Cheapy wrote:
Remember kids, gloating is an evil act.
:p
But it's a "fun" kind of evil...
In the interest of taking this thread sideways..
..are there any spells that have the 'good' descriptor in the anti paladin list?
James keeps using the line saying the GM is the final arbitrator which appears to an extent in the 3.5 phb, to say it that the rules nor devs assumed anything was evil, and that it is all up to the GM.
I am also assuming he will say that since BoVD is 3.0 that the devs intent changed between 3.0 and 3.5 to give the GM more power so that further supports his point.
However I have no life which led me to this:
Alignmment section 3.0(not 3.5)
Quote: If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that your character’s alignment has changed to match her actions. That pretty much means the GM is the final authority on alignments, just like it does in 3.5 and Pathfinder.
This is important because BoVD which was made after the 3.0 handbook still calls out casting evil spells as evil action.
So his idea of developers disagreeing, or one edition trumping another no longer have any weight. Seeing as Sean was on the design team it seems that the intent was clear for PF also.
In short I have text from the person who wrote the book on evil, the 3.5 core rules, and the PF devs all saying the same thing across multiple editions. It seems pretty clear to me.
I am assuming he will argue that since BoVD is 3.0 that it trump
wraithstrike wrote:
To add to this, you not only have Sean(rules team), but James(design team) saying the same thing. If they had to make an FAQ I am sure we can all guess what the answer would be. I wish I had a way to contact the 3.5 devs because I am sure if this is FAQ'd people would say the rule is being changed when in fact it is not.
In this case we sorta can...the book of exalted deeds, book of vile darkness, champions of valor, & champions of ruin (all 3.5) all discuss this. What is inherently good, inherently evil, etc. they even go into what changes you would have to make if you wanted to play a more "relativistic" game.
While anyone can agree or disagree with what's covered, once we started using those books in our games they took on amazing depths and became much richer. Like going from black & white to full color.
Just my $1.50
JohnBear
What exactly is being debated here anymore?
blackbloodtroll wrote: What exactly is being debated here anymore? James is still a nonbeliever.
wraithstrike wrote: blackbloodtroll wrote: What exactly is being debated here anymore? James is still a nonbeliever. Then he is unable to be convinced.
He chooses to not to believe, in spite of evidence put forth.
He is welcome to houserule.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
a) How is this statement not clear?
b) How are the rules not clear?
Again, I think it's all abundantly clear, and I've never thought otherwise. Evil spells are evil, end of discussion.
For a) your answers in this particular thread have not stated it outright, though you have certainly been quoted.
However with respect to b), James's assertion is that while the description of descriptors "categorises" spells, it doesn't delve that extra bit deeper and flat-out state that the categorisation reflects the reality of the spells. It specifically mentions that descriptors affect how spells "interact" with alignment, but nowhere do the rules explicitly state that evil spells are evil ("categorised as" being (just barely) open to interpretation - a Reliant Robin is categorised as a motorbike by the UK government, even though most people would consider it a car).
I just happen to believe that the wording of descriptors could be changed to prevent misinterpretation such as James (and one of my players, who has said almost the same thing) from trying to argue the case.
Categorised? You mean categorized?
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote: Categorised? You mean categorized? UK English autospellcheck on my iPad.
I also mean flavour, colour, defence, I say "LEF-tenant" for the word lieutenant, and a few million other minor differences. ;)
Oh, the wondrous ever-changing beast that is the English language.
I believe this has come up before and that the answer given is yes.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
a) How is this statement not clear?
b) How are the rules not clear?
Descriptors categorize spells. That doesn't make them fire acts to cast a fire spell. Nor does it make casting a [fire] spell the same thing as 'fire' even though your statement says that it is. I just don't understand that. You summon something with the fire subtype it is not 'fire' though it is certainly related and tied to it possibly even coming from the elemental plane thereof. If you heat a metal object with a spell it's also not 'fire' though it is related and seems to have the [fire] descriptor. Certainly [evil] descriptor spells are tied to evil, but that is a far hue and cry from saying that they are evil acts to do or to benefit from even indirectly.
In general, playing semantics with names doesn't serve us well in this game. When the word 'cast' is used, does that mean 'cast from memory' or from device? Or is casting always casting? It's the same word, obviously it has to mean the same thing, right? If you 'cast a spell' that's not ambiguous, or is it? A great number of common misconceptions in this game are brought about by the same word being used in multiple areas for different reasons. The legacy of the omnipresent word 'level' rings out here. So I don't leap to equate things merely because they have the word 'good' in common with each other.
Descriptors may influence how a spell interacts with alignment and we have some rules that are spelled out that say just this. What spells a cleric can get granted, and others are spelled out based on descriptor and certain alignments (cleric, deity, target of spell, etc). But to make the leap that all of them are automatically acts of an alignment is a leap.. as much as associating fire with chaos and mandating all [fire] spells to be acts of chaos. A DM could certainly do that and make for a neat campaign idea, but as far as stated rules go.. I think we can agree it's not there (or is it?).
Again mandating [evil] spells being evil acts? No, that flies in the face of the alignment section and is nowhere actually said beyond a vague 'interact' where again there are written ways that they interact. Meanwhile what is said is that evaluating a character's actions for alignment is in the hands of the DM. How can what is plainly written be ignored in favor of something that someone might think alludes? Isn't there an inherent conflict there?
So which is it?
If a DM wants to run RAW, does he adjudicate some acts automatically and mechanically, or does he get to use his judgement? (Note this is not to say that the two might not intersect, but which has precedence).
Before Wraith jumps up and says 'but somethings are always going to be evil/good/etc' that's where the DM would always see it that way, right?
So the evil fighter elects to behead our hero with the hero's sword as a final insult to the hero. The hero's sword is holy and bestows a negative level on the fighter when that evil cad wields it. This *must* include a good act? If a DM sees that this is NOT in any way a good thing, then they are going against the RAW?
I'm sorry that it is not clear to me Sean. I appreciate that you are taking the time to post here. I'd like to have it spelled out.
If a character casts an [alignment] descriptor spell, are you saying that it's NOT the DM's call how to adjudicate it, but that it is, by RAW, an act of that alignment?
By the way, who was the dev that wrote the passage in the alignment section? Did they not mean what I've been reading it to mean? If not, what did they mean?
-James
Wraith,
Still trying to answer all of your questions. So if I miss one, please ask again as I might have lost one of them.
wraithstrike wrote: The devs are the ones that make such decisions. You can't really tell me I am wrong about the rules if I made the game. You might say I am wrong in the sense that I made a bad rule, but my rulings are going to be correct no matter how bad they are.[\quote]
I disagree with this line of thinking. Perhaps you will see it as splitting hairs, but I'll explain anyway as to illuminate where I'm coming from here.
There is a difference between:
1. "X" is the rule, when what's written is "Y".
2. The power to change the written rule "Y" to "X".
(Originally I wrote a long silly example, but it's not really needed.. supply your own to the above if you like).
It is certainly possible for the very writer of the book to be incorrect about its contents. Given the choice between what the writer says vs a casual reader and you certainly go with the former. But if the book is available you can see for yourself.
wraithstrike wrote:
I brought up Monte Cook because he wrote the PHB, and he wrote the book which spells out the nature of evil in 3.X whose tradition was carried forth to Pathfinder.
So once again I ask:
"Are you saying that is not the intent no matter what sources I find?
Or are you saying that you don't care what the dev's intent is, and that if it is not written such a manner that it can't be possibly interpreted without error then it does not count, which would make sense if you don't agree with SKR's interpretation of the text he quoted. "
Now here you are going to hyperbole again.
I see from the core rule book three things of interest:
1. They removed the one place in the core books that said 'X is an evil act'. This could be coincidence, as the section had a heavy rewrite, or it could be on purpose.
2. They added to the alignment section, which is the primary place for such a question to find an answer (though in the nature of this game such can be dispersed). What they added said that all such calls were entirely in the hands of the GM. That's very strong and very clearly stated.
3. The section on magic detailing descriptors only says that descriptors categorize spells (that's their function) and that these categories seldom have any effects beyond serving as categories. There is a mention of alignment here, but that is spelled out in areas such as cleric casting and the like. Nowhere here is anything spelled out, and if it did say what you are claiming it implies then it would conflict with the alignment section (see 2).
I see taking the passage in the magic section as 'proof' is really taking a stretch there. Perhaps it is a case where you always assume something is taken for granted so that when you read it you see it there.
Perhaps (my hyperbole time) the intent was always that [fire] spells were acts of chaos. That is just as internally correct from the [descriptor] section. You might see fire as the essence of chaos (and in many places that is what it symbolizes) and not see a need to say that.
But there are a lot of people that go into making all of these revisions. And one of them writes the passage in the alignment section to avoid all of these kinds of threads as being rules discussions and smartly leaves them at the table. This does not conflict with anything that is actually written, but does conflict with what is not written, just assumed to have been. This later category I call 'folklore' rules.
-James
wraithstrike wrote: Which acts and how much they push you is always up to the GM. I think we agree on that. That is my contention as to what the alignment section actually says. I added bold to part of what I quoted from you.
I agree with this, but am surprised that you do as I read your argument to try to refute this. And in fact you go against it in the next sentence.
wraithstrike wrote:
What I am saying is that by the core assumption of the game certain things will always push you in a certain direction. Casting evil spells is one of them.
Here is where we disagree. I see it as always up to the GM.
I think that many people (devs, DMs, writers, passersby) may be lead that way as a basic assumption. That's fine.
However, I feel that it does not abdicate the responsibility of the GM to adjudicate it on their own. They might 999/1000 go that way, or they might not. It is, however, entirely their call.
Given an evil cruel character electing to behead our hero with the hero's own blade, they could adjudicate that there was no good act involved in this, despite the hero's sword being a +1 holy longsword. That's always up to the GM, period.
What I am reading, is that people are saying that the rules mechanically mandate that it include a 'good act'. Whereas I say that this might be that 1000th time out of a thousand.
It is one thing to say as a guideline that [evil] descriptor spells are icky, and that a GM should look carefully there to decide whether or not the mere casting of such a spell (or even indirectly benefiting from such) should be seen as an evil act.
It is quite another to say that the mere casting or indirectly benefiting from such a spell is mandated by the rules to be an evil act. (The GM is, of course, free to ignore this rule like every other rule in the game.)
I don't see anywhere where the later is written to be the case in the core rules. I see supplemental material from 3.5 (which included 'good aligned poisons' and the like) and places where writers assumed that this was the rule. In fact it might have been assumed that it was directly written somewhere, but when they do add passages that leave it entirely to the GM.. well that trumps unwritten rules.
-James
James wrote:
I see from the core rule book three things of interest:
1. They removed the one place in the core books that said 'X is an evil act'. This could be coincidence, as the section had a heavy rewrite, or it could be on purpose.
Just to be clear are you referring to the writers of 3.5 or Pathfinder as "they"?
I ask because if "they" are the 3.5 writers another post in this thread has text from D&D 3.0, and it also gives the GM final authority on evil acts despite the PHB saying channeling was evil, and the BoVD saying casting evil spells was evil. In short nothing was ever changed.
If "they" are the PF developers then as you pointed out the clause which you keep insisting was added, was always there, and the PF devs only rewrote it so the wording was better. Yeah, they change the wording, but not the intent. Sean also helped write the book, unless you are trying to say that the entire design team intended for the meaning of the words to change, but Sean and James Jacobs did not get the memo.
The 3.0 wording said the GM was the final judgement on what someone's alignment was, but of course in order to be the judge on the alignment he has to be the judge on what alignment actions were. PF just says the GM judges the actions, and of course if he judges the actions he gets to be the final authority of what your alignment will be.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
james maissen wrote: Here is where we disagree. I see it as always up to the GM. That's true of everything in the game surely?
RAW has been stated here but just because it's RAW doesn't mean it's right. Do what you like.
Why are we arguing this?
james maissen wrote: wraithstrike wrote: Which acts and how much they push you is always up to the GM. I think we agree on that. That is my contention as to what the alignment section actually says. I added bold to part of what I quoted from you.
I agree with this, but am surprised that you do as I read your argument to try to refute this. And in fact you go against it in the next sentence. What I am saying is that by the core assumption of the game certain things will always push you in a certain direction. Casting evil spells is one of them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
James wrote:
I don't see anywhere where the later is written to be the case in the core rules. I see supplemental material from 3.5 (which included 'good aligned poisons' and the like) and places where writers assumed that this was the rule. In fact it might have been assumed that it was directly written somewhere, but when they do add passages that leave it entirely to the GM.. well that trumps unwritten rules.
Quote:
It is one thing to say as a guideline that [evil] descriptor spells are icky, and that a GM should look carefully there to decide whether or not the mere casting of such a spell (or even indirectly benefiting from such) should be seen as an evil act.
It is quite another to say that the mere casting or indirectly benefiting from such a spell is mandated by the rules to be an evil act. (The GM is, of course, free to ignore this rule like every other rule in the game.)
I also quoted BoVD where he said casting evil spells was evil. BoED(Book of Exalted Deeds) had special rules for exalted characters that had an entirely different level of "good". BoVD was not referring to some special level of evil. The two are not comparable in that regard.
Supplemental material was used to bring in new rules, and expand on the core rules. I gave examples of that up thread with complete arcane. Now they also introduced optional rules, but those were called out as optional. As of now it is written in BoVD, so I don't know why you are calling it an unwritten rule.
I have also explained how something can be a core assumption of the game, but yet the alignment section still give the GM the power to say how he wants to do it in his game. Unless I see something in BoVD that calls out those evil acts as optional rules for when a GM wants to run a certain type of game, like the BoED does then I don't see how you can say it is not evil.
Do you have a quote saying the section from BoVD is intended to explain optional ruling?
In the introdution the first sentence is "Book of Vile Darkness" is a sourcebook of evil."
WotC also had a rule that if book on a subject was written and another source did not agree with it, that the book on that subject took place, so even if the core rules did not intend for casting evil spells to be evil they still would be.
As an example if the DMG, and Monster Manual conflicted about a monster related rule the Monster Manual took priority.
|
11 people marked this as a favorite.
|
james maissen wrote: Descriptors categorize spells. That doesn't make them fire acts to cast a fire spell. The game never refers to "fire acts" in the way it refers to "evil acts."
Creatures don't have "energyments" that push them to acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic extremes based on their "energy acts."
Creatures do have "alignments" that push them to chaotic, evil, good, or lawful extremes based on their "alignment acts."
So your argument trying to equate "fire acts" to "evil acts" is irrelevant.
BTW, read the next section of the Descriptors entry in the Core Rulebook:
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
The descriptors govern how the spell interacts with alignment.
It doesn't say "with cleric and druid alignment."
It doesn't say "with the Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells class ability of clerics and druids."
It says "with alignment."
Anyone's alignment.
Everyone's alignment.
As in, "using this spell interacts with the character's alignment."
So if an [evil] spell "interacts with" the caster's alignment, what's the obvious way it's interacting with that alignment? Is the [evil] spell making the alignment more pink? Is the [evil] spell making the caster's alignment more spicy? Is the [evil] spell making the caster's alignment more musical? Heavy? Sticky?
No, the [evil] spell is making the caster's alignment more evil.
That's the only reasonable interpretation.
james maissen wrote: By the way, who was the dev that wrote the passage in the alignment section? Did they not mean what I've been reading it to mean? If not, what did they mean? The entire rules team sits down and decides the rules together from what I understand, but of course Jason gets the final say.
The supporting text for team decisions is here.
wraithstrike wrote: James wrote:
I see from the core rule book three things of interest:
1. They removed the one place in the core books that said 'X is an evil act'. This could be coincidence, as the section had a heavy rewrite, or it could be on purpose.
Just to be clear are you referring to the writers of 3.5 or Pathfinder as "they"?
I ask because if "they" are the 3.5 writers another post in this thread has text from D&D 3.0, and it also gives the GM final authority on evil acts despite the PHB saying channeling was evil, and the BoVD saying casting evil spells was evil. In short nothing was ever changed.
The text removed in question was in the 3.5 PhB in the combat section dealing with turning undead. So obviously would be the change from 3.5edition to Pathfinder.
As I mentioned channel energy was greatly changed, so it could be coincidence.
But it was the only place in the 3.5 core books where an evil or good act was purely mechanical irrespective of intent or use.
wraithstrike wrote:
If "they" are the PF developers then as you pointed out the clause which you keep insisting was added, was always there, and the PF devs only rewrote it so the wording was better. Yeah, they change the wording, but not the intent. Sean also helped write the book, unless you are trying to say that the entire design team intended for the meaning of the words to change, but Sean and James Jacobs did not get the memo.
The 3.0 wording said the GM was the final judgement on what someone's alignment was, but of course in order to be the judge on the alignment he has to be the judge on what alignment actions were. PF just says the GM judges the actions, and of course if he judges the actions he gets to be the final authority of what your alignment will be.
I did not think anyone was in disagreement that the GM was the only person (baring cursed magic items, player choice, etc) to determine if a character's alignment was to be changed.
The 3.0 wording, matched in the 3.5 version of the PhB simply reads:
[/quote = "3e PhB"] If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that your character's alignment has changed to match her actions. That is the entirety of it, and not something to which I was referring.
Pathfinder added a lot at the end of the alignment section and went to great detail even giving advice. The part I mention:
PF wrote:
In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something’s in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the
only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil.
Now this is saying that the Game Master decides if something (say casting an [evil] descriptor spell) is in accordance with its indicated alignment. He bases this on his own opinion and his interpretations of the action. He does not base this on spell [descriptors] of potential spells used in the creation of an item.
The Game Master, not a descriptor on a spell, decides if an act is an evil act, a good act, an act of chaos, etc.
wraithstrike wrote:
but of course in order to be the judge on the alignment he has to be the judge on what alignment actions were.
This is incorrect. If the GM is directly told by the rules that channeling negative energy is an evil act, then they don't judge based on their opinion and interpretation of the situation rather they are informed by the rules that the channeling is an evil act.
That expressly was removed in the change from 3.5 to PF.
What was added directly in the alignment section was a long passage saying that handling things along these lines is left to the GM.
The section on [descriptor] spells doesn't say casting a descriptor spell is mechanically an act of an alignment which is not to be judged by the GM, but rather applied by them. It says nothing of the sort.
It says that [descriptors] separate out spells and that they seldom have mechanical ties. One of those mechanical ties is a restriction on clerics based on the alignment descriptors. This is clearly spelled out in the cleric section, but there is nothing spelled out for acts of an alignment other than that this is something that the GM gets to decide.
Decide, not be told, but decide.
-James
I removed a post. If you think someone isn't worth responding to, then don't.
So just to be clear James, you are saying that Paizo represent the "they" that gives you the supporting argument that only the GM, not the game itself can decide what is evil?
PS:I am not saying the GM is not the final authority.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
So if an [evil] spell "interacts with" the caster's alignment, what's the obvious way it's interacting with that alignment? Is the [evil] spell making the alignment more pink? Is the [evil] spell making the caster's alignment more spicy? Is the [evil] spell making the caster's alignment more musical? Heavy? Sticky?
No, the [evil] spell is making the caster's alignment more evil.
That's the only reasonable interpretation.
I now have visions of a spectrum of evil, ranging from red to indigo, mild to super-hot, atonal to melodious, light to massive, slippery to sticky.
This is, far and away, the most amusing answer I've seen in a long time.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
BTW, read the next section of the Descriptors entry in the Core Rulebook:
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
The descriptors govern how the spell interacts with alignment.
It doesn't say "with cleric and druid alignment."
It doesn't say "with the Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells class ability of clerics and druids."
It says "with alignment."
Anyone's alignment.
Everyone's alignment.
As in, "using this spell interacts with the character's alignment."
This is bad logic.
It also says "other spells" and "special abilities" and "unusual creatures".
Following your logic then the descriptors govern how the spells act with all instances of these!
Also following your logic, how does the [fire] descriptor govern how the spell interacts with alignment? It doesn't say [good], [evil], [chaotic] and [lawful] descriptors.
Rather you are reading in what you've assumed was there. It doesn't say it. There are places where some descriptors govern how some spells interact with some creatures based on alignment.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
So if an [evil] spell "interacts with" the caster's alignment, what's the obvious way it's interacting with that alignment?
...
No, the [evil] spell is making the caster's alignment more evil.
That's the only reasonable interpretation.
Your only reasonable interpretation contradicts the alignment section.
-James
james maissen wrote: Now this is saying that the Game Master decides if something (say casting an [evil] descriptor spell) is in accordance with its indicated alignment. He bases this on his own opinion and his interpretations of the action. He does not base this on spell [descriptors] of potential spells used in the creation of an item.
The Game Master, not a descriptor on a spell, decides if an act is an evil act, a good act, an act of chaos, etc.
<snip>
It says that [descriptors] separate out spells and that they seldom have mechanical ties. One of those mechanical ties is a restriction on clerics based on the alignment descriptors. This is clearly spelled out in the cleric section, but there is nothing spelled out for acts of an alignment other than that this is something that the GM gets to decide.
Decide, not be told, but decide.
-James
Is this really a big deal? There is a small set of actions that is called out in the rules as being inherently aligned. There is, meanwhile, a functionally unbounded set of other actions and intents that the GM will have to judge if he uses alignments at all. It looks to me like the alignment descriptor actions mountain needs to be viewed as the molehill it really is.
And, on top of that, the GM is always free to ignore any individual rule including the moral implications of using a spell with an alignment descriptor.
wraithstrike wrote: So just to be clear James, you are saying that Paizo represent the "they" that gives you the supporting argument that only the GM, not the game itself can decide what is evil?
PS:I am not saying the GM is not the final authority.
No, I've quoted the core rule book for Pathfinder. That's what tells me that the GM decides based on
1. The descriptions of the alignments given in the section.
2. The GM's opinions of the actions.
3. The GM's interpretations of the actions.
They are not told by the rules that some action is evil, good, or 'fire'. Rather the GM gets to decide.
Your position seems to be:
The GM is told by the rules that certain things are acts of an alignment.
The GM can houserule/rule 0 this not to apply.
I disagree. I see that the GM following the RAW is charged to decide, and told what to base that decision upon.
-James
I think you have to consider the logic of each one James. We know fire is not an alignment so it would not apply. Evil is not a an elemental descriptor so there are times when it won't apply.
The book is not saying that all descriptors apply to "other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on." at all times. It is just a list of things the descriptors apply to. To say say the alignment descriptors should be applied as if they were elemental descriptors would no make sense, and that is not the argument Sean or myself is making.
james maissen wrote: wraithstrike wrote: So just to be clear James, you are saying that Paizo represent the "they" that gives you the supporting argument that only the GM, not the game itself can decide what is evil?
PS:I am not saying the GM is not the final authority.
No, I've quoted the core rule book for Pathfinder. That's what tells me that the GM decides based on
1. The descriptions of the alignments given in the section.
2. The GM's opinions of the actions.
3. The GM's interpretations of the actions.
They are not told by the rules that some action is evil, good, or 'fire'. Rather the GM gets to decide.
Your position seems to be:
The GM is told by the rules that certain things are acts of an alignment.
The GM can houserule/rule 0 this not to apply.
I disagree. I see that the GM following the RAW is charged to decide, and told what to base that decision upon.
-James 1. So who are the "they" that you keep referring to?
2. Are you aruging RAW or RAI?
Bill Dunn wrote:
Is this really a big deal? There is a small set of actions that is called out in the rules as being inherently aligned. There is, meanwhile, a functionally unbounded set of other actions and intents that the GM will have to judge if he uses alignments at all. It looks to me like the alignment descriptor actions mountain needs to be viewed as the molehill it really is.
And, on top of that, the GM is always free to ignore any individual rule including the moral implications of using a spell with an alignment descriptor.
Well in this forum it's always nice to be able to separate out things into the RAW when applicable. In general the entire forum can be judged by your post.
Of course a GM can houserule what they wish, but there are still discussion on what the baseline rules are and aren't.
Is wielding a +1 holy sword an act of goodness? Does it depend upon whether or not the creator bypassed the [good] descriptor spell in its creation?
Is or is not the act of wielding a +1 unholy sword an act of evil? The sword is evil, but no [evil] descriptor spells were used in its creation regardless iirc.
And how does this not contradict the passage in the alignment section telling the GM that they will decide and upon what they should base that decision.
-James
wraithstrike wrote:
1. So who are the "they" that you keep referring to?
2. Are you aruging RAW or RAI?
First, in that post by "they" it would mean "GMs".
Second, this is the rules forum, I'm arguing primarily RAW.
Also based on the clear wording in the alignment section it should also be RAI, at least by whomever wrote that section. If that is false then perhaps it needs errata.
As to the first, again I've been going by the Pathfinder Core Rule Book which was written by the fine folks here at Paizo. When I say 'they' changed the 3.5 core rules to the Pathfinder rules, I do mean the Paizo folks here.
I'm curious who amongst them wrote the passage in the alignment section, and if they did not mean how I'm reading it.
Have I spelled out my position clearly enough?
-James
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
James, I think you're being deliberately obtuse. You know that the sentence is written that way NOT so that you should expect every type of descriptor to interact with every game element listed in the sentence (fire doesn't relate to alignment, you know this), but so we don't have to write out ten paragraphs stating
* alignment descriptors interact with alignment, other spells, special abilities, unusual creatures
* energy descriptors interact with other spells, special abilities, unusual creatures
* light and darkness descriptors interact with other spells, special abilities, unusual creatures
and so on.
You're not stupid. Stop acting like you don't understand that the rules are written assuming the reader isn't stupid. Stop acting like you don't understand that the rules don't have the room to spell out every possible allowed combination and spell out every disallowed combination.
You're being disingenuous.
I've pointed out the RAW that supports what I'm saying, and explained to you the RAI that confirms the design intent. You're wrong. You don't have to admit you're wrong, but you really should stop trying to prove you're right.
And I'm wasting my time trying to get you to stop acting like you can't understand the nuances of human language.
In any case, I'm done.
james maissen wrote: wraithstrike wrote:
1. So who are the "they" that you keep referring to?
2. Are you aruging RAW or RAI?
This is the rules forum, I'm arguing RAW.
Also based on the clear wording in the alignment section it should also be RAI, at least by whomever wrote that section. If that is false then perhaps it needs errata.
As to the first, again I've been going by the Pathfinder Core Rule Book which was written by the fine folks here at Paizo.
I'm curious who amongst them wrote the passage in the alignment section, and if they did not mean how I'm reading it.
Have I spelled out my position clearly enough?
-James So with RAW in mind what do you the think the alignment in "other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment," is referring to?
Adamantine Dragon wrote: James, let me ask you this. Would going back in time and killing Hitler while he was a kid be an evil act? Certainly you could argue that it would be for the greater good, but fundamentally it's still murdering an innocent child, right? It would on several levels.
1. Killing an innocent child is evil. At least in D+D terms.
2. Putting yourself in the position of god in deciding the fates of not only the millions who die but the millions or more who will never be born because of your action is in the very least, a supreme act of hubris bordering on delusions of divinity.
3. In just about every story that it's tried in... it never works out. In the outer limits a woman travels back in time to become baby Hitler's nanny. She succeeds in killing the child only to have it replaced by a truly spiteful bastard who is given the other child's identity, thus making her action the true origin of Hitler.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RAW: the specific overrides the general.
An alignment descriptor shows how a spell interacts with alignment. (Specific)
The alignment section of the CRB says that the GM is final arbiter of all matters relating to alignment. (General)
The specific overrides the general.
Good day.
Sean K Reynolds wrote: James, I think you're being deliberately obtuse. You know that the sentence is written that way NOT so that you should expect every type of descriptor to interact with every game element listed in the sentence (fire doesn't relate to alignment, you know this), but so we don't have to write out ten paragraphs stating
Sean, this was your position. That the wording didn't say more. That was my point.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
You're being disingenuous.
I've pointed out the RAW that supports what I'm saying, and explained to you the RAI that confirms the design intent. You're wrong. You don't have to admit you're wrong, but you really should stop trying to prove you're right.
And I'm wasting my time trying to get you to stop acting like you can't understand the nuances of human language.
In any case, I'm done.
Sorry to hear that.
I was looking forward to hearing how to reconcile what seems to be to be plain text saying one thing, with you saying that I should be able to infer your conclusions from another.
I had hoped that you would plainly say that:
The part in the alignment section is just plain wrong.
Or
The part in the alignment section is right, but means X instead of the Y you believe it to.
Or
The two sections are in conflict with one another, but this should take precedence and wording will be added to that effect.
But c'est la vie,
-James
james maissen wrote: Bill Dunn wrote:
Is this really a big deal? There is a small set of actions that is called out in the rules as being inherently aligned. There is, meanwhile, a functionally unbounded set of other actions and intents that the GM will have to judge if he uses alignments at all. It looks to me like the alignment descriptor actions mountain needs to be viewed as the molehill it really is.
And, on top of that, the GM is always free to ignore any individual rule including the moral implications of using a spell with an alignment descriptor.
Well in this forum it's always nice to be able to separate out things into the RAW when applicable. In general the entire forum can be judged by your post.
Of course a GM can houserule what they wish, but there are still discussion on what the baseline rules are and aren't.
Is wielding a +1 holy sword an act of goodness? Does it depend upon whether or not the creator bypassed the [good] descriptor spell in its creation?
Is or is not the act of wielding a +1 unholy sword an act of evil? The sword is evil, but no [evil] descriptor spells were used in its creation regardless iirc.
And how does this not contradict the passage in the alignment section telling the GM that they will decide and upon what they should base that decision.
-James It does not matter if the creator bypassed the "good" spell in creating a holy sword, the sword itself still detects as good.
As for unholy weapons, they normally use an evil spell in creation (unholy blight) and detect as evil.
I think that not allowing use of holy or unholy weapons to shift alignment just cheats the GM and player out of some RP opportunity. Same with spells.
How does the Paladin Code of conduct not contradict that? It does not, it just gives the GM some RAW basis on making those decisions.
wraithstrike wrote:
So with RAW in mind what do you the think the alignment in "other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment," is referring to?
A myriad of things that aren't detailed here, but elsewhere?
For example the [good] descriptor on a spell would stall the regeneration of an Ice Devil hurt by it. Meanwhile it would interact with alignment in preventing a cleric of an evil deity being granted it as a spell.
I don't read it as 'here we will alter the alignment section of the core rules'. Perhaps it was intended to do so. It could be more clear if that's the case.
Happler wrote:
It does not matter if the creator bypassed the "good" spell in creating a holy sword, the sword itself still detects as good.
As for unholy weapons, they normally use an evil spell in creation (unholy blight) and detect as evil.
I think that not allowing use of holy or unholy weapons to shift alignment just cheats the GM and player out of some RP opportunity. Same with spells.
How does the Paladin Code of conduct not contradict that? It does not, it just gives the GM some RAW basis on making those decisions.
Mea culpa, Happler.. I had thought it was unholy blight.. but for some reason when I quickly looked I saw the next weapon's requirement of enervation. I'm sorry I should know better.
But you misunderstand my point. It is not to deny them being acts of an alignment, but rather that this call should be left to the GM and not mandated.
Certainly the weapon is that alignment. But does that mean that wielding it is an act of that alignment? Is that a call for the GM at the table weighing the circumstances and the situation, or a fixed matter in the rules?
-James
james maissen wrote: wraithstrike wrote:
1. So who are the "they" that you keep referring to?
2. Are you aruging RAW or RAI?
First, in that post by "they" it would mean "GMs".
Second, this is the rules forum, I'm arguing primarily RAW.
Also based on the clear wording in the alignment section it should also be RAI, at least by whomever wrote that section. If that is false then perhaps it needs errata.
As to the first, again I've been going by the Pathfinder Core Rule Book which was written by the fine folks here at Paizo. When I say 'they' changed the 3.5 core rules to the Pathfinder rules, I do mean the Paizo folks here.
I'm curious who amongst them wrote the passage in the alignment section, and if they did not mean how I'm reading it.
Have I spelled out my position clearly enough?
-James When I asked for "they" I was referring to earlier post when you were referring to the people who wrote the alignment section. I am assuming you mean the PF devs though for that version of "they", and not the 3.5 devs.
james maissen wrote: Sean K Reynolds wrote: James, I think you're being deliberately obtuse. You know that the sentence is written that way NOT so that you should expect every type of descriptor to interact with every game element listed in the sentence (fire doesn't relate to alignment, you know this), but so we don't have to write out ten paragraphs stating
Sean, this was your position. That the wording didn't say more. That was my point. That was not his position. This is what he meant as described in my earlier post.
wraithstrike wrote: I think you have to consider the logic of each one James. We know fire is not an alignment so it would not apply. Evil is not a an elemental descriptor so there are times when it won't apply.
The book is not saying that all descriptors apply to "other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on." at all times. It is just a list of things the descriptors apply to. To say say the alignment descriptors should be applied as if they were elemental descriptors would no make sense, and that is not the argument Sean or myself is making.
This is supported by SRK saying:
Quote:
* alignment descriptors interact with alignment, other spells, special abilities, unusual creatures
* energy descriptors interact with other spells, special abilities, unusual creatures
* light and darkness descriptors interact with other spells, special abilities, unusual creatures
Now with this new information how would you respond to SKR's post?
james maissen wrote: wraithstrike wrote:
So with RAW in mind what do you the think the alignment in "other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment," is referring to?
A myriad of things that aren't detailed here, but elsewhere?
For example the [good] descriptor on a spell would stall the regeneration of an Ice Devil hurt by it. Meanwhile it would interact with alignment in preventing a cleric of an evil deity being granted it as a spell.
Regeneration is not alignment. That would be "special abilities", since that is what regeneration is, and what is being interacted with.
So now we have to define alignment. Luckily that is a game definition.
What is alignment?
Quote: Alignment: Alignment represents a creature's basic moral and ethical attitude. Alignment has two components: one describing whether a creature is lawful, neutral, or chaotic, followed by another that describes whether a character is good, neutral, or evil. Alignments are usually abbreviated using the first letter of each alignment component, such as LN for lawful neutral or CE for chaotic evil. Creatures that are neutral in both components are denoted by a single “N.” So by RAW the spell is interacting with the alignment of the creature.
edit:clarification.
Bill Dunn wrote: Why does this need to be FAQed? Why is engaging in an evil act such a big deal? Aside from severe alignment-based behavioral restrictions (paladins, mainly), does it, really matter? Alignment measures the general trend in a character's moral behavior. Is casting an evil spell enough to tip the scales from one alignment to the other? Probably not. Don't sweat it.
The way I run Pathfinder, it is an evil act. But since I look at the whole of a PC's behavior hen considering their alignment, it's only one of many factors, and a relatively minor one at that.
Just so. I'd say a caster who summons up a demon to protect innocents or uses the Infernal Healing spell to save an orphan's life is still coming out ahead in the alignment game.
Now, some good-aligned authorities might take exception to the idea of using evil spells to do good and regularly using evil magic could provide all kinds of temptation plot hooks/possibilities.
Like other folks said upthread, the only time a single act should ever have an overwhelming influence on your character's alignment is when it's a massive game-changer like sacrificing babies to a demon. Aside from the Paladin, there's plenty of leeway for a character who spends 99% of the time being Good to do the occasional bit of evil (especially if that evil is done for the Greater Good).
Well, I agree by RAW that [evil] spells are automatically evil, I really don't think that makes any kind of sense, and none of the groups I play with rule it that way.
First of all, alignment descriptors are weird because they presume intent, whereas all the other descriptors are just static attributes of the spell.
For instance, a normal Fireball will never be language dependent, and a normal Invisibility will never be cold. A spell either has the [fire] descriptor, or it doesn't. But every time you cast a spell, there is an alignment type associated with it no matter what. The act of casting a Fireball could be Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, or just Neutral depending on the situation. See, and that's where alignment spells become exceptions to the normal rules. The normal rule is: the act of casting pretty much any spell, regardless of their descriptors, can be of any alignment, depending on it's use. Unless the spell has been preordained to be [evil] or [good] for often not obvious reasons.
Seriously, some spells get the [evil] descriptor for no real reason and area automatically now evil acts no matter what the intent is.
Like for some reason giving someone a terrible Nightmare for one night to fatigue them and keep them from prepping spells is always horrendously evil enough to give it the [evil] descriptor. But cutting a large chunk of flesh off another person, and spending an hour carving into it to Create Treasure Map in order to find some loot falls into that gray area.
Things like that really just cause us to almost completely ignore alignment descriptors as affecting character alignments.
Chengar Qordath wrote: Like other folks said upthread, the only time a single act should ever have an overwhelming influence on your character's alignment is when it's a massive game-changer like sacrificing babies to a demon. Aside from the Paladin, there's plenty of leeway for a character who spends 99% of the time being Good to do the occasional bit of evil (especially if that evil is done for the Greater Good).. A Paladin with that attitude is well on the way to exiting the class, even if he doesn't fall to evil. Because it's not enough to be "occasionally" good, or "mostly" good. You have to be actively committed to being good 100 percent of the time as your goal. If you fail that one percent of the time, the real question is why you failed and if the answer was "I couldn't be bothered", than that's a character that's at the very least due a warning sign.
The standards that serve for maintaining a good aligned fighter, or even a lawful good cleric, aren't necessarily sufficient for a Paladin.
Because it is that demanding a class.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
In any case, I'm done.
I can understand that, I've read this thread the way you can't turn away from an imminent unavoidable disaster. With fascination and frustration. I have the same issue occasionally dealing with students. At the end of it I want to go pound my head into a wall. It's not worth getting to that stage. And in case no one else mentions it, thanks for trying to bring reason to one of these train wreck discussions.
Thanks SKR. Your post made me think to check to see if alignment was listed as a game term.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
wraithstrike wrote:
That was not his position. This is what he meant as described in my earlier post.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
The descriptors govern how the spell interacts with alignment.
It doesn't say "with cleric and druid alignment."
It doesn't say "with the Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells class ability of clerics and druids."
It says "with alignment."
Anyone's alignment.
Everyone's alignment.
His position seemed to be that if it meant to refer to the limitation on clerics receiving spells that it would need to say more. That as written it applied to everyone's alignment.. which is a leap as we agree that the other passages don't apply to every spell, etc.
Then he said that it was unreasonable to require the wording to say so much.
Which was the point I was trying to make. The passage is a mentioning that things will be happening elsewhere, not detailing what is happening. It still requires rules to say what this interaction is going to be, and what form it will take.
wraithstrike wrote:
This is supported by SRK saying:
Quote:
* alignment descriptors interact with alignment, other spells, special abilities, unusual creatures
* energy descriptors interact with other spells, special abilities, unusual creatures
* light and darkness descriptors interact with other spells, special abilities, unusual creatures
Now with this new information how would you respond to SKR's post?
First, obviously they don't interact with every other spell, every special ability, every unusual creature.. so how are we to reasonably assume that they (the alignment descriptor spells) interact with everyone's alignment?
But let's go with interacting with alignment. That's great that they interact, a good cleric cannot be granted an [evil] descriptor spell. That is interaction based on the descriptor and the alignment of the cleric (or cleric's deity).
Where do we find out about this? In the cleric section. It details out the rules about it.
You and SKR claim that there is also interaction by way of assigning evil acts, etc. possibly in order to affect an alignment change. Right?
Where do we find out about this? Nowhere.
When we go to the alignment section we find other instructions in this regard. These instructions say that it is solely in the hands of the GM.
So we have a place in the rules where it mentions that there will be some interaction. Sean has refined that part down to say that it will occur with the alignment descriptor spells. But he says is *has* to be in the granting of acts of an alignment.
Why not complete alterations of alignment? Cast one [lawful] spell and the caster is now lawful. Is that not the reasonable conclusion to make? After all that's making the caster 'more lawful' which was Sean's position.
Your position that there is RAW on this, yes or no? This one passage in the descriptor section was what you called proof right?
So what's the rule, and where is the rule?
-James
Shame there are so many [evil] descriptor spells and so little [good] descriptor spells.
So your position is that since it is not explicitly stated that it is not RAW? Personally I think it was written that way to save space. Yeah it is not perfect, but I think the intent is clear.
As an example you need to see something like "Certain actions are evil, and can affect your alignment. This is a list of such actions.......
The severity of such actions on your alignment is always in the purview of your GM, as well as which actions are evil."
That would list actions the game assumes to be evil, but still let the player know the GM is final arbitrator of what is evil/good/etc, and to what extent.
PS:For the sake of saving space lets also assume the same paragraph applied to other alignments also.
wraithstrike wrote: So your position is that since it is not explicitly stated that it is not RAW? Personally I think it was written that way to save space. Yeah it is not perfect, but I think the intent is clear. From the [descriptor] subsection in the magic section can we determine, via RAW, the restriction on what spells clerics can cast?
Or is the descriptor section merely saying that there is going to be rules elsewhere, and that those rules elsewhere are needed to know this?
From the descriptor subsection can we determine that a [good] descriptor spell damaging an Ice devil will halt its regeneration? Or do we need those rules elsewhere? Can't it just be removed and save space?
The passage on descriptors is not giving how it interacts or even which descriptors interact with which alignments, special creatures, spells, etc. It is just giving a heads up that this will be elsewhere.
If what you want to be there were actually in the rules, then this would be fine. But you've run the ad and then not run the story (if you can catch the movie reference).
If the alignment section (or spells section, or appendix) said 'casting a spell with the [lawful] descriptor is an act of law' much like the 3.5 PhB said in regards to channeling energy, that would of course suffice. Preferably it would be in the alignment section and not elsewhere. Because in the alignment section it details how the GM is to determine whether or not an act was an act of Law.
The only rules detailing on how a GM is to determine whether an action was an act of Law (or other alignment) is in the alignment section.
Just as the cleric section details how alignment descriptors interact with alignments of clerics/deities in regards to being able to be granted spells.
The mere reference that some interaction will occur is not sufficient,
My position is that not only is it not expressly stated, but it is only said that the rules can have spell descriptors interact with some alignments. There are no such rules that realize this interaction in the way that you (and most everyone) is assuming.
Does this interaction between alignment descriptors and alignment:
1. Mandate actual immediate change in alignment.
2. Apply to all alignment descriptors and all alignments.
3. Apply to just the casters of spells with the alignment descriptor, or those willingly/unwillingly effected by spells with that alignment descriptor.
None of these are implied, or limited to in the rules, because there are no such rules,
James
|
