|
So, really, this ultimately only affects clerics because they are the only ones prohibited from casting spells with an opposite alignment descriptor; though I would imagine the Paladin wouldn't use evil spells (but I do wonder about spells with a chaos descriptor).
So a LG cleric cannot cast evil or chaotic spells. Nor could a CE cleric cast lawful or good spells. What about neutral alignments? Would a NG cleric only be prohibited from casting only evil spells and perfectly ok to cast both lawful and chaotic spells?
As a GM, I don't have any problems with a good wizard casting an evil spell, beyond what that player might impose on his or her character for roleplaying reasons.
EDIT: or the cleric's diety's alignment.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
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.
Alignment descriptors don't presume intent, any more than casting a spell with Evil intent gives it an alignment descriptor.
Rather, Alignment descriptors presume method and/or source. A spell is evil because it calls on evil powers, uses evil incantations or runes, or produces some inherently evil effect. A blasphemy spell is still Evil, even if you cast it to temporarily paralyze some misguided Paladins, because the spell itself is utterly blasphemous.
Think about it like The Force from Star Wars, or the laws of magic from the Dresdenverse (or the multitude of other examples of White magic/Black magic from popular fantasy). You can call on the Dark Side of the Force to accomplish Good goals (Rescue the Princess, strike down the Evil Emperor, etc), but doing so still corrupts you. Maybe just a little bit at first, but eventually you fall to the Dark Side.
Ditto for a spell like Infernal Healing. You can use it to save a little orphan child's life, but you're still tapping into infernal power to do so, and channeling that sort of power has an effect on you.
At least that's my opinion.
Could someone list some of the spells with the Evil descriptor that they feel should not have it, or are at least highly questionable. Most of the ones I have found either have "unholy" in the name, or summon/create an evil creature, and seem kind of like obviously evil stuff.
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?
The cleric section handles that.
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?
It is clear that by RAW alignment is interacted with. By RAW the word "alignment" has a definition which I posted upthread.
As was stated earlier and once again:
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.”
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The spell has an evil descriptor so it is categorized as an evil spell. I don't think you can cast an evil spell, and not say it is an evil action.
So now we have an evil action, at least by my reading of it. From what I just wrote we know that evil spells also interact with alignment. If the evil spell is interacting with a creature's moral and ethical attitude then it stands to reason that it is exerting some influence on it.
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 descriptor section says that special abilities are interacted with so I think it should stay there. I don't know if it is needed, but having a general rule to reference for special abilities such as DR, regeneration, and anything else is not really a bad thing.
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.
It seems you are saying you want a more definite version than what is given. The issue is that this has always been understood to work that way, going back to 3.X, so Paizo saw no reason to change it. It is not an assumption though if everyone(most of us) understand it to work that way.
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
1. This is up to the GM per the alignment section.
2. Yes. It says alignments without singling any certain ones out.3. That is a good question. In the most literal reading of the rules I would say they are unclear. I am not saying the intent is not clear, but if I were to read the rules without trying to comprehend them, and go by the exact words alone it might be an issue. Fortunately we know the rules fail when read in that manner.
To quote SKR:
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?
One would figure that good would be perfectly okay with using evil as a weapon against evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One would figure that good would be perfectly okay with using evil as a weapon against evil.
That is a "the ends justify the means" positions which the game does not promote. An evil act is always an evil act even if you mean good by it.
As an example killing a an innocent person in order to save 1000000 people is still an evil act, even if it for the better good. It might be the better decision, but sometimes even the better decision is not necessarily a good decision.
One would figure that good would be perfectly okay with using evil as a weapon against evil.
That doesn't really follow. Good generally holds that the means matter as well as the ends. That's rather the point of actions being either good or evil in and of themselves.
A less-strict good deity would probably turn a blind eye to using some evil methods to pursue greater good, but not the more strict ones. And making a habit of evil methods to obtain good results should have an effect on a character's in-game morality - their alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think another part of the problem (which I think has been touched on earlier in the thread, but I'm not going to re-read the whole thing just to find it) is that Good and Evil (also Law and Chaos) are reified in Pathfinder/3.x (and, I believe, in all previous editions of the D&D rules).
To put it in plain language: In the game, Good and Evil (Law and Chaos) are not just concepts, they actually exist. Absolute Good and absolute Evil exist as physical, mystical, metaphysical entities. Some beings, energies, materials and places are simply "Good" or "Evil", regardless of the intent of people making use of those beings, energies, materials or places.
If my Paladin goes to Hell, the place is trying to corrupt him. His intention might be to clean out all the evil, but his intention matters not one tiny jot to the place he is - it is Evil, and there is actually nothing my Paladin can do about it. If he picks up an unholy sword and uses it day to day, he is actively promoting evil (whoops) by allowing the evil item to exist. If he picks it up and swings it once to kill the champion of evil who wielded it before him, it is a pretty minor evil act (in the realms of "not even worth caring about"), but he is actually promoting the use of evil items through his actions and choices. If my Lawful Evil wizard summons an angel, regardless of the use to which he puts said angel, Good is being promoted by the simple fact of the spell summoning an angel.
While the arbiter of the effects upon the alignments of characters is definitely the GM, it is an indisputable fact of the "reality" of the game that Good and Evil (Law and Chaos) exist beyond the scope of the decisions and choices of characters. There exist beings that are inherently Good or Evil (Lawful or Chaotic). Places that are inherently Good or Evil (Lawful or Chaotic). Energies that are inherently Good or Evil (Lawful or Chaotic).
How much those things affect characters is for the GM to decide. But it doesn't stop them being automatically Good or Evil (Lawful or Chaotic).
|
So now we have an evil action, at least by my reading of it. From what I just wrote we know that evil spells also interact with alignment. If the evil spell is interacting with a creature's moral and ethical attitude then it stands to reason that it is exerting some influence on it.
Does this mean that my lawful evil wiz could find out that there is a war in arcadia between devils and angels. Then find out the name of the angel that is leading the forces of good. Then summon him everyday and do nothing but keep him there and serve him tea so he can not lead the armies of good. Slowly the wizards alignment will change to good.
One would figure that good would be perfectly okay with using evil as a weapon against evil.
That is essentially "the ends justify the means". Yes, you're doing wrong to fight something worse. When my players bring that up I reply with this old saw: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". I think it fits the situation well.
Does this mean that my lawful evil wiz could find out that there is a war in arcadia between devils and angels. Then find out the name of the angel that is leading the forces of good. Then summon him everyday and do nothing but keep him there and serve him tea so he can not lead the armies of good. Slowly the wizards alignment will change to good.
So now we have an evil action, at least by my reading of it. From what I just wrote we know that evil spells also interact with alignment. If the evil spell is interacting with a creature's moral and ethical attitude then it stands to reason that it is exerting some influence on it.
Summoning monsters does not really bring the creature over. Calling them does.
With that said the act of calling a good creature is a good act. The fact that you are deliberately restricting good forces would be seen by many GM's as evil. I think the casting of the spell holds less weight than your other action.
As another example if I use animate dead to protect a town from a horde of orcs I have committed an evil act. The protecting of the town is a good act however. Which one has more weight depends on your GM.
PS:If that angel can lead forces like that he will probably make sure that you get dealt with. :)
|
Does this mean that my lawful evil wiz could find out that there is a war in arcadia between devils and angels. Then find out the name of the angel that is leading the forces of good. Then summon him everyday and do nothing but keep him there and serve him tea so he can not lead the armies of good. Slowly the wizards alignment will change to good.
So now we have an evil action, at least by my reading of it. From what I just wrote we know that evil spells also interact with alignment. If the evil spell is interacting with a creature's moral and ethical attitude then it stands to reason that it is exerting some influence on it.
Sure, between the magic to summon the angel and the conversations with said angel. That wizard would slowly be turned LG (via LN first). He would be better off convincing a good cleric to do the summoning for him (via trickery and plans) so he would not have to "sully" his hands with that kind of magic.
Does this mean that my lawful evil wiz could find out that there is a war in arcadia between devils and angels. Then find out the name of the angel that is leading the forces of good. Then summon him everyday and do nothing but keep him there and serve him tea so he can not lead the armies of good. Slowly the wizards alignment will change to good.
So now we have an evil action, at least by my reading of it. From what I just wrote we know that evil spells also interact with alignment. If the evil spell is interacting with a creature's moral and ethical attitude then it stands to reason that it is exerting some influence on it.
*sigh* No. The evil of keeping him from his duty, and thus aiding evil, would outweigh the "good" of the spell. Imo, of course. But that's why we have DMs. Unless, of course he sucked as a general in which case you might really be doing good :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also up to the GM per the alignment section is determining whether or not it is an act of that alignment.
If a spell descriptor trumps that then it can mandate a full alignment change.
To my recollection, nobody has said that casting an [Aligned] spell is only an [Alignment] action.
The act of casting an [Aligned] spell is an [Alignment] action. What the character chooses to do with that spell does not have to match that alignment. Whether the combined impact of the [Alignment] action created by the casting of the spell plus the specific result of the spell is [Alignment] is overall the GM's decision. This does not in any way contradict either the Descriptor portion of the Magic rules, nor the Alignment rules.
You are assuming that the only way that an alignment descriptor can interact with an alignment is by awarding acts of that alignment.
Why must that be the case?
No. What we are saying is that the alignment descriptor indicates that the act of channelling the energies to cast that spell is itself automatically aligned. The spell itself may be used for any alignment. What has the greater impact on the caster's alignment is up to the GM.
All you have here is a passage saying that descriptors will interact with alignment. Period.
You appear to be arguing that a Good person casting a spell that is definitively Evil (by virtue of drawing upon Evil energies, Evil beings, or whatever) is only doing evil if their choices with the result of the spell are evil. None of us are actually disputing that, since overall the Good spellcaster could do good with the spell, and an Evil spellcaster could do Evil with a Good spell, but that doesn't mean that the spell itself cannot be inherently evil - it just means that the balance which the GM must arbitrate is inherently skewed by the spell itself.
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.
Which would be why I specifically called out the Paladin as an exception to the rule.
