To me summoning is ass backwards. A conjuration(summon) spell forcibly calls a creature to you and puts it under your direct command without so much as a saving throw. Summon monster is essentially a teleport or plane shift effect followed by a short duration dominate monster. If anything, summoning celestial creatures should have the [Evil] descriptor since you are taking away their freedom of choice and enslaving them to your will. Logically summoning a demon shouldn't have a descriptor at all. Good casters choose to summon demons rather than celestial because they don't care about a demon's free will or about interrupting the demon's day. They do care about a celestial beings free will however and would be loath to summon them in all but the most dire of circumstances.
I had a similar feeling about the summoning of creatures, so my games run with house rule that Summons are not automatons that automatically obey. So conjuring an outsider whos alingment is radically different than your own is asking for problems. If asked to do something that conflicts with their normal behavior they can break free.
As to summoning evil being evil I would say yes. You are bringing something that hates and loaths your existance into the world and asking it for favors.
To me summoning is ass backwards. A conjuration(summon) spell forcibly calls a creature to you and puts it under your direct command without so much as a saving throw. Summon monster is essentially a teleport or plane shift effect followed by a short duration dominate monster. If anything, summoning celestial creatures should have the [Evil] descriptor since you are taking away their freedom of choice and enslaving them to your will. Logically summoning a demon shouldn't have a descriptor at all. Good casters choose to summon demons rather than celestial because they don't care about a demon's free will or about interrupting the demon's day. They do care about a celestial beings free will however and would be loath to summon them in all but the most dire of circumstances.
Oh so it's okay in your game/world to perform evil acts as long as the victim is himself evil? What about neutral creatures? Is it okay to torture and kill or subjugate neutral creatures?
But you think that theft is evil.
I know it is. You cause another damage for your benefit. Selfishness in a nutshell.
Again, mind the quantity. Stealing gum from a huge shopping centre barely registers on the Evildar. If you do it to keep from starving to death, the amount of evil probably becomes so small that you cannot even detect it, and it will never really affect your alignment. Or in that instance it ceases to be evil.
But any time you steal when your life doesn't depend on it, it's evil.
So we can't really come to terms with your adjudication here.
"we"? How many people are using that user account?
It was really hard to be good in his games.
Being good - really being good, not the convenient nice-weather kind - is hard.
To me summoning is ass backwards. A conjuration(summon) spell forcibly calls a creature to you and puts it under your direct command without so much as a saving throw.
Hence the switch thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh so it's okay in your game/world to perform evil acts as long as the victim is himself evil? What about neutral creatures? Is it okay to torture and kill or subjugate neutral creatures?
In my games each character will have their own opinion of whether or not its okay to enslave a horrifically cruel demon. In my games some people do think its okay to enslave demons since they are antithetical to their very existence and an enemy to free willed creatures. Other characters won't agree and will fight them on it. But thats because I don't use alignment in my games and I don't have to account for bull s+&~ alignment descriptions that constantly contradict themselves and add nothing to the game. In my game people are not neutral evil, they simply have personalities and philosophies and ideas. So in MY game characters can actually have meaningful discussions about right and wrong and the players can decide for themselves whether their characters are willing or unwilling to perform an action, without any DM input at all. That's what morality really is: choice.
The real question is why is it okay for you to enslave an angel in your games but not a demon? Why is an otherwise evil action okay simply because the victim is good?
But you think that theft is evil.I know it is. You cause another damage for your benefit. Selfishness in a nutshell.
Me taking an apple from you is not harming you in any real sense. Property=/=life. It's a dick move, but dick moves also =/= evil. Me stealing your car keys if you're drunk is probably a good act, me stealing your heart medicine is almost certainly evil. Are you saying that theft with the intent of selfish gain is evil then? What if it's not theft, per se, but using deception to get someone to give you their money, is that any different?
My point really is it comes down to opinion and from where you draw your moral absolutes. There are a lot of things I do that are honestly morally questionable but I can rationalize them that they don't actually directly hurt anyone.
If selfishness is evil, all children are evil? Or are they neutral because they don't know any better? Is ignorance a valid excuse in this case? Does it matter who you are harming by your selfishness? You harm animals if you eat meat, and since you don't absolutely need animal flesh to sustain yourself aren't all non-vegetarians evil, at least a little? Would someone with gout (commonly caused by eating very rich animal-based foods) ping as evil to a paladin? Why is it okay to harm plants by eating or killing them to build a home? Is it because they are (we ASSUME!) not sentient? How about using air conditioning, that demonstrably contributes to the depletion of the ozone layer and subsequently (through a series of cause-effect relationships and some basic ecology) leads to lower fish population levels in the ocean.
Must one be immediately responsible for an act to bear the taint on his/her soul? If I pay you to kill someone, certainly we are both responsible. If I purchase stolen goods, am I then evil? What if I didn't know? Is ignorance an excuse? What about purchasing goods manufactured through slave or near slave labor? What about buying gas from BP who (perhaps inadvertently) negatively affected thousands of people and likely many more animals with the oil spill last summer?
Is taxation theft? What if tax money is used for good? What if it's used for evil? Are the taxpayers evil for not refusing to contribute to what they suspect might, somewhere along the line, be an evil act?
There are a whole lot of questions and I don't really expect anyone to answer them. FYI don't think you can predict my stance on these questions based on which ones are asked, as you'll likely be wrong at least half the time.
But thats because I don't use alignment in my games and I don't have to account for bull s#!@ alignment descriptions that constantly contradict themselves and add nothing to the game. In my game people are not neutral evil, they simply have personalities and philosophies and ideas. So in MY game characters can actually have meaningful discussions about right and wrong and the players can decide for themselves whether their characters are willing or unwilling to perform an action, without any DM input at all. That's what morality really is: choice.
Hey man I'm on your side. I think alignment as a whole is utter bunk and when I have to I play Neutral. But as an alignment thread someone has to ask the hard questions and be the agitator about the system as a whole rather than the minutiae of the rules (or lack thereof). Just playin' my part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey man I'm on your side. I think alignment as a whole is utter bunk and when I have to I play Neutral. But as an alignment thread someone has to ask the hard questions and be the agitator about the system as a whole rather than the minutiae of the rules (or lack thereof). Just playin' my part.
I use strong, strait forward language, but please never let it fool you. I was attacking your claim, not being aggressive towards you. I am well aware that I sometimes sound like a dick, but it isn't intentional. It's just a by-product of being direct on the internet. I was just addressing the challenge you gave me, and I appreciate being challenged.
EDIT: Very bad choice of words.
Hey man I'm on your side. I think alignment as a whole is utter bunk and when I have to I play Neutral. But as an alignment thread someone has to ask the hard questions and be the agitator about the system as a whole rather than the minutiae of the rules (or lack thereof). Just playin' my part.I use strong, strait forward language, but please never let it fool you. I was attacking your claim, not being aggressive towards you. I am well aware that I sometimes sound like a dick, but it isn't intentional. It's just a by-product of being direct on the internet. I was just addressing the challenge you gave me, and I appreciate being challenged.
EDIT: Very bad choice of words.
Nono, I got that. I just wanted to make it clear what my stance is.
We're cool, bro!
let mne clarify something, according to descriptions in previous dnd editions, a summoned creature is actually an extraplanar creature called through the astral plane into our own. what this means is that the creature, while real, is only there in spirit enhabiting a body created by the spell for the duration. therefore, when a summoned creature is "killed" what is really happening is that the ceature's connection to this plane through the astral plane has been severed, and it's conciousness returns to its body.
that stated, astral projection is a spell not aquired till higher levels, and it is therefore an inherent, if dormant, quality of the creature being summoned which is volunteered for use by the character doing the summoning, allowing the creature to more easily venture from its home plane for the small price of performing some simple deeds.
it then follows that the above post is correct in stating that summoned creatures are not automotons. now as for the repercussions.
first, realize the exchange: a summoned creature donates its services in return for temporarily assisted astral passage to another plane.
therefore:
1- a summoned creature may not be summoned on the same plane in which it exists
2- a summoned creature may choose not to be summoned by a known indivudual (useful if you play by the option that you can only summon one specific creature of any given type)
3- a summoned creature who does not wish to perform a task may choose to leave
however, since summons are not automotons, there is no reason a summoned creature could not elect to interpret their task differently from the intent of the summoner, and the summoner should be held accountable for the actions of his or her summons and should take care to summon only those creatures who are less likely to interpret their requests in an undesireable manner.
still, while casting a summoning spell with the evil or good descriptor does allow the summoned forces to view into our realm, that is equivalent to whether or not you elect to return a small sum of found moneys on the sidewalk when there is no visible potential owner, or better yet, whether you download an applications which you know will send data back to the corporation about what websites and search terms you use most frequently.
chances are, unless it was during a major diplomatic meeting during sensitive negotioations between hostile parties, the information gathered by the summoned creature will be of little to no real consequence.
let mne clarify something, according to descriptions in previous dnd editions...
Pathfinder gives a very clear definition for what conjuration (summoning) is. Any description from a previous edition is irrelevant.
therefore:
1- a summoned creature may not be summoned on the same plane in which it exists
2- a summoned creature may choose not to be summoned by a known indivudual (useful if you play by the option that you can only summon one specific creature of any given type)
3- a summoned creature who does not wish to perform a task may choose to leave
Your claims are flat-out wrong. An interesting piece of Hindu inspired fluff, but still incorrect. For reference, here are the actual rules for Conjuration (summon) spells.
A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.
When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have.
Notice that no mention of other planes, temporary physical shells, or astral traveling subconsciousness's exist or are even implied. In fact, the text is in direct opposition to each of your assertions.
well, while it is true that the rules in PF do not expicitly deal with the matter of how a creature is summoned, the PF ruleset DOES specifically state that it is an EXPANSION AND UPDATE OF previous editions, threfore my arguments are valid in that context.
if you choose not to accept them, that is up to you, and reasonable in the light of your campaign. I merely state the rules as they have been written before along with my interpretation of them, same as you.
well, while it is true that the rules in PF do not expicitly deal with the matter of how a creature is summoned, the PF ruleset DOES specifically state that it is an EXPANSION AND UPDATE OF previous editions, threfore my arguments are valid in that context.
if you choose not to accept them, that is up to you, and reasonable in the light of your campaign. I merely state the rules as they have been written before along with my interpretation of them, same as you.
Those rules don't apply in Pathfinder. It is its own game. The only rules that apply are 3.5 rules that have not been overwritten.
1- a summoned creature may not be summoned on the same plane in which it exists
2- a summoned creature may choose not to be summoned by a known indivudual (useful if you play by the option that you can only summon one specific creature of any given type)
3- a summoned creature who does not wish to perform a task may choose to leave
1. I don't see any wording in 3.x or PF that the plane affects what can be summoned or called.
2. This is also not a rule.3. They may not leave. It is not an option. As an example there is an AP where a bad guy summoned a good aligned outsider to tell the PC's to go away. It was sort of a "move along, nothing to see here" type thing. I am sure that if leaving was an option the good aligned outsider would have just left, and not helped the bad guy.
.......
A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. ......
well, while it is true that the rules in PF do not expicitly deal with the matter of how a creature is summoned, the PF ruleset DOES specifically state that it is an EXPANSION AND UPDATE OF previous editions, threfore my arguments are valid in that context.
if you choose not to accept them, that is up to you, and reasonable in the light of your campaign. I merely state the rules as they have been written before along with my interpretation of them, same as you.
I'm actually a fan of the concept of astral/physical projection. So, I like the idea you presented. I simply don't think there is a valid reason to believe its true. Even if this edition is an expansion and update, the rules it presents within itself are also internal to itself. They do not rely on previous editions or outside sources to play the game or clarify its content. So, its clear we disagree that it is a valid interpretation. We do, however, agree that it is a good one.
In the end, its up to you(if you're the DM) to decide how you want summoning to effect your game. I would definitely say the clerics/paladins restriction on it makes a lot of sense, how would you use the power of a good god to summon evil demons?
But a wizard is another thing entirely. Summoning fiends is a thin line already as it is, but if it's done for a good cause, to die at his command and fight evil(which is an irony in its own way), why not?
People might frown at him, but he'll be like Batman. Wizard batman.
In the end, its up to you(if you're the DM) to decide how you want summoning to effect your game. I would definitely say the clerics/paladins restriction on it makes a lot of sense, how would you use the power of a good god to summon evil demons?
But a wizard is another thing entirely. Summoning fiends is a thin line already as it is, but if it's done for a good cause, to die at his command and fight evil(which is an irony in its own way), why not?
People might frown at him, but he'll be like Batman. Wizard batman.
I dunno man. Using evil to fight evil is a pretty slipperly slope. And if you're fighting against the bad guys, do you REALLY want a demon whispering advice in your ear and blurring the line even further?
For what its worth, I view [evil] spells like an addiction. using them once or twice in a great while, ok - you can find justification for it. But routinely summoning demons or animating hordes of zombies? well...now we've got a problem. sure, you've just smashed the fortress of the mistress of doom...but you violated the graves of every village for 40 miles in every direction. the peasants are glad the mistress of doom and her succubi servants are gone for good, but you violated the graves of everyones parents to do it. they're gonna be pretty upset about that.
all i'm saying is that its possible for [evil] magic to spin out of control. you start off with the best of intentions and before you know it, adventurers are calling YOU evil and trying to kill YOU off in the name of the greater good!
Why not just create outsiders that fit the summoning spells instead of insisting on summoning evil creatures and arguing about in-game, rule-based morality?
And with two words, you have come to state 99 percent of the problem with this discussion. YOUR view. YOUR opinion.
I don't know why you're looking for a fight. I never said you had to subscribe to my viewpoint. I just tossed it out there in the ring.
you might want to take that chip off yer shoulder dude, you'll probably have a lot more fun that way.
I dunno man. Using evil to fight evil is a pretty slipperly slope. And if you're fighting against the bad guys, do you REALLY want a demon whispering advice in your ear and blurring the line even further?
For what its worth, I view [evil] spells like an addiction. using them once or twice in a great while, ok - you can find justification for it. But routinely summoning demons or animating hordes of zombies? well...now we've got a problem. sure, you've just smashed the fortress of the mistress of doom...but you violated the graves of every village for 40 miles in every direction. the peasants are glad the mistress of doom and her succubi servants are gone for good, but you violated the graves of everyones parents to do it. they're gonna be pretty upset about that.
all i'm saying is that its possible for [evil] magic to spin out of control. you start off with the best of intentions and before you know it, adventurers are calling YOU evil and trying to kill YOU off in the name of the greater good!
Why should you care if it makes you popular? Doing the best thing isn't the popular thing. The hard and best thing can be the least popular: same as summoning demons might be neccsary to save the world from evil.
It isn't addicting as others are prejudice. And that is fine. Haters are gonnna hate. You're a hero, you should ignore it.
Why not just create outsiders that fit the summoning spells instead of insisting on summoning evil creatures and arguing about in-game, rule-based morality?
probably because some folks LIKE to explore issues of morality in their games. I've run entire campaigns where players started off as evil and eventually ended up redeeming themselves. I've also run games where a player toyed around with evil magic and it corrupted them to the point where they had to be put down by the rest of the group.
I guess it all comes down to play style. there really isn't any right or wrong way to play with alignment. Some groups are very strict, but most groups are probably less authoritarian when it comes to alignment and morality. Unless you've got a paladin in the group, you can probably even outright ignore the bulk of issues with alignment and morality, as well as gods and faith. so long as the players are comfortable with the game style, then hey - go with what works.
As i said earlier, for my part I like to occasionally throw temptations to walk the dark side in front of my group. if they destroy the evil artifacts and/or burn the tomes of evil spells, hey - that's great! they can get extra EXP out of it. If they use the icky stuff to drop the bad guys quicker...that works too, but they might pay a price for it later down the road. it all furthers my plotlines and development of my story.
Why should you care if it makes you popular? Doing the best thing isn't the popular thing. The hard and best thing can be the least popular: same as summoning demons might be neccsary to save the world from evil.
It isn't addicting as others are prejudice. And that is fine. Haters are gonnna hate. You're a hero, you should ignore it.
road to hell/best intentions/blahblah....
|
Casting spells with the [evil] descriptor is an evil action in Golarion. In the Pathfinder world, Good and Evil ARE quantifiable, black and white attributes. I really don't understand why there's a debate about it. The creators of Golarion have said that casting evil spells is an evil action. That's really all there is to it.
I say this because this is the direction from which all of the written content for Pathfinder is approached. Now, if you DON'T play in that world, then you are free to change things as you wish. However, in Golarion, evil = evil. Intention has nothing to do with it... in regards to spells with the [evil] descriptor.
Now, if you use the evil spell to do something good, you've performed an evil action followed by a good action. Most DM's would let this balance out, or maybe even push you further towards good depending on the actions taken, but that doesn't change the fact that you did something evil first.
Casting spells with the [evil] descriptor is an evil action in Golarion. In the Pathfinder world, Good and Evil ARE quantifiable, black and white attributes. I really don't understand why there's a debate about it. The creators of Golarion have said that casting evil spells is an evil action. That's really all there is to it.
I say this because this is the direction from which all of the written content for Pathfinder is approached. Now, if you DON'T play in that world, then you are free to change things as you wish. However, in Golarion, evil = evil. Intention has nothing to do with it... in regards to spells with the [evil] descriptor.
Now, if you use the evil spell to do something good, you've performed an evil action followed by a good action. Most DM's would let this balance out, or maybe even push you further towards good depending on the actions taken, but that doesn't change the fact that you did something evil first.
This is it pretty much. Real world morality and Pretend world morality are not the same. You can either use pretend world reality which does not makes much sense all the time, but can stop a lot of table arguments or use RL morality which is always up for debate, and have people with different views on good and evil bring the game to a halt. I will take my pretend world morality for the sake of convenience.
This is it pretty much. Real world morality and Pretend world morality are not the same. You can either use pretend world reality which does not makes much sense all the time, but can stop a lot of table arguments or use RL morality which is always up for debate, and have people with different views on good and evil bring the game to a halt. I will take my pretend world morality for the sake of convenience.
Why should alignment be relegated to nothing more than a cartoon war banner? Its certainly convenient to have of all the pretty creatures be good and all of the ugly ones be evil, but that sort of hand waving actually creates MORE alignment problems at the table. Players don't like the taste it leaves in their mouth when your excuse for asking them to kill things indiscriminately and without remorse is "its okay, their born evil!"
"I'm a villain! You can tell by my oily mustache," isn't very satisfying and makes for some really crappy stories. Not to mention that that sort of childish view of morality in a game as nuanced and sophisticated as D&D/PF is an insult to my intelligence.
Having any rules at all for morality is unnecessary. During character creation instead of asking themselves "Do I think this character is more of a neutral good kinda guy or a chaotic good kinda guy?" the players should be asking themselves "What makes my character interesting? Who is this person? How did they become the way they are? What is going to make role playing this character memorable and fun?"
Now I realize that it is possible to ask these sorts of questions with an alignment system, but in my experience, if you remove the moral cliques, and force players to pick a damn personality, characters become more interesting and involved and everyone has more fun, especially the players.
|
|
See, and there's the inherent issue with this discussion. Personal taste has too much to do with it. I LOVE the alignment system. No, really, I do. I LOVE good vs. evil, dark vs. light, Star Wars-esque black vs. white type games. My players like it to.
Could we do without it? Sure! I'd be all for rewriting the morality system, or just flat out removing it for ease of use, and leave all moral decisions up to the player(s) and DM(s).
But that's another discussion. For the purposes of this one, evil = evil.
|
I think some of you are confused. What are you going to pay a demon with to do a good act? Demons are by there very nature chaotic and evil you have to pay them souls or some type of life force to get them to do any thing.
Devls are much easier to bargin with as they are lawful though evil and will honor to the letter thier agreement and may twist thier words worse than any lawyer of the earthly realm.
Daemons are just right out for bargining with as they are agents of entropy and destrustion and only want to kill what ever fool summoned them.
I recomend only summonin those planer beings from the upper realams for help they may ask a high price but it worth paying for their help.
"its okay, their born evil!"
You've missed an important fact about evil outsiders here. They aren't Drow, who are evil because they are made that way by their culture and society.
They are literally born from evil. As in, they are made of the metaphysical stuff of evil acts, evil souls, and evil thoughts.
Even so, a Good character probably would (or maybe should) question indiscriminately killing anything; its the good thing to do to take the time to consider things and do them right.
I think my favorite thing in this thread was KaeYoss' quote, what was it?
"Being good - really being good, not the convenient nice-weather kind - is hard."
If you are willing to summon demons to do 'good' things, then you probably aren't Good. You may not be Evil either... neutral is a valid alignment, after all. But summoning Demons to solve your problem (literally, summoning creatures made out of pure evil) is definitely not a Good way to go about anything.
Why should alignment be relegated to nothing more than a cartoon war banner? Its certainly convenient to have of all the pretty creatures be good and all of the ugly ones be evil, but that sort of hand waving actually creates MORE alignment problems at the table. Players don't like the taste it leaves in their mouth when your excuse for asking them to kill things indiscriminately and without remorse is "its okay, their born evil!"
Some players don't like it, and the GM can't force his moral views on the party. Killing it because it is born evil does not make an act not evil either. :)
"I'm a villain! You can tell by my oily mustache," isn't very satisfying and makes for some really crappy stories. Not to mention that that sort of childish view of morality in a game as nuanced and sophisticated as D&D/PF is an insult to my intelligence.
...not even close to what I said. I am saying by the rules it is black and white. By adding circumstances into the situation it is nothing but house rules which are not bad, but nobody on these boards will ever come to an agreement on it, and if you play with someone whose views of good and evil differ from yours at the table it is sure to cause problems. Now I all for a group stance on certain things, but the group has to agree on it. As an example in my group using poison is not evil, like it was in 3.5.
Having any rules at all for morality is unnecessary. During character creation instead of asking themselves "Do I think this character is more of a neutral good kinda guy or a chaotic good kinda guy?" the players should be asking themselves "What makes my character interesting? Who is this person? How did they become the way they are? What is going to make role playing this character memorable and fun?"
The problem is the rules interact with alignment so throwing alignment means more changes have to be made. I am all for a game without alignment, but I don't want to deal with the spells and abilities that rely on it.
Now I realize that it is possible to ask these sorts of questions with an alignment system, but in my experience, if you remove the moral cliques, and force players to pick a damn personality, characters become more interesting and involved and everyone has more fun, especially the players.
Actually you can play an alignment and still have a personality. The two are not enemies. The group just has to agree that certain things are set a certain way in the game world, and they have to agree on the dividing line between heroism, and foolishness.
Heroes are heroes because they take the route that evil does not. Exactly what that is varies from group to group. Knocking on the bad guys door asking for permission to enter is where foolish comes in for me as an example, and yes that actually happened in game. The player saw breaking and entering as evil. We of course had to have a discussion later on.|
|
I think some of you are confused. What are you going to pay a demon with to do a good act? Demons are by there very nature chaotic and evil you have to pay them souls or some type of life force to get them to do any thing.
Devls are much easier to bargin with as they are lawful though evil and will honor to the letter thier agreement and may twist thier words worse than any lawyer of the earthly realm.
Daemons are just right out for bargining with as they are agents of entropy and destrustion and only want to kill what ever fool summoned them.
I recomend only summonin those planer beings from the upper realams for help they may ask a high price but it worth paying for their help.
Summon Monster spells. You basically control the creature. You don't have to do payment or anything, those are Planar binding, or Gate, or w/e you wanna use.
The moral of this story is that the Summon Monster lists need some serious expansion.
The moral of this story is that the Summon Monster lists need some serious expansion.
+1
And to the point of evil having better options yep the usually do.Good guys can't really take hostages most of the time (Some BBEGs might try to get their people back but most would say to heck with it)
Good guys can't just kill for no reason.
Good guys can't do a lot of things evil guys do its the nature of the beast.
You've missed an important fact about evil outsiders here. They aren't Drow, who are evil because they are made that way by their culture and society.They are literally born from evil. As in, they are made of the metaphysical stuff of evil acts, evil souls, and evil thoughts.
What does that even mean? Saying something is literally born from evil is just as incomprehensible as saying something is literally born from justice or flippancy or charity or excitement or whatever. It isn't even a coherent concept. "Don't worry to much about Tom, he may be down now, but he was literally born from resilience. He always bounces back!"
You've missed an important fact about evil outsiders here. They aren't Drow, who are evil because they are made that way by their culture and society.They are literally born from evil. As in, they are made of the metaphysical stuff of evil acts, evil souls, and evil thoughts.
What does that even mean? Saying something is literally born from evil is just as incomprehensible as saying something is literally born from justice or flippancy or charity or excitement or whatever. It isn't even a coherent concept. "Don't worry to much about Tom, he may be down now, but he was literally born from resilience. He always bounces back!"
No they are born from the primal evil of the planes they reside on.
Have you even read the beastariy at all for the general rules for demons and devils?
You've missed an important fact about evil outsiders here. They aren't Drow, who are evil because they are made that way by their culture and society.They are literally born from evil. As in, they are made of the metaphysical stuff of evil acts, evil souls, and evil thoughts.
What does that even mean? Saying something is literally born from evil is just as incomprehensible as saying something is literally born from justice or flippancy or charity or excitement or whatever. It isn't even a coherent concept. "Don't worry to much about Tom, he may be down now, but he was literally born from resilience. He always bounces back!"
In the game evil is tangible, and creatures can be formed from it such as evil outsiders. That is what he means. In our world such things can't happen. It is not comprehensible to you because you are using our world's evil which can not form evil creatures. The game is alignment based, and the forces are so strong they create beings.
You've missed an important fact about evil outsiders here. They aren't Drow, who are evil because they are made that way by their culture and society.They are literally born from evil. As in, they are made of the metaphysical stuff of evil acts, evil souls, and evil thoughts.
What does that even mean? Saying something is literally born from evil is just as incomprehensible as saying something is literally born from justice or flippancy or charity or excitement or whatever. It isn't even a coherent concept. "Don't worry to much about Tom, he may be down now, but he was literally born from resilience. He always bounces back!"
It is incomprehensible. Its also impossible.
And yet in DND, it happens anyway; intangibles, such as evil, collect in such quantity and substance in the Abyss that things which resemble living creatures literally spring into existence from the very essence of evil. And you end up with Demons, things representing the particular evils of their component parts, beings that exist to literally do nothing but corrupt others and to further the spread of evil throughout the planes.
In fact, upon consideration, summoning such creatures into the material plane for any purpose and calling it anything BUT evil seems pretty silly.
Some players don't like it, and the GM can't force his moral views on the party. Killing it because it is born evil does not make an act not evil either. :)
Non-sequitor. Non-alignment systems are not inherently combative nor do they require making players uncomfortable. Anything action that takes place in the game world that makes the players feel uncomfortable in a game without an alignment system will also make them feel uncomfortable in a game with one. The only difference is that in one world the evil character is evil because the players decided they cannot reconcile their moral perspectives and in the other the character is evil because he set off the paladin's naughty alarm.
...not even close to what I said. I am saying by the rules it is black and white. By adding circumstances into the situation it is nothing but house rules which are not bad, but nobody on these boards will ever come to an agreement on it, and if you play with someone whose views of good and evil differ from yours at the table it is sure to cause problems. Now I all for a group stance on certain things, but the group has to agree on it. As an example in my group using poison is not evil, like it was in 3.5.
This is an unsubstantiated claim. There are a many TTRPG's without alignment systems. Their boards tend to have for less alignment discussions than d20 based boards. In fact, they are nearly non-existent. It seems to me that having an alignment system causes more problems than not having one, mostly by drawing attention to it.
The problem is the rules interact with alignment so throwing alignment means more changes have to be made. I am all for a game without alignment, but I don't want to deal with the spells and abilities that rely on it.
This is a legitimate argument. I am okay with making changes. Other might not be. That is a different discussion :)
Actually you can play an alignment and still have a personality. The two are not enemies. The group just has to agree that certain things are set a certain way in the game world, and they have to agree on the dividing line between heroism, and foolishness.
Yes you can. I said as much. However, I have found that players usually become more creative when they don't try to conform to alignment expectations.
n the game evil is tangible, and creatures can be formed from it such as evil outsiders. That is what he means. In our world such things can't happen. It is not comprehensible to you because you are using our world's evil which can not form evil creatures. The game is alignment based, and the forces are so strong they create beings.
If evil is tangible then you must provide a definition for what evil is when it is tangible or this remains a completely incoherent concept.
Defining evil, in a complete sense, it fairly tough. Its complex, and somewhat subjective, but luckily, I can point you at several examples of evil beings;
Demons for one. Devils. Daemons. Etc.
We know they're evil, because they're made of it, born of it, and explicitly defined as such; they're a great spot to start building a definition from.
Defining evil, in a complete sense, it fairly tough. Its complex, and somewhat subjective, but luckily, I can point you at several examples of evil beings;Demons for one. Devils. Daemons. Etc.
We know they're evil, because they're made of it, born of it, and explicitly defined as such; they're a great spot to start building a definition from.
I realize that. My problem is that it contradicts the actual definitions of alignment. Objective alignment is actually (objectively) a violation of the rules for what alignment means in D&D. Aligned Spells and items and such don't conform to the properties of alignment. What we have is a game with two alignment systems disguised as one.
The first alignment system is the one the game actually tells us its using, which demands sentience and volition in order to operate. The second is the one woven into the mechanics. An implied alignment system that wants good and evil to be physical forces or elements or something (its never really clear).
My point is, what good is this doing us? Removing the alignment system from the game entirely will actually let you have demons "born from evil" without any contradictions.
Non-sequitor. Non-alignment systems are not inherently combative nor do they require making players uncomfortable. Anything action that takes place in the game world that makes the players feel uncomfortable in a game without an alignment system will also make them feel uncomfortable in a game with one. The only difference is that in one world the evil character is evil because the players decided they cannot reconcile their moral perspectives and in the other the character is evil because he set off the paladin's naughty alarm.
We agree.
This is an unsubstantiated claim. There are a many TTRPG's without alignment systems. Their boards tend to have for less alignment discussions than d20 based boards. In fact, they are nearly non-existent. It seems to me that having an alignment system causes more problems than not having one, mostly by drawing attention to it.
Fair enough but so are both of our claims. The fact that nobody says alignment issues caused X does not mean there are not post where a player's actions are not in line with what the GM or group expects.
If evil is tangible then you must provide a definition for what evil is when it is tangible or this remains a completely incoherent concept.
I am saying it is tangible in the game. I don't really need an argument for it. The game itself says it is a force and it details how the force works on several levels. If it was not tangible it would not have the effect that it does, and if other similar ideals in our world were tangible in fantasy land they would have the same affect. There are no detect love spells, or creatures made out of honor as an example, so those are just ideals and not tangible forces of the universe in the way that the alignments are.
Where is the contradiction? Nothing i can find demands sentience to have an alignment.
Defining evil, in a complete sense, it fairly tough. Its complex, and somewhat subjective, but luckily, I can point you at several examples of evil beings;Demons for one. Devils. Daemons. Etc.
We know they're evil, because they're made of it, born of it, and explicitly defined as such; they're a great spot to start building a definition from.
I realize that. My problem is that it contradicts the actual definitions of alignment. Objective alignment is actually (objectively) a violation of the rules for what alignment means in D&D. Aligned Spells and items and such don't conform to the properties of alignment. What we have is a game with two alignment systems disguised as one.
The first alignment system is the one the game actually tells us its using, which demands sentience and volition in order to operate. The second is the one woven into the mechanics. An implied alignment system that wants good and evil to be physical forces or elements or something (its never really clear).
My point is, what good is this doing us? Removing the alignment system from the game entirely will actually let you have demons "born from evil" without any contradictions.
I don't really see the problem with the alignment system as it stands. If it doesn't work for your group, drop it; there's no reason you cant, or in fact, should not do if it makes the game more fun for you.
That said, I think that at least in the case of summoning spells, its very appropriate the core game makes a point to call out that if you use these spells to summon evil creatures, the spell itself is evil. It makes sense.
Where is the contradiction? Nothing i can find demands sentience to have an alignment.
In 3.5 a creature with mental stats of 2 normally was neutral since they could not really form evil or good actions. Many think it still applies to pathfinder. I think it should, and I would have given undead an int of 3. Anything with malicious intent should at least have that IMO.
Where is the contradiction? Nothing i can find demands sentience to have an alignment.In 3.5 a creature with mental stats of 2 normally was neutral since they could not really form evil or good actions. Many think it still applies to pathfinder. I think it should, and I would have given undead an int of 3. Anything with malicious intent should at least have that IMO.
Actually in 3.5 it was animals with less than two that were usually neutral many outsiders and magical beast had those numbers for int and werent true neurtral
Actually in 3.5 it was animals with less than two that were usually neutral many outsiders and magical beast had those numbers for int and werent true neurtralWhere is the contradiction? Nothing i can find demands sentience to have an alignment.In 3.5 a creature with mental stats of 2 normally was neutral since they could not really form evil or good actions. Many think it still applies to pathfinder. I think it should, and I would have given undead an int of 3. Anything with malicious intent should at least have that IMO.
I know. When I said undead I should have specified the PF versions of zombies and skeletons have alignments now, and they have bad intentions, but still have no intelligence, which makes not sense to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, upon consideration, summoning such creatures into the material plane for any purpose and calling it anything BUT evil seems pretty silly.
So let's say, I am a commoner farmer in D&D world. Farmer Greg. Well, it is spring and Farmer Greg, his wife Was and his ten year old boy, Son are out gatherin' the spring poke plant shoots to have 'em a nice salad.
When OH NOES!!! A swarm of nasty Ants ( also out to eat sum good poke plant greens) decides the farmer and family would make good eatin' too. :( Well, Farmer Greg, his wife Was and his son Son look to be turned inta Ant grub. Especially since the bein' commoners with wimpy stat arrays. But fear not for em!
A hell hound comes out of the air and blasts dem nasty ant swarmin' ants into ant ash. Farmer Greg , and fam are teeereefied. But the hound disappears as quickly as it is formed...and there be a magikerin' fellar standin in the nearby road.
"Fear not Farmer Family! I am a great wizard and I (bolded and italic bein' so important like) summoned a beast to save you!"
To which Farmer Greg responds, " Oh thank you Mighty Mister Wizardly Man! Could we offer you some Poke salad fer supper as way of sayin' Thanks?"
"No, It upsets my stomach. And I have more adventures awaiting me over yonder hill. Farewell, Farmer Family!" and so sayin', the wizard floats off out of sight into the sunset.
With tears in her eyes, Was is heard to say," There goes one mighty good wizard, Mister." Her husband and son only nod in reply.
Yeah. For summoning stuff with summon monster spells...even if they have an [evil] descriptor... I gotta go with, " Momma always said, 'Evil is as evil does.' "
The descriptor is there for those poor caster types (clerics, I'm lookin' at you) that can't summon things their gods say no to.
Greg
PS: on Poke plant... many say it is always poisonous, but I know of many an ozark family that has eaten the new shoots boiled and cooked with bacon grease for many many generations. Personally, I find it horrid tasting :P
In fact, upon consideration, summoning such creatures into the material plane for any purpose and calling it anything BUT evil seems pretty silly.So let's say, I am a commoner farmer in D&D world. Farmer Greg. Well, it is spring and Farmer Greg, his wife Was and his ten year old boy, Son are out gatherin' the spring poke plant shoots to have 'em a nice salad.
When OH NOES!!! A swarm of nasty Ants ( also out to eat sum good poke plant greens) decides the farmer and family would make good eatin' too. :( Well, Farmer Greg, his wife Was and his son Son look to be turned inta Ant grub. Especially since the bein' commoners with wimpy stat arrays. But fear not for em!
A hell hound comes out of the air and blasts dem nasty ant swarmin' ants into ant ash. Farmer Greg , and fam are teeereefied. But the hound disappears as quickly as it is formed...and there be a magikerin' fellar standin in the nearby road.
"Fear not Farmer Family! I am a great wizard and I (bolded and italic bein' so important like) summoned a beast to save you!"
To which Farmer Greg responds, " Oh thank you Mighty Mister Wizardly Man! Could we offer you some Poke salad fer supper as way of sayin' Thanks?"
"No, It upsets my stomach. And I have more adventures awaiting me over yonder hill. Farewell, Farmer Family!" and so sayin', the wizard floats off out of sight into the sunset.
With tears in her eyes, Was is heard to say," There goes one mighty good wizard, Mister." Her husband and son only nod in reply.
Yeah. For summoning stuff with summon monster spells...even if they have an [evil] descriptor... I gotta go with, " Momma always said, 'Evil is as evil does.' "
The descriptor is there for those poor caster types (clerics, I'm lookin' at you) that can't summon things their gods say no to.
Greg
PS: on Poke plant... many say it is always poisonous, but I know of many an ozark family that has eaten the new shoots boiled and cooked with...
It is still an evil act, but I still think the family should be grateful for the save, however I can still imagine them picking up rocks and trying to stone the magic man saying he also caused the ants to appear.