Evil spells


Pathfinder Society

101 to 113 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
4/5

Nani Pratt wrote:

Caution: touchy subject

I believe that the clause in guide 4.2 means that players are immune to "you turn evil and are banned from PFS". It does not make you immune to violating your clerical/pally oaths. In one of my games, that cleric would need an atonement. After a warning.

To almost quote Kyle Baird...if you don't want to play a character with morality restrictions, don't play a cleric or a pally

Yup, Mike clarified exactly that. The character in question was not a cleric, though, and it wasn't his fault that the CN faction he chose got sent on a truly LE mission. I did have a cleric of Desna at my table once who cackled gleefully while burning unconscious enemies to death and called everyone "peasant" (she was from Taldor), but since it didn't involve doing the opposite of Desna's dogma, it didn't seem to violate the specifics of Desna's beliefs if she was a CN cleric of The Song of the Spheres, it was just kinda weird.

Silver Crusade 2/5

nosig wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
nosig wrote:


I still want to know if a table judge has the athority to shift a PCs alignment over the objections of the player, for the casting of one spell during one session of play. Is that what is being said? Can we define when Nani's cleric of Urgathoa will have her alignment shifted to evil by a table judge? Doesn't her past "Good Deeds" effect this? Worse yet, does her past "Good Deeds" and "Lawful Deeds" shift her alignment and loose her her cleric abilities? On the decision of a table judge?
Yes, it can happen. I had it happen to one of my characters, and I was ok with it. The GM warned me that my action would be considered quite evil, and it would have alignment consequences, namely going from LG to LN. We talked it over, and I eventually decided I was ok with that happening. Long story short, yes, a table judge can shift your alignment. They should let you know before you before you go through with your action tho.
Sorry Alexander, I think you missed the most important part of my question. I bolded it above, and I'll repeat it here. "over the objections of the player". In your example you "...talked it over, and I eventually decided I was ok with that happening." in other words you changed the alignment of your PC after the judge discussed his view of your actions and you both came to an agreement. Not what I am concerned about. If I think your PCs actions are evil - I'll tell you (give you a warning if you want to call it that). But I am not going to say, "you cast Fireball in a wooden building AGAIN? Give me your character sheet mister, that PC is evil."

Well, I personally thought that his actions weren't enough to shift alignment, but it was his call. And if a player burns down an orphanage but says "No, from his point of view that was Lawful Good", I'm still marking it down on his chronicle. A GM should not swing the alignment stick willy-nilly, but they should also be willing to use it as needed.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Nani Pratt wrote:
1) Generally, GMs shouldn't have any control over a player's alignment. It is a manner of personal choice and style. I believe that a player can play a given alignment in a whole gamut of ways, depending on character background, motivations, ethos, etc etc. However, if I believe a player does not understand a given alignment, I may suggest an alternative after a game. This is especially true of newer players. Example: I am CG, and I think freedom means sleeping with everyone I meet and casting lots of enchantment spells so everyone loves me! Um, perhaps you should think about being CN. In fact, there's this great goddess that I can introduce you to...

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one. Alignment has always been the purview of the GM. It's all well and good to tell me that your character is Chaotic Good, but if I see you routinely acting lawfully or evilly, then as far as I'm concerned you've shown me that you're NG/CN/N. In a home game, that's easy to handle. In PFS, my only recourse as a table judge is to warn you that I feel you are violating your alignment. If I feel froggy I can make a note on your sheet that will probably be laughed at or ignored by the next judge.

It is completely meaningless to have alignment rules, and not have a system in place to monitor and enforce those alignments. I would much rather they drop Alignment from PFS altogether than the limited and conflicting interpretations in place now.

M&M have decided that "following orders" absolves you of any 'sin'. I strongly disagree with this approach, but I understand why it was taken. I'm afraid it may be abused and even used as a cudgel by certain players, but I'll deal with it as best I can (under the Don't be a Jerk rule, if necessary).

5/5

My comments are purely in context of PFS. We are on the PFS boards after all :) My opinions on how alignment can work in a home game are completely irrelevant. Because in my home games everyone is a fluffy bunny who loves and cares for everyone!!!*

While I find your idea to absolve PFS of all alignment to be interesting, you must realize that it's an impossibility. PFS attempts to adhere to the PFRPG rules, and alignment is far too integral and far reaching. It permeates class choices, spells, feats, and the organization of the planar cosmos. there would have to be far too much changed. Additionally, you will probably find the the majority of players are in favor of keeping an alignment system in place. We are merely expressing different ways that it can be handled by individual GMs.

*Not even close :P

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mystic Lemur wrote:
M&M have decided that "following orders" absolves you of any 'sin'.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this applies only to actions directly related to completing your faction mission. I can't help but suspect the reason for this is that players keep choosing Silver Crusade for their XG characters because its whole point is to be a "safe" option, but then they'd play older scenarios and get stuck with an Andoran assassination mission.

Basically, the player did everything they could to mesh their PC with their faction, but still kept getting burned. I personally interpret this new rule as a metagame construct to keep from punishing any good-aligned PC who happens to play a pre-season 3 scenario. I interpret the "karma's for the superiors" bit as just a little something to take the edge off the metagameyness of it for those it might bother, though obviously it doesn't work for everyone.

In short, I don't think the explanation of the new faction rule is meant to be a sweeping description of how the campaign works as a whole, just a window-dressing for a necessary game function.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
nosig wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
nosig wrote:


I still want to know if a table judge has the athority to shift a PCs alignment over the objections of the player, for the casting of one spell during one session of play. Is that what is being said? Can we define when Nani's cleric of Urgathoa will have her alignment shifted to evil by a table judge? Doesn't her past "Good Deeds" effect this? Worse yet, does her past "Good Deeds" and "Lawful Deeds" shift her alignment and loose her her cleric abilities? On the decision of a table judge?
Yes, it can happen. I had it happen to one of my characters, and I was ok with it. The GM warned me that my action would be considered quite evil, and it would have alignment consequences, namely going from LG to LN. We talked it over, and I eventually decided I was ok with that happening. Long story short, yes, a table judge can shift your alignment. They should let you know before you before you go through with your action tho.
Sorry Alexander, I think you missed the most important part of my question. I bolded it above, and I'll repeat it here. "over the objections of the player". In your example you "...talked it over, and I eventually decided I was ok with that happening." in other words you changed the alignment of your PC after the judge discussed his view of your actions and you both came to an agreement. Not what I am concerned about. If I think your PCs actions are evil - I'll tell you (give you a warning if you want to call it that). But I am not going to say, "you cast Fireball in a wooden building AGAIN? Give me your character sheet mister, that PC is evil."
Well, I personally thought that his actions weren't enough to shift alignment, but it was his call. And if a player burns down an orphanage but says "No, from his point of view that was Lawful Good", I'm still marking it down on his chronicle. A GM should not swing the alignment stick willy-nilly, but they should also be willing to use it as needed.

By all means mark it on the chronicle. and check older chronicles. that should put the player on notice that his actions are very much in the grey area. I just worry about forcing my view of a PCs alignment over the view of the Player.

.
I do not want to say to the cleric of Cayden "so, you stablized all the mooks and saved thier lives? Good for you! You do realize that the athorities here are just going to send them to the mines as slaves right? Guess Cayden is just going to have to revoke your Cleric status, you lawful person you." and do this just before the final fight.

If a neutral cleric of an evil god does Good acts, do I need to note it on his Chronicle? or do I just note it when he does things that upset me? (which seems to be the standard many posters are using). "Alignment Violations" are often in the eyes of the beholder (not the monster!). By noting the big ones on the Chronicles, we table judges can track them - to see if the PC seems to have a problem with alignment. And by not checking the older Chronicles until after we detect a possible problem we can avoid "pre-judging" a PC. If the last 5 judges all feel that this guy has been acting very Chaotic/Good, maybe he should think about switching from the church of Asmodaus to the church of Cayden. And the fact that 6 table judges have brought it to the Players attention MIGHT get the player to have the PC shift his alignment. Thus the Player runs his PC, I (the judge) don't.

But heck, that's just my opinion. YMMV.


Júlíus Árnason wrote:
Keovar wrote:


I don't know if any scenarios have done this yet, but what if one faction wants someone captured and another wants the same target killed? The captors could succeed, and then the assassins step in and ruin it for them. Since there's no PvP allowed, the only thing that could potentially keep the assassins from stealing victory from the captors is the threat of an alignment hit. If "just following orders" is enough to absolve anyone from being responsible for their evil acts, then there's nothing the failed captors can do but refuse to game with those characters (or even players) in the future.
As an aside the Assassin PrC isn't legal because you need to be evil to play it and you can't be evil in PFS.

You're being obtuse; I didn't use it as a class name, and killing someone because you're employed to is assassination, regardless of your class.

I think the context makes it obvious that I was using 'captors' and 'assassins' as descriptors for the two sides in that hypothetical faction goal disagreement.


mcspankie wrote:

Per the guide to org play p. 34-35 Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.) while following specific orders from their faction or the Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions. These are cases where karma applies to those making the orders, not their tools. 

I checked the version 5.0 Guide and found no such clause exempting a PC from alignment infraction for carrying out a faction order. Is the quote above from an earlier version? This has been a contentious issue for a long time (based on the number and length of threads discussing it). My 5.0 Guide has a publish date of Aug. 14, 2013, which is before the date on the first post of this thread. Yet no one seems to question the quote.


Clebsch73 wrote:
mcspankie wrote:

Per the guide to org play p. 34-35 Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.) while following specific orders from their faction or the Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions. These are cases where karma applies to those making the orders, not their tools. 

I checked the version 5.0 Guide and found no such clause exempting a PC from alignment infraction for carrying out a faction order. Is the quote above from an earlier version? This has been a contentious issue for a long time (based on the number and length of threads discussing it). My 5.0 Guide has a publish date of Aug. 14, 2013, which is before the date on the first post of this thread. Yet no one seems to question the quote.

It's been FAQ'd already that casting Evil Spells are not alignment infractions making if it appears in the guide to organized play a moot point.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Well, faction missions aren't really a thing anymore.

5/5

Dread Knight wrote:
Clebsch73 wrote:
mcspankie wrote:

Per the guide to org play p. 34-35 Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.) while following specific orders from their faction or the Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions. These are cases where karma applies to those making the orders, not their tools. 

I checked the version 5.0 Guide and found no such clause exempting a PC from alignment infraction for carrying out a faction order. Is the quote above from an earlier version? This has been a contentious issue for a long time (based on the number and length of threads discussing it). My 5.0 Guide has a publish date of Aug. 14, 2013, which is before the date on the first post of this thread. Yet no one seems to question the quote.
It's been FAQ'd already that casting Evil Spells are not alignment infractions making if it appears in the guide to organized play a moot point.

Umm, the thread you necro'd was dead for 2 years, not 1. The original quote was from 2012, not 2013. The language was moved to a FAQ, as mentioned by Dread Knight.

5/5 5/55/55/5

and THIS is why thread necromancy is evil!

ow ow ow stop i was kidding! OW OW OW

Dark Archive 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I cast atonement!
Both on this thread which is in dire need of it, and on BNW, for such a terrible (yet moderately amusing) joke!

101 to 113 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Evil spells All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society