to get close to the innocent princess and cut her throat. You may very well be neutral and doing good things because you would refuse to do good things for innocent folk you don't know. And you may be good for using the tools the good lord gave you (your talent for necromancy) to protect innocent life to the best of your ability.This is a good reason why spells shouldn't have alignment descriptors - but they do so intent doesn't matter in the current game.
Intent matters for any *other* action your character does - but for spells intent doesn't matter - casting 'protection from evil' is just as soul changing as 'animate dead'.
Non-intent based alignment mechanics like this are one hardcore way that min-maxers will use to 'gamify' the alignment system though - which will always happen if you have any kind of 'meter' to determine alignment, as soon as it's trackable and you know 'X = light side points, Y = dark side points' you can game your alignment, given the numerous stories I've seen from people who love alignment and what it brings to their game, you'd think we'd all be on the same side in getting rid of this kind of system, as it really turns alignment into just another 'subsystem game' rather than the 'ethos and pathos' that people seem to want from the system.
Those of you who love alignment should really consider what you get in return for spells being aligned in the new context, instead of just assuming that more alignment is good.
I couldn't disagree more. The concept of "forbidden magic" that corrupts the soul of the user is a time tested fantasy trope. One that even alignmentless systems often use. What we "get" is a world where the well meaning or even not well meaning fall to eldritch evil due to a lust for power, or immortality (lichdom) and if that disappears you can bet 5th ed takes over my area.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I couldn't disagree more. The concept of "forbidden magic" that corrupts the soul of the user is a time tested fantasy trope. One that even alignmentless systems often use....Or you could just make your necromancer some flavor of neutral and still just do good things but using evil meansYou have provided insufficient data to determine the alignment of this necromancer. Doing good things doesn't make you good if you are trying to get a good reputation in an elaborate ruse to get close to the innocent princess and cut her throat. You may very well be neutral and doing good things because you would refuse to do good things for innocent folk you don't know. And you may be good for using the tools the good lord gave you (your talent for necromancy) to protect innocent life to the best of your ability.This is a good reason why spells shouldn't have alignment descriptors - but they do so intent doesn't matter in the current game.
Intent matters for any *other* action your character does - but for spells intent doesn't matter - casting 'protection from evil' is just as soul changing as 'animate dead'.
Non-intent based alignment mechanics like this are one hardcore way that min-maxers will use to 'gamify' the alignment system though - which will always happen if you have any kind of 'meter' to determine alignment, as soon as it's trackable and you know 'X = light side points, Y = dark side points' you can game your alignment, given the numerous stories I've seen from people who love alignment and what it brings to their game, you'd think we'd all be on the same side in getting rid of this kind of system, as it really turns alignment into just another 'subsystem game' rather than the 'ethos and pathos' that people seem to want from the system.
Those of you who love alignment should really consider what you get in return for spells being aligned in the new context, instead of just assuming that more alignment is good.
Yes. And it works great in book form when the author is both DM and all of the players. In a game with a DM and players, however, it sucks. Really bad. If the player wants their player to be corrupted, let them have the fun of telling the story. Don't steal that opportunity from them. Or else let them deal with the consequences of becoming known as a practitioner of forbidden magic. Don't play the characters for your players.
Another great fantasy trope is the Conan-equivalent, who is better than anyone else. Great as a story, but pretty awful as a DMPC. Another is the everyman (every-hobbit?) thrust into the midst of the greatest of heroes. Awesome stuff... in movies and books. Awful if you are the everyman in the midst of heroes.
Even extremely popular fantasy tropes are often not fun to play out in party form, particularly with good DMs who are encouraging their players to tell the story they want to tell.
Or you could just make your necromancer some flavor of neutral and still just do good things but using evil meansYou have provided insufficient data to determine the alignment of this necromancer. Doing good things doesn't make you good if you are trying to get a good reputation in an elaborate ruse to get close to the innocent princess and cut her throat. You may very well be neutral and doing good things because you would refuse to do good things for innocent folk you don't know. And you may be good for using the tools the good lord gave you (your talent for necromancy) to protect innocent life to the best of your ability.This is a good reason why spells shouldn't have alignment descriptors - but they do so intent doesn't matter in the current game.
Intent matters for any *other* action your character does - but for spells intent doesn't matter - casting 'protection from evil' is just as soul changing as 'animate dead'.
Non-intent based alignment mechanics like this are one hardcore way that min-maxers will use to 'gamify' the alignment system though - which will always happen if you have any kind of 'meter' to determine alignment, as soon as it's trackable and you know 'X = light side points, Y = dark side points' you can game your alignment, given the numerous stories I've seen from people who love alignment and what it brings to their game, you'd think we'd all be on the same side in getting rid of this kind of system, as it really turns alignment into just another 'subsystem game' rather than the 'ethos and pathos' that people seem to want from the system.
Those of you who love alignment should really consider what you get in return for spells being aligned in the new context, instead of just assuming that more alignment is good.
Good points. However, it is not difficult to start with a framework of intent-based alignment for those with free will and then include the concept of taint. Some "greater evil" is the reason for some things to appear to be evil. The evil things may seem to be tools anyone can use, but there is reason to be wary. (And NPCs will almost always succumb to the evil if they play with it too much.) I've been using that framework for decades. It works great.
I'm sorry but the existence of spells with an evil descriptor which it is an evil act to cast doesn't take anything away from the player's agency. If they want to tell a story about a fall to corruption, they cast those spells, if they don't, they don't cast them. Its really simple.
I'm sorry but the existence of spells with an evil descriptor which it is an evil act to cast doesn't take anything away from the player's agency. If they want to tell a story about a fall to corruption, they cast those spells, if they don't, they don't cast them. Its really simple.
I'll agree with that, but I would use the word simplistic.
I'm sorry but the existence of spells with an evil descriptor which it is an evil act to cast doesn't take anything away from the player's agency. If they want to tell a story about a fall to corruption, they cast those spells, if they don't, they don't cast them. Its really simple.I'll agree with that, but I would use the word simplistic.
The game doesn't exactly need a bunch of needless complexity added.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game doesn't exactly need a bunch of needless complexity added.I'm sorry but the existence of spells with an evil descriptor which it is an evil act to cast doesn't take anything away from the player's agency. If they want to tell a story about a fall to corruption, they cast those spells, if they don't, they don't cast them. Its really simple.I'll agree with that, but I would use the word simplistic.
Nor does it benefit from a bunch of needless simplicity.
Nor does it benefit from a bunch of needless simplicity.The game doesn't exactly need a bunch of needless complexity added.I'm sorry but the existence of spells with an evil descriptor which it is an evil act to cast doesn't take anything away from the player's agency. If they want to tell a story about a fall to corruption, they cast those spells, if they don't, they don't cast them. Its really simple.I'll agree with that, but I would use the word simplistic.
I disagree, aspects of this game need to be simple. "Forbidden magic" that corrupts your soul is a good way to do that. A significant chunk of pathfinder's popularity is in the complexity of building a character. Making that the simplistic aspect of the game is going to be working against what makes the game popular. The subset of people who want a philosophical discussion about every action in play is really quite small.