I'd watch casting about accusations if I were you. Clerics do not prepare spells from a spellbook like wizards. They petition their dieties for them. If they are forbidden from casting those spells, do you really thing the powers are going to grant them for use??? Can you not see the logical dissonance in your claim?Lazar, I dont know there's much point in arguing this further.
The section of the Cleric rules which discusses becoming an ex-cleric is being ignored/understated grossly (in a flagrant or extreme manner) here; if its not clear that purposefully and intentionally circumventing deity/alignment based restrictions on spellcasting is a gross violation of your clerics religious code of conduct, I dont know what else can be said.
On the contrary KrispyXIV, you appear to have not been reading any of my posts in the least. You would do well to practice your literacy before you comment on such things. I specifically noted the Ex-clerics bit before, and shall do so again so that there will be no misunderstanding.
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
1st - A cleric is not required to have a deity but may do so at their option. This has been true since 3E has been out. A cleric without a deity technically does not get a deity's favored weapon, but for many people being a spiritualist is an appealing path.
2nd - A cleric must GROSSLY violate the code of conduct required by her god. There are no clerical codes of conduct in the core rules, so if you are going to attempt to make use of this, then you are going to need to write up some custom codes of conduct for each deity, describing exactly - and in length and detail - what is expected by their code of conduct, just as a Paladin's code of conduct is. Otherwise no such code of conduct actually exists. Even if it does exist, you would have to grossly violate it. Even with such a conduct, as written, it is far more forgiving than a Paladin's code is, because a cleric can actually act outside the dogma to a degree, without falling, since they must GROSSLY violate the tenants. For those curious, grossly means unqualified, complete, flagrant, and extreme violation (dictionary.com for the win).
3rd - Clerics with deities often don't even fall into this section. You cannot argue that a Lawful Good cleric of a Neutral Good God casting Protection from Law via a Scroll is somehow circumventing or grossly violating the views of that god without sounding like a moron.
My opinion.
- The mechanic
Clerics can't cast spells opposed to their (or their deity's) alignment. This has nothing to do with their class spell list. You can read the cleric spell list on the manual. Whether or not the cleric can cast those spells is irrelevant. Otherwise, you could argue that a sorcerer couldn't use wands or cast spells from scrolls if he does not know them.
So, a cleric can certainly use wands or spell trigger items, even if they contain spells that are opposed in alignement (as long as they are on his spell list).
What about scrolls? According to manual, using a scroll is "basically the same as casting a spell". This is also proved by the fact that using a scroll
- You draw AOOs
- you must meet a certain caster level, or make caster level checks
- You must have a sufficiently high ability score
Yes, clerics are casters in their own right. They receive spells by praying, but use their own power, which is drawn from the spiritual forces they follow. If they weren't casters, they couldn't use scrolls at all (a divine scroll does not come from a deity, it's a piece of paper made from someone that could have a completely different faith) But they can't, of course, draw power from forces that are opposed to their beliefs!
In short: using a scroll is like casting, so no, I wouldn't allow a lawful cleric to use a chaotic spell on a scroll. A point could be made about a spell which oppose the deity's alignment and not the cleric's, but it would be a house rule, and to keep things simple, I would disallow that as well.
- Role playing
A cleric become an ex when he grossly violates his code. What "grossly" means is not specified, and it's pointless, imo, to debate it on a forum without other specifics. Depending on circumstances, DMs, the type of violation, the deity, the intent, it could mean "A hundred times" or "just once".
Cheers
|
1st - A cleric is not required to have a deity but may do so at their option. This has been true since 3E has been out. A cleric without a deity technically does not get a deity's favored weapon, but for many people being a spiritualist is an appealing path.
2nd - A cleric must GROSSLY violate the code of conduct required by her god. There are no clerical codes of conduct in the core rules, so if you are going to attempt to make use of this, then you are going to need to write up some custom codes of conduct for each deity, describing exactly - and in length and detail - what is expected by their code of conduct, just as a Paladin's code of conduct is. Otherwise no such code of conduct actually exists. Even if it does exist, you would have to grossly violate it. Even with such a conduct, as written, it is far more forgiving than a Paladin's code is, because a cleric can actually act outside the dogma to a degree, without falling, since they must GROSSLY violate the tenants. For those curious, grossly means unqualified, complete, flagrant, and extreme violation (dictionary.com for the win).
3rd - Clerics with deities often don't even fall into this section. You cannot argue that a Lawful Good cleric of a Neutral Good God casting Protection from Law via a Scroll is somehow circumventing or grossly violating the views of that god without sounding like a moron.
1) There are no deities listed in the prd (raw rules without settings). Only domains.
2) Since there are no deities listed in the PRD, there is no set codes of conduct for those deities. These differ from game world to game world and thus it would be up to the game world creators to dictate what is okay and not okay per deity. Much of the time, this is up to the GM for that game or the PFS docs. They must not only decide if they are going to use this part of the RAW, but they must also decide if what the character has done "grossly violates" that deities rules. This is a chance for a good GM to shine by keeping it in the story, keeping it fun, and keeping it consistent for all involved.
3) casting from scrolls is still casting per the RAW. The only thing that the caster does not need to do is prepare the spell ahead of time. From the wording in the RAW PRD
Spell Completion: This is the activation method for scrolls. A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that's left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on). To use a spell completion item safely, a character must be of high enough level in the right class to cast the spell already. If he can't already cast the spell, there's a chance he'll make a mistake. Activating a spell completion item is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.
It even states "perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting". Casting from scrolls is casting, and if the cleric cannot cast that spell due to alignment restrictions, then they cannot cast that spell.
I removed a post and a reply to it. Finger-pointing and name calling are not necessary.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the confusion here, folks.
If you have a moral code against murdering infants, whether that is a code you defined or the code of the deity you worship, you aren't allowed to murder infants, and you aren't allowed to cast a spell that requires you to murder an infant to activate it.
The above is an evil spell. Casting it is an evil act. If you are a good cleric or a neutral cleric of a good deity, you can't cast this spell, because it's evil.
If Ike Infantkiller creates a scroll of murderous cure, he killed an infant to create that scroll. Using that scroll is against your moral code because its creation involves committing an evil act. Ditto if he created a wand, or a mace, or a wondrous item that uses that spell: a spell partially powered by the murder of an infant. If your moral code doesn't allow you to murder infants, you're not allowed to use an item created by murdering infants.
The "I'm not the one who murdered the infant" excuse doesn't cut it... you're gaining an advantage or power based on the murder of infants. If you're playing poker, and you know the cards are marked, and you use those marks to win, it doesn't matter that you aren't the one who marked the cards--you're still cheating.
If you're a good cleric, it's against your moral code to commit evil acts. Casting an [evil] spell is an evil act. Using an [evil] item is an evil act. Whether or not you invented the spell or created the item, using it is an evil act because the item's power comes from an evil act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Ike Infantkiller creates a scroll of murderous cure, he killed an infant to create that scroll. Using that scroll is against your moral code because its creation involves committing an evil act. Ditto if he created a wand, or a mace, or a wondrous item that uses that spell: a spell partially powered by the murder of an infant. If your moral code doesn't allow you to murder infants, you're not allowed to use an item created by murdering infants.
The "I'm not the one who murdered the infant" excuse doesn't cut it... you're gaining an advantage or power based on the murder of infants. If you're playing poker, and you know the cards are marked, and you use those marks to win, it doesn't matter that you aren't the one who marked the cards--you're still cheating.
Riddle me this batman. You offed some big-bad and happened to find a scroll of Murderous Cure. You're a 2nd level cleric. You identify the scroll and realize some poor infant was killed to make this magic. You could use this scroll and remove cancer from some poor kid, giving the sacrificed child's life at least some greater meaning, while simultaneously destroying the scroll since the magic is removed from it forever. Not casting the scroll doesn't bring the child back, and having the scroll and ignoring the kid with cancer is something I would consider grade A unadulterated evil, based on the guidelines for alignment and its "respecting life" and all that.
So does that mean the cleric now too falls into the damned if damned if not, as the Paladin often does?
Likewise, how does that apply the clerics of deities who have no qualms about you using spells of X or Y but you can't due to your own alignment (the law/chaos aspect has been mentioned here several times during this discussion).
Finally, there's nothing in the rules that says that good characters cannot make use of items that were created with evil spells. In fact, it even goes so far as to say stuff like unholy items can be wielded but the wielder suffers negative levels. It says nothing further, and according to the rules a Paladin wouldn't fall because he picked up a +5 unholy greatsword and attacked a fiend with it.
So please, elaborate further Mr. Reynolds. :)
EDIT:
Using an [evil] item is an evil act. Whether or not you invented the spell or created the item, using it is an evil act because the item's power comes from an evil act.
You heard it here first folks! Wearing an amulet of protection vs evil will make you more good. Wielding a holy weapon will make you more good. Wearing celestial armor makes you good. Ergo, no matter how bad nasty you are, we can now buy alignment by covering ourselves in equipment that was made via good casters or good spells. Murder a guy on tuesday? Well swing that +1 holy sword around a few times and all your sins be washed away! At worst you'll be neutral!
Entertain your friends, confuse Paladins! Get your Shiny Suit of Holiness Today! /sales pitch voice
What if the infant was evil?
|
You heard it here first folks! Wearing an amulet of protection vs evil will make you more good. Wielding a holy weapon will make you more good. Wearing celestial armor makes you good. Ergo, no matter how bad nasty you are, we can now buy alignment by covering ourselves in equipment that was made via good casters or good spells. Murder a guy on tuesday? Well swing that +1 holy sword around a few times and all your sins be washed away! At worst you'll be neutral!
Entertain your friends, confuse Paladins! Get your Shiny Suit of Holiness Today! /sales pitch voice
From where did this marvelous leap in logic come? First, while evil acts make one evil, it does not necessarily mean that the reverse is true. Second, if one's alignment were determined solely by the alignment of one's actions, then everyone would be neutral. After all, even the greatest saints or murderers send most of their days sleeping, eating, bathing, and other neutral acts.
This isn't to say I agree with SKR's take on using aligned magic items, or that using an evil item wouldn't be a morally questionable act, but it's a stretch to say that spamming protection from evil would cleanse a soul of sin.
What if the infant was evil?Guess how I know you're a gamer? :)
I'm posting on an RPG messageboard?
You heard it here first folks! Wearing an amulet of protection vs evil will make you more good. Wielding a holy weapon will make you more good. Wearing celestial armor makes you good. Ergo, no matter how bad nasty you are, we can now buy alignment by covering ourselves in equipment that was made via good casters or good spells. Murder a guy on tuesday? Well swing that +1 holy sword around a few times and all your sins be washed away! At worst you'll be neutral!
That's not what he said at all. It is still up to the GM to decide how evil/good something act is. Wielding a holy sword is, inherently, only barely good. Using it to fight demons? Good. Using it to murder babies? Far more evil than the using it part.
You don't get to wash away sin by doing 5 charitable acts. How long and how hard you have to work to atone for any specific act is up to the GM.
As with any alignment debate though, everyone will have a different opinion. But I doubt you'll find a GM who finds it OK for a paladin to follow his code only 90% of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you're Catholic and can afford the dispensations.
You don't get to wash away sin by doing 5 charitable acts. How long and how hard you have to work to atone for any specific act is up to the GM.As with any alignment debate though, everyone will have a different opinion. But I doubt you'll find a GM who finds it OK for a paladin to follow his code only 90% of the time.
/snarc
On a more serious note,
Thanks Sean for responding to this bit of logical fallacy.
For those who are interested in debate, rather than just making an extremism out of Sean's response, here's my take on it.
Yes, using the item is evil. It doesn't make you evil. No evil act makes you evil (except maybe killing a good god?). Repeated evil acts make you evil. Repeated good acts make you good. How fast you move up or down the scale depends on how many you do and how big or small they are. If you give 100 gp to an orphanage each month that's a good thing. If you sacrifice a woman every year to keep your youth, then you're still evil, and all that being nice to orphans doesn't balance it out.
Ashiel's somewhat contrived situation of using the scroll is the same way. Yes it's evil to use the scroll, even if you end up saving someone else doing it. You are still benefiting from an evil act. And yes, you are benefiting, even if you save someone else. The kid with cancer could be cured by other means, but they would cost you money, or time, or effort. Using the evil scroll is just a shortcut. That's the insiduous nature of evil, it offers you an shortcut, and lots of ways to rationalize what you're doing. The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions. I've never heard of the road to heaven being paved with evil intentions.
There is no difference between Law/Chaos/Good/Evil in terms of the game. In all respects they are merely four extremes on an axis. This is irrefutable. If preforming lawful acts makes you more lawful, then preforming chaotic acts makes you more chaotic. The same logic applies to the other side of the axis. This logic is irrefutable. It is not to be contested because it is plain enough to see. It is not a matter of philosophical debate.
Thus, if wearing, wielding, or using items that were created by evil spells or evil casters is in itself an evil act, then the reverse must logically be true. Thus wielding a holy weapon is a good act. Those who consistently act in a manner according to their alignment assume that alignment. Again it is only logical that if you are constantly preforming an act by merely making use of an item, then your alignment would change.
This is the innate problem with black and white alignment that is treated as a Boolean game mechanic. Either circumstances apply or they do not. There is no middle ground. If circumstances apply then the question is not always "is the action X" but "is X action in this context".
If you want Yes/No morality then you must be mature and accept the consequences of your desires. If you want to treat morality as black and white numbers of binary process, then you must do so.
I do agree that context matters. So using the found scroll of murderous cure, after defeating its creator so no more would be made, to save another child is probably okay. But that doesn't mean going to scrollmart and buying 5 more is okay.
Now you are making me want to play a philosopher. If each act has a measurable effect on the soul, clearly someone will devote time to the study of such effects. If I kill a baby, is that 1000 evil points? If I kill a second, is it worth the same number of evil points, or does repetition lesson its effectiveness? Or does mass baby murder get multiplied? This must be discovered. For Science!
If you treat each act as an atomic number that gets added or subtracted to your alignment, you run into problems like Fable had. I rescued a bandit from monsters, which was a good act. I then killed the bandit. Since he was evil, that was also a good act. Doubleplus good! Taking his stuff seemed to be neutral.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Riddle me this batman. You offed some big-bad and happened to find a scroll of Murderous Cure. You're a 2nd level cleric. You identify the scroll and realize some poor infant was killed to make this magic. You could use this scroll and remove cancer from some poor kid, giving the sacrificed child's life at least some greater meaning, while simultaneously destroying the scroll since the magic is removed from it forever. Not casting the scroll doesn't bring the child back, and having the scroll and ignoring the kid with cancer is something I would consider grade A unadulterated evil, based on the guidelines for alignment and its "respecting life" and all that.
Casting the scroll is an evil act. The end does not justify the means.
I do agree that context matters. So using the found scroll of murderous cure, after defeating its creator so no more would be made, to save another child is probably okay. But that doesn't mean going to scrollmart and buying 5 more is okay.
I agree with this. I'd also be very frightened of a place where you could walk into a store and buy scrolls of that spell. Anyway, scrolls require the cost of any expensive material components, and I can't help but wonder what the price of a child would be (maybe slave costs from Cheliax might be a good start). Either way, I totally agree that it would be very bad to go and buy 5 more of them. :P
The fact of the matter is the vast majority of the aligned spells don't actually have crazy requirements like that. For example, Protection From Law appears to function merely because it uses the power of Chaos to counteract it, and vice versa. If you were to buy a scroll of protection from law, the magic is already sealed in the sroll by someone else who cast the spell originally. You have to activate it. It notes in the rules for scrolls that using a scroll is not casting a spell, but provokes as if it was (which is enough to prove to me it's not actually casting the spell).
Plus this hokey black/white stuff still doesn't solve the "my god is neutral, I'm not, I'm using an item opposed to my alignment, so why does everyone say my god is getting pissed!?" problem, which everyone has conveniently ignored during the entire discussion.
Now you are making me want to play a philosopher. If each act has a measurable effect on the soul, clearly someone will devote time to the study of such effects. If I kill a baby, is that 1000 evil points? If I kill a second, is it worth the same number of evil points, or does repetition lesson its effectiveness? Or does mass baby murder get multiplied? This must be discovered. For Science!
This actually wouldn't surprise me, and could make for a very interesting NPC during a game as well. Wizards are capable of studying everything from how to make energy from nothing or the words of creation the very gods used to bring stuff into existance, so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to realize that after repeated use someone becomes more or less evil, and obviously every wizard can see a tangible effect on their alignment the moment a good wizard tries to pop out a fiendish animal with a summoning spell (or an evil wizard a celestial summon).
Thus, if casting spells is a chaotic/evil/good/lawful act by default, and using magic items likewise were acts by default, then it would be entirely possible to study and quantify the acts and determine scientifically how much evil juice it takes before your aura shifts to the dark side, and how much purifying light you need before you blind antipaladins, or how much chaos you need before you start suffering negative levels from picking up an axiomatic weapon.
Now if alignment is done in what I personally feel is a more mature manner, where circumstances, motivations, and intent are factored into the alignment process, it becomes a bit more blurred and yet not as goofy at the same time. It also opens up far more room for roleplaying as characters have to weigh their options and figure out their solutions and reasoning behind it.
If you treat each act as an atomic number that gets added or subtracted to your alignment, you run into problems like Fable had. I rescued a bandit from monsters, which was a good act. I then killed the bandit. Since he was evil, that was also a good act. Doubleplus good! Taking his stuff seemed to be neutral.
Haha. Yeah. That does seem silly (Fable: The Lost Chapters was one of the best games ever though), and that's the exact kind of thing you get when you make these sorts of assessments about the game. On a side note, the core rules state nothing about certain spells being innately an aligned act, nor about using magic items made with aligned spells being aligned acts either. Anything else is purely a house rule.
I'm merely trying to draw attention to something here. ^-^
Thinking is good...
Riddle me this batman. You offed some big-bad and happened to find a scroll of Murderous Cure. You're a 2nd level cleric. You identify the scroll and realize some poor infant was killed to make this magic. You could use this scroll and remove cancer from some poor kid, giving the sacrificed child's life at least some greater meaning, while simultaneously destroying the scroll since the magic is removed from it forever. Not casting the scroll doesn't bring the child back, and having the scroll and ignoring the kid with cancer is something I would consider grade A unadulterated evil, based on the guidelines for alignment and its "respecting life" and all that.Casting the scroll is an evil act. The end does not justify the means.
That's cool. Can you show me where it says this, so I can show my players?
EDIT: The child has also already been killed and the spell is already prepared. Obviously not using the scroll is also an evil act because you are choosing to condemn another innocent life for your own moral superiority. It appears to be a lose/lose.
Casting the scroll is an evil act. The end does not justify the means.
That's cool. Can you show me where it says this, so I can show my players?
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
Using a scroll is basically like casting a spell.
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
|
The child would live a happy life knowing that other innocent child life was taken so he could live ? The gods of morality already made the judgement, casting an evil scroll is an evil act. Simple like that. But all people do evil acts all the time by simple living, we try to repent for our constant sins and in the end having done more good than evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's cool. Can you show me where it says this, so I can show my players?
Sure, it's right here:
[evil]
EDIT: The child has also already been killed and the spell is already prepared. Obviously not using the scroll is also an evil act because you are choosing to condemn another innocent life for your own moral superiority. It appears to be a lose/lose.
"You know, I'm starving, but there's this dead infant here that the evil priest sacrificed in an evil, evil ritual that condemned the infant's innocent soul to the Abyss to be tortured and consumed by demons. It's not like I killed the infant, and eating its flesh will help keep me alive, and I'm a good person who deserves to live, so I wouldn't really be a cannibal, right? And I'll give the well-chewed bones a proper burial, so it's okay. I'm doing the right thing."
Murdering one infant to save another infant is an evil act. Murdering one infant to save a million people is still an evil act. Murdering one infant to save an entire world is still an evil act. It's murder. It's murder you're trying to justify because of how many people it benefits, but it's still murder. Don't get wishy-washy about it... if you want to save a million people, and you have to murder an infant to do so, yeah, you'll save a million people... but you'll still be a guy who murdered an infant. That's evil.
Murdering one infant to save another infant is an evil act. Murdering one infant to save a million people is still an evil act. Murdering one infant to save an entire world is still an evil act. It's murder. It's murder you're trying to justify because of how many people it benefits, but it's still murder. Don't get wishy-washy about it... if you want to save a million people, and you have to murder an infant to do so, yeah, you'll save a million people... but you'll still be a guy who murdered an infant. That's evil.
This is where the philosophy of the GM becomes the most important part of any alignment debate. Utilitarianism might argue that the quick, painless death of one child preventing the untold suffering of millions is the right thing to do. Assuming it is actually the only option.
Turns out, people have been debating about ethics since Aristotle. Ok, I'm certain people have been debating about ethics for as long as we've had language. But we've only got the last 2500 years of the debate written down.
No, I meant the rules text where it says using an aligned magic item or an aligned spell is an evil act. I've looked all through the magic, alignment, and magic item chapters and haven't found it anywhere. I was hoping for a direct quote explaining that it does happen, how it happens, and what it means. Since Sean K. Reynolds is here telling us how it is, I was hoping that perhaps he could quote the rules so I can show my players (and I'm a bit curious myself).
"You know, I'm starving, but there's this dead infant here that the evil priest sacrificed in an evil, evil ritual that condemned the infant's innocent soul to the Abyss to be tortured and consumed by demons. It's not like I killed the infant, and eating its flesh will help keep me alive, and I'm a good person who deserves to live, so I wouldn't really be a cannibal, right? And I'll give the well-chewed bones a proper burial, so it's okay. I'm doing the right thing."
Actually you would be a cannibal. The thing is, cannibalism isn't evil. It might be a bit squicky, but it's not evil. Murdering someone to eat them would be evil, 'cause murder is evil (unless you're murdering an orc in which case it's apparently A-OK to do so, but that's usually because people want to argue that circumstances and intent matter on the things they want it to matter on, like the context of killing orcs, but not on anything else). Cannibalism is not innately evil and actually has been a part of some culture's burial rites.
Likewise, if you are caught in an avalanche with 12 other people, and 8 of them die, you have two options. Eat the bodies or don't. They are no for all logical purposes objects. It probably seems squicky and gross, but at this point their soul is gone. The body is meaningless. So it's either you survive and carry on, or you die because you refuse to do something that isn't even morally questionable. It might be SOCIALLY questionable, and people might be freaked out or biased if they know you've eaten the bodies, but morally there is nothing wrong with it.
This is doubly so in a world where you only need a piece of the body to have someone brought back to life. A paladin could get caught in an avalanche and the ranger, druid, and cleric in the group dies, and so he eats the meat from their bodies to avoid starving. He then takes the bones and has them raised via a resurrection spell, because he can. At no point does the paladin commit an evil act.
Murdering one infant to save another infant is an evil act. Murdering one infant to save a million people is still an evil act. Murdering one infant to save an entire world is still an evil act. It's murder. It's murder you're trying to justify because of how many people it benefits, but it's still murder. Don't get wishy-washy about it... if you want to save a million people, and you have to murder an infant to do so, yeah, you'll save a million people... but you'll still be a guy who murdered an infant. That's evil.
Ah yes, indeed. If the cleric decided to go out and kill some baby to save another baby, sure. I agree with that entirely. However, killing some poor kid was part of the creation of that scroll. The act has been done, the child has been killed, and now you have two options. You either taint the child's death further by making his death a complete and utter waste (you already killed the Big Bad who made the scroll as noted previously) and throw the scroll in the trash or burn it or whatever, or you could at least let his death mean something and save the kid with cancer. Note that not doing so also has the side effect of forsaking the life of the child with cancer to suit your own sense of morality. It is literally like saying "We have the medicine that would cure your disease, but the medicine was created on the backs of slaves and many people died for it. Because of this, we're going to deny you this cure, because we think that the medicine should be destroyed". Clearly this would be an evil act, because you are putting yourself before them and denying them a chance at life that you could give to them. Thus you have created a situation where either you are evil for providing aid, or you are evil for not providing aid for the sake of your selfishness.
Seriously, this isn't rocket science. The clearly good path is to just cure the child, because that is respecting and nurturing his life, as well as honoring the death of the child who was killed to create the scroll. If I was murdered to create a magic spell that could cure cancer, you'd better damn well think I'd want someone to use the scroll to cure someone's cancer instead of throwing it in the trash or burning it. I'd be sitting on the outer planes amazingly pissed if you didn't.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah yes, indeed. If the cleric decided to go out and kill some baby to save another baby, sure. I agree with that entirely. However, killing some poor kid was part of the creation of that scroll. The act has been done, the child has been killed, and now you have two options. You either taint the child's death further by making his death a complete and utter waste (you already killed the Big Bad who made the scroll as noted previously) and throw the scroll in the trash or burn it or whatever, or you could at least let his death mean something and save the kid with cancer. Note that not doing so also has the side effect of forsaking the life of the child with cancer to suit your own sense of morality. It is literally like saying "We have the medicine that would cure your disease, but the medicine was created on the backs of slaves and many people died for it. Because of this, we're going to deny you this cure, because we think that the medicine should be destroyed". Clearly this would be an evil act, because you are putting yourself before them and denying them a chance at life that you could give to them. Thus you have created a situation where either you are evil for providing aid, or you are evil for not providing aid for the sake of your selfishness.
Say that to the killed child mother face to face.
Most of the cleric rites and code are subjective and up to the GM to arbitrate. We have established that. We could circle infinitely on this.
Of the few objective, quantifiable aspects of the cleric code is that both you and your deity have an alignment, and you cannot cast spells opposed to either the alignment of your deity's.
So if you or your deity are LG, you cannot cast evil or chaotic spells.
You are prohibited by your faith to cast them. It is not like a specialist wizard's opposition schools where they're simply not good at it; they are prohibited.
Using a spell completion item (scroll) is like casting a spell. Therefore, good cleric can't use evil scroll.
This hypothetical scroll of infanticide based healing is defined as (evil). It is objectively evil. The good cleric cannot cast it.
The argument that using the scroll gives the dead child's life meaning is a subjective (and neutral) argument. Using the scroll also justifies the child's murder.
But this is a made up spell. There is a lot of gray in morality, but there are some distinct black and white. Evil spells are black. And it's not just any spell that gets labeled evil- circle of death isn't evil, nor is vampiric touch. Heck, killing isn't even outright an evil act. Only the most heinous of spells are truly evil, like unholy blight or animate dead.
A spell that healed that required an infant as a material component would probably just be neutral.
If you're looking for summaries: good does not see the need to use evil to perpetuate good. If you feel that one can justifiably use wrongs to make right and to think otherwise is naive, you're neutral.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I meant the rules text where it says using an aligned magic item or an aligned spell is an evil act.
Core Rulebook, Magic chapter:
According to the rules, an [evil] spell is "categorized as" evil.
Would you argue that an [acid] spell isn't acid? That an [earth] spell isn't earth? That a [fear] spell isn't fear? That a [mind-affecting] spell isn't mind-affecting? If not, why are you arguing that an [evil] spell isn't evil?
I'm only going to comment on a small part of your post, Ashiel, but this:
Ah yes, indeed. If the cleric decided to go out and kill some baby to save another baby, sure. I agree with that entirely. However, killing some poor kid was part of the creation of that scroll. The act has been done, the child has been killed, and now you have two options.irks me (as does the next couple sentences; more on them later).
So it's OK to use something that you know is inherently evil--the only way to get it is to commit an evil act--simply because you didn't do it? "Oh, this is day-old-baby-deathblood. It's a wonderful medicine, fixes all manner of ailments. It's a good thing I didn't kill the baby, I can use it with a clear conscience! No worries that I'm profiting from the death of an innocent, nosirree!"
That's a pretty stupid assertion. It's not like the cleric is off having someone murder innocents so he can go off and cast the spell. The scenario was quite simple. The party kills a big bad evil guy. Find the scroll that he created. The child was killed and they couldn't stop it. They know of a child with cancer and he's dying. They have two options: Do the altruistic thing and use the scroll on the child to heal them, destroying the scroll in the process, or just destroy the scroll and leave the child to die. The first results in the destruction of the scroll and saving the life of an innocent. The second resorts in the destruction of the scroll, forsaking the life of an innocent for your own moral satisfaction.
You either taint the child's death further by making his death a complete and utter wasteThis is even more irksome. No, false, utterly wrong. Nothing you do short of reanimating or otherwise desecrating the baby's corpse or soul will taint the child's death any further. In fact, destroying the inherently evil item that was made via its death would likely ease the taint, because it's getting rid of a remnant of the child's essence that has been tainted.
Not buying it. If I was murdered and killed, and the result of that was a medicine that could cure someone of any mundane disease, I'd see it as a huge disrespect to my death if you just flushed the medicine down the crapper because it was obtained by my murder. Great show man, good way to make my death meaningless. At least my death would have meant some other good soul would have lived because the good guys wrested the medicine from the evil dude was going to use it for his nefarious plots.
Say that to the killed child mother face to face.
Sure, my mother is an organ donor. I'd have no problem with it myself. here, watch.
"Dear lady...to my greatest regret, we could not save your child. He was killed to create a magic that could heal any disease. We brought retribution to his murderer, and took the scroll that your son died to create. I realize this is hard, but there is another mother whose son is stricken with a disease that will claim his life soon. With your permission, we would ask to use the magic that your son died for to save the boy's life. That he might be a living testament to your son thereafter."
Yeah, organ donors man. I'm dead. Save as many as you can. Sure, maybe some religious dogmas back in the middle ages would have considered it a horrible sin to take my kidneys, heart, lungs, and so forth from my body, and view it as a terrible desecration. However, if my kidneys, liver, and lungs can go towards saving my sister with Cistic Fibrosis, some kid on a dialysis machine, and some father with a heart problem, you'd better damn well not deny them that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I meant the rules text where it says using an aligned magic item or an aligned spell is an evil act.Core Rulebook, Magic chapter:
According to the rules, an [evil] spell is "categorized as" evil.
Would you argue that an [acid] spell isn't acid? That an [earth] spell isn't earth? That a [fear] spell isn't fear? That a [mind-affecting] spell isn't mind-affecting? If not, why are you arguing that an [evil] spell isn't evil?
Because acid spells do not making you more acidic, and cold spells do not making you colder, nor do fear spells make you more frightened, and there's nothing that says alignment spells make you more of that alignment - that I have found. Now these mechanics have been around since 3E, and I've never found anything that outright says that.
Likewise, if it is an evil act, killing someone is also demonstrateably evil according to the rules. However, unless Paladins fall instantly for slaying an orc for the greater good, then circumstances must mean that an act can achieve at least a level of neutrality based on the circumstances surrounding it. This much is clear (there is factually no difference between murder, hunting, and killing in self defense other than circumstances).
You also, sadly, have yet to answer my question regarding the law/chaos deal and deities who don't give a turkey about the spells (such as a LG cleric of a NG goddess using a C wand or sword). Obviously this is not a moral quandry, AND the goddess would have no issues with it at all, since her clerics can cast chaotic spells all the time.
Organ donors are completely different. You volunteered, before your death, to have your organs donated. The baby in question was not consulted, nor were his parents. The baby example is much closer to black market organs, where people are killed in third-world countries for their kidneys and other organs.
Ok. You have a black market kidney in your hands. The child who previously owned that kidney is dead. There's nothing you can do for them. Another child waits for a donor and will die. You have a choice. One altruistically saves and respects a life, the other involves flushing the living child's chance for life down the toilet.
Likewise, organ donor or not, if my life was taken - stolen from me - by a murderer bent on creating some sort of medicine for his vile scheme (maybe he wanted it incase his plague zombie plan went awry), and some heroes came and mopped the floor with my murderer, you can be darn skippy that I'd want that medicine that was already made to go towards saving someone else's life. Maybe that makes me a good person? I dunno. According to D&D/Pathfinder that makes me a good person, but then again we can't seem figure out what good is.
And by the way, if given the choice between murder, an active evil act, even knowing it will stop a another tremendous evil ( which you are not doing) from occuring, it is still the Good choice to refrain from the evil act.
Something like this is not a choice between evils. It is not allow evil number 1 to occur or allow evil number 2 to occur. You are simply choosing to preform an evil act.
HYPOCRISY!
So it's OK to use something that you know is inherently evil--the only way to get it is to commit an evil act--simply because you didn't do it?
So you would allow the death of millions because it wasn't you doing the killing? If you could cast magic circle against good to prevent planar bound or summoned good outsider from walking up and flipping a doomsday switch, you wouldn't because you didn't flip the switch so it's not on your conscience!?
That's like classic Lawful Evil right there man.
The second resorts in the destruction of the scroll, forsaking the life of an innocent for your own moral satisfaction.
Yeah, that sounds about right. You seem to be arguing that the greater good can be served by being flexible enough to use evil acts to your own benefit. And if you were talking about anyone except a cleric or paladin, you'd be right. But a cleric doesn't get that flexibility (unless they're neutral) because a cleric follows something that trumps convenience or effectiveness. Being a cleric is not about "the ends justify the means" or "determine what will have the best possible outcome and do that". Clerics follow a specific dogma for its own sake, regardless of the outcome, because the principle of following it is more important than the specifics of what happens in the physical world as a result of following it. A good cleric will not use an evil spell regardless of the consequences because it is opposed to the very beliefs that define them as a cleric.
EDIT: Fixed quotes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You would make an excellent Devil, Ashiel. You're adept at presenting "good intentions" scenarios in ways that makes them seem like the only option to "do good" is, in fact, to do evil.
Remember, as always, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Remember, also, that we are talking about magic that is inherently Evil-aligned.
We play a game where murder is commonplace for guys who are not allowed to commit evil. The only difference between murder and a killing that isn't murder is circumstances. Either circumstances mean that a dubious act done for the higher good can be neutral, or a good act done for evil can be neutral, or Paladins must fall for killing anything with swords because killing things is cited repeatedly as the quintessential evil act in the alignment section (seriously, almost everything mentioned in the alignment section is about killing or having compunctions against killing).
There can be no black or white or else it can no longer make sense. It is actually frightening to me how vehemently you guys can argue that it is apparently the "good thing" to let the kid with cancer die when you have a scroll of "some guy died to make this cure" and you're arguing that burning the scroll and letting the kid die is apparently the "not evil" thing to do? That's scary to me. I must have cast too many [Fear] spells because that scares the hell out of me.
Yeah, that sounds about right. You seem to be arguing that the greater good can be served by being flexible enough to use evil acts to your own benefit. And if you were talking about anyone except a cleric or paladin, you'd be right. But a cleric doesn't get that flexibility (unless they're neutral) because a cleric follows something that trumps convenience or effectiveness. Being a cleric is not about "the ends justify the means" or "determine what will have the best possible outcome and do that". Clerics follow a specific dogma for its own sake, regardless of the outcome, because the principle of following it is more important than the specifics of what happens in the physical world as a result of following it. A good cleric will not use an evil spell regardless of the consequences because it is opposed to the very beliefs that define them as a cleric.EDIT: Fixed quotes.
Actually, that's the thing. The answer as to the deity thing still hasn't been addressed. Clerics can commit evil acts even if they are good. Unlike Paladins, they have no "oh crap I committed an evil act, I lose all my powers right now". They have to grossly violate the code of conduct set by their deity to become Ex-clerics, and frankly there is no such code of conduct in my copy of the core rulebook.
In fact, there are plenty of NEUTRAL deities who can have Neutral GOOD clerics who cannot cast [EVIL] spells, even though 2/3rds of the NEUTRAL DEITY's clerics can cast those spells all the time. So obviously the deity has no issue with it, but the cleric cannot cast them (the cleric can prepare them but not cast them).
Actually, that's the thing. The answer as to the deity thing still hasn't been addressed. Clerics can commit evil acts even if they are good. Unlike Paladins, they have no "oh crap I committed an evil act, I lose all my powers right now". They have to grossly violate the code of conduct set by their deity to become Ex-clerics, and frankly there is no such code of conduct in my copy of the core rulebook.
Setting aside the issue of the cleric's personal alignment, while I believe that for most good deities committing an evil act would usually qualify as a 'gross violation' it's not really the issue. Regardless of whether it would cause them to become ex-clerics were it ever to happen, clerics are specifically prohibited from casting opposed spells. It doesn't matter if it's "for a good cause" or "worse evil will happen if I don't use it", the fact that the spell itself is evil is sufficient to bar them from using it.
Likewise, if it is an evil act, killing someone is also demonstrateably evil according to the rules. However, unless Paladins fall instantly for slaying an orc for the greater good, then circumstances must mean that an act can achieve at least a level of neutrality based on the circumstances surrounding it. This much is clear (there is factually no difference between murder, hunting, and killing in self defense other than circumstances).
Well taking out hunting, which involves the pursuit of and killing of a non sapient creature. THen I still have to say.
If you concider intent to be a circumstance, then yes, if you concider intent to be none circumstancal ( which I do) then no.
Then a Paladin cannot kill anyone without falling. If his intent (kill the orc to save the innocent or kill the orc protect myself from it) is not a part of the factor in the circumstances determining if it is not an evil act to be killing, then the Paladin falls for killing orcs. That is the result of a black and white alignment. Almost all adventurers will become evil.
If the Paladin's intent does factor in, then you can see that he is committing an evil (killing) but doing so altruistically (to protect innocent life), and apparently this would mean the Paladin does not fall. He has committed violence against the orc in defense of the life the orc would have taken.
Now if the above is true, then healing the child with the scroll is not innately evil. It's possible that the cleric cannot cast the spell from the scroll, but the party's bard might be able to via UMD, and save the child. Likewise, if the Paladin had used Use Magic Device to save the child's life, he would have entered into the exact scenario as above. He has (apparently since we have yet to see a rule citation for it) begun an evil act but his intent is altruistic to save the life of an innocent, and thus should not fall if killing orcs does not cause him to fall.
Setting aside the issue of the cleric's personal alignment, while I believe that for most good deities committing an evil act would usually qualify as a 'gross violation' it's not really the issue. Regardless of whether it would cause them to become ex-clerics were it ever to happen, clerics are specifically prohibited from casting opposed spells. It doesn't matter if it's "for a good cause" or "worse evil will happen if I don't use it", the fact that the spell itself is evil is sufficient to bar them from using it.
Actually, that's the thing. The answer as to the deity thing still hasn't been addressed. Clerics can commit evil acts even if they are good. Unlike Paladins, they have no "oh crap I committed an evil act, I lose all my powers right now". They have to grossly violate the code of conduct set by their deity to become Ex-clerics, and frankly there is no such code of conduct in my copy of the core rulebook.
If you decide that using a scroll is casting the spell (the scroll rules in the magic item chapter note it as not being so. You activate the scroll. You do not cast the spell. It specifically notes that it functions as casting a spell for specific purposes (such as arcane spell failure). If it were casting the spell, then it would say that you cast the spell plus any additional notes.
However, even if you do decide a cleric cannot cast the spell by virtue of being a cleric, the cleric could make a Use Magic Device check and still do it.
And again, the deity answer has still yet to be presented. A neutral deity isn't going to care if you cast a Good spell, but if you are Evil you cannot cast a good spell as a cleric. This is obviously not because of your deity, but apparently because of you. This is further exemplified since clerics are subject to this restriction, but druids of aligned gods are not, nor are wizards.
It is actually frightening to me how vehemently you guys can argue that it is apparently the "good thing" to let the kid with cancer die when you have a[n inherently evil] scroll of "some guy [was murdered] to make this cure" and you're arguing that burning the scroll and letting the kid die is apparently the "not evil" thing to do?Using evil means (casting an inherently evil spell that is the direct result of the murder of an innocent) to save someone's life is not good. Period. End of story.
You aren't talking about debatable evils, here. You're talking about casting an evil spell.
It must at least be neutral, or else the Paladin would fall for committing the evil act of killing. Seriously, go look at the alignment section. It goes on and on and on about killing in the good/evil stuff, and evil being all kill-kill and good being all not-kill/respect-life/altruism etc.
Also, [EVIL] spell has thus far been shown to mean...not a damn thing. At worst it is an evil act. If it's an evil act, then it is an evil act. If circumstances do not decide if an evil act is morally justified, then a Paladin cannot kill the enemies of good and thus cannot function, because killing is an evil act, and unless it is tempered by circumstances then it would make the Paladin fall.
Now most would agree that having the Paladin fall the moment that he kills an enemy in Rise of the Runelords, for example, would be asinine. Why? Because he wasn't killing for A) personal gain, B) convenience, C) amusement. He was killing for A) altruism (protect the innocent), B) prevent further harm (respecting life). Ergo, the Paladin must be getting a get out of jail card because he is morally justified.
I don't understand who this was directed too, it didn't weem to fit with the quote over it.
However, why would I try to stop a good outsider from doing anything? He's Good, and in D&D he is actually Good, like made up of Goodness, why would he try and destroy the world? If he was trying to destroy the world it must be for some objectively Good reason, and if he is not doing it for an objectively Good reason, i.e. for some self interest, then he is not really good, and a protection from evil should do nicely.
You seem to think that it is okay to commit evil acts in order to stop some "greater evil", and more so, you seem to define that a million person ( some of whom are certianly not innocents) have more value than a single innocent. I would put forth that THAT attitude isthe one that is Lawful Evil.
Planar Binding is an evil doers wet dream. You can enslave some poor angel and force it to do evil things for you. If that's not evil, I don't know what is. Summon Monster I-IX is another example of a method to snatch celestial beings from the outer planes and do terrible things with them. A neutral wizard could perfectly well summon an angel via summon monster and have them kill someone purely for vengeance or spite. Maybe after he actually has the angel flip the switch his alignment drops into the abyss, but you guys are arguing intent doesn't matter, only actions; and thus he's perfectly fine sitting at Neutral until he actually carries out his plot.
Hell, as long as we're saying that the descriptor of a spell makes you more of that thing, instead of, I dunno, determining how it reacts with game mechanics and such like descriptors are noted for doing, then maybe the entire reason he is Neutral is because he does all of his dirty work through summoned celestial creatures and angels; since technically every time he summons a celestial creature he's becoming more and more good, despite his intent.
Also, since people seem to like spouting memes like "the road to hell is paved for good intentions", how about this one? "The only thing that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Choosing not to act is a choice. An act in of itself. If you choose to stand and watch an orc butcher a child because you yourself are not butchering the child, but you could kill the orc to save the child, you too have committed an evil act in your inaction.
Orc in my front. Detect Evil. Orc is evil.
My god told me to kill the orc !
I have done a good thing.
Simple like that.
So you agree that circumstances matter.
While I'm usually not so fond of statements such as "it pinged evil so I killed it and that means I did a good thing" because they make us gamers look like inept morons, I do agree that we must accept that the Paladin has not committed evil because of the circumstances, or else the Paladin must fall the moment he slays the orc.
On a side note, Paladins can have Neutral gods as well. So why did your god tell you to kill the orc? Also, when did your god tell you to do it? Do you have voices in your head? Perhaps a miniature giant space hamster who gives you the good word? If it is the latter, I commend you, and I would pledge my sword and my boot to your service. ;)
If you decide that using a scroll is casting the spell (the scroll rules in the magic item chapter note it as not being so. You activate the scroll. You do not cast the spell. It specifically notes that it functions as casting a spell for specific purposes (such as arcane spell failure). If it were casting the spell, then it would say that you cast the spell plus any additional notes.
The description seems pretty obvious that you are effectively casting a spell. In particular:
Pg.490 "Using a scroll is basically like casting a spell"Pg.458 "All that's left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting"
Arguing that "well it's not TECHNICALLY spellcasting so it shouldn't count" is clearly seeking to subvert the intent of the rule and isn't well supported by RAW.
However, even if you do decide a cleric cannot cast the spell by virtue of being a cleric, the cleric could make a Use Magic Device check and still do it.
Certainly. That may or may not be a 'gross violation' though, depending on the DM.
|
|
So if i save a child and the child grows to be Hitler, saving him was evil ?
If i planar bind an angel, and do a evil act with it, am i not doing two acts, casting the spell make me good, commanding evil acts make me evil. Outsiders that can be summoned are born to be summoned (or binded), it is their nature. What we do with them is the moral act.