No he's talking about casting a Spell with an Evil descriptor as being an Evil action which is an unwritten(house) rule in the Pathfinder Rule-set.
If you go arbitrarily literal about nearly any rule you can say it's a house rule. For example, just like "evil" in a spell description doesn't need to mean the same "evil" as in the alignment section, so doesn't "hit dice" in the sleep spell description need to mean the same "hit dice" as in the glossary section.
Except that they rules do say that the other two are EvilNope. Says nothing about gnomes nor genocide there. It does not define innocence either; as the word of the imperial inquisition; "there is no innocence, only degrees of guilt". It'd be very easy to claim that all gnomes are guilty of, say, gnomishness, and that killing them all of thus isn't "murder of innocents". Also, it says nothing about aiding others who commit genocide.
Aiding a demon in it's quest to commit a genocide against gnomes is not stated as an evil action in the rules. People are supposed to understand that aiding genocide is evil, just like they're supposed to understand that evil is evil.
it does not say that using Undead to build orphanagesThat isn't an inherently evil action, though. You can be lawfully good and do that for a millennium without ever commiting an evil action. Just don't use any evil spells to do it, but keep to unaligned spells like Control Undead.
summoning Demons to fight against the genocide of gnomesActually it does. It says it right there in the spell description that it is an evil spell. Now you might argue that the rules don't explicitly say casting evil spells is evil, but neither do they say that genocide is evil. It's implied by the choice of words, such as "evil".
or healing the injured with Devil's blood are EvilNope, the rules don't say it's evil, just...
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." If this doesn't include genocide to you I don't know what will. The rules say that they have the Evil descriptor in the spell that's it, the rules don't say that it's an Evil action to cast such spells.
No he's talking about casting a Spell with an Evil descriptor as being an Evil action which is an unwritten(house) rule in the Pathfinder Rule-set.For the record, it's actually explicitly written in (I believe) Champions of Purity. So...it's definitely official for Golarion.
You can argue it's not official for the core rulebooks...but calling it 'unwritten' or a 'house rule' is like saying using Dervish Dance is a House Rule because it's from a campaign setting book. It's simply not true.
Champions of Purity is a Campaign Setting Book so it has no claim on the default Pathfinder Rule-set which only says what I posted before so it is an unwritten/house rule in the default Pathfinder Rule-set since you don't need to play in Golarion or follow the rules that Golarion says(unless you're in PFS or your GM says so) Dervish Dance is a feat option not an actual rule.
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." If this doesn't include genocide to you I don't know what will. The rules say that they have the Evil descriptor in the spell that's it, the rules don't say that it's an Evil action to cast such spells.
1. So, the spell is somehow by the rules hurting, oppressing or killing others. There you have it. Or are you arbitrarily invoking house rules again?
2. If you go by that implication, how is it NOT evil to summon demons to fight the demons trying to kill off all gnomes? If hurting someone is evil, and aiding people in evil actions is evil, then it is by your own implication evil to summon demons to fight other demons.
Or are you arbitrarily invoking house rules again?
3. Even if genocide is evil, the rules don't say the action taken to perform a genocide is evil.
Compare to your claim that even if the spell is evil, the rules don't say the action taken to perform the spell is evil.
|
Are you seriously arguing that "evil is evil" is an unwritten rule? Would you also argue that "spells are spells" is an unwritten rule? Or that "race" when referred to in a feat isn't the same as "race" referred to in the race chapter?We are. And those rules say that [evil] spells are evil.Is that another 'unwritten rule'?
Until you can show me text stating that [Evil] spells are Evil acts, yes. The rest doesn't apply since there are no [Spells] or [Race] descriptors.
Having had a doctor of Divinity playing in one of my campaigns (he ran the first D&D game at Oral Roberts U!) my games have always leaned in the direction of Evil acts, etc., shift you to the evil. He had a system similar to the much later Darkside treatments of the varied Star Wars games. The more serious acts generated serious negative effects, as did a life of petty evils.
The actual act could be conditioned. My poisoning an entire village of Kender would have been a serious evil act, but they WERE Kender!
Until you can show me text stating that [Evil] spells are Evil acts, yes. The rest doesn't apply since there are no [Spells] or [Race] descriptors.Are you seriously arguing that "evil is evil" is an unwritten rule? Would you also argue that "spells are spells" is an unwritten rule? Or that "race" when referred to in a feat isn't the same as "race" referred to in the race chapter?We are. And those rules say that [evil] spells are evil.Is that another 'unwritten rule'?
So where is the rule that states a term is different from every other usage of that term when put into brackets? Or is that an "unwritten rule"?
Or, if you say that the rules only state that the spell is evil, not the casting of it, the rules also state murder is evil, but not the act of murdering :P
I don't know why you guys are having this faux rules discussion. This is not the rules forum. RAW, whatever it actually says, means nothing here.
What do you think casting evil aligned spells with no negative intentions or consequences should do to your alignment?
|
|
So where is the rule that states a term is different from every other usage of that term when put into brackets? Or is that an "unwritten rule"?
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 descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
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.
So where is the rule that states a term is different from every other usage of that term when put into brackets? Or is that an "unwritten rule"?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 descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
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.
What do you think casting evil aligned spells with no negative intentions or consequences should do to your alignment?
Nothing.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Champions of Purity is a Campaign Setting Book so it has no claim on the default Pathfinder Rule-set which only says what I posted before so it is an unwritten/house rule in the default Pathfinder Rule-set since you don't need to play in Golarion or follow the rules that Golarion says(unless you're in PFS or your GM says so) Dervish Dance is a feat option not an actual rule.
From this: What is the PFS position on using [Evil] spells?
So where is the rule that states a term is different from every other usage of that term when put into brackets? Or is that an "unwritten rule"?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 descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
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.
Sorry, that doesn't say that when the term is in brackets it loses all other game term meanings.
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.You find me an alignment rule stating that [Evil] spells are Evil acts, you let me know.
You find me a rule saying evil stops being evil when it's in brackets, you let me know.
Sorry, that doesn't say that when the term is in brackets it loses all other game term meanings."Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves" must mean something else to you then.
Yes, it means that most (the majority) of the descriptors have no game effects by themselves. Because the majority of those listed have no effect by themselves. Electricity is only relevant when interacting with other rules, for example. There is no defined effect or nature of electricity. There is a defined nature of evil.
Also, you conveniently skipped the second part of the sentence:
but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
So where is the rule that states a term is different from every other usage of that term when put into brackets? Or is that an "unwritten rule"?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 descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
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.
How they interact with alignment: Clerics cannot cast spells with alignment descriptors that oppose their deity.
Also, you conveniently skipped the second part of the sentence:Wrong. I use the whole sentence. And while it governs interactions with alignment, it doesn't make it an aligned item.
Calling it evil makes it an aligned item. There is as much rule support for dragons being evil and infernal healing being evil. Both are described as evil.
That you seem to claim - without any rules support whatsoever - that putting evil in brackets makes it lose the meaning of evil, doesn't mean it is so.
You could argue that it is hinted at as the intent of the rules, but it is in no way written in the rules.
|
|
That you seem to claim - without any rules support whatsoever - that putting evil in brackets makes it lose the meaning of evil, doesn't mean it is so.
You could argue that it is hinted at as the intent of the rules, but it is in no way written in the rules.
My rules support is the definition of descriptors. Because you interpret it a different way does not mean I am wrong.
Gaberlunzie[Evil]
This poster is now evil, since I put brackets after her name, and by her own logic, the evil does not stop being evil because it is in brackets. Thus she is now evil.
*Pronouns based on avatar pic.
My rules support is the definition of descriptors. Because you interpret it a different way does not mean I am wrong.That you seem to claim - without any rules support whatsoever - that putting evil in brackets makes it lose the meaning of evil, doesn't mean it is so.
You could argue that it is hinted at as the intent of the rules, but it is in no way written in the rules.
You may interpret it that way, but that doesn't mean it supports it.
For example, I could argue that Sleep doesn't work on a 1st level character, because the description of Hit Dice doesn't state it determines the effect of spells. I could say that clearly the usage of HD in the Sleep spell is different than the definition of Hit Dice since that refers to the number of dice used for calculating hit points, not the resistance to spells. And since the rules don't say a 1st level character has four or less HD (in the Sleep sense), sleep doesn't work.
Kind of like how you argue that evil as described in the descriptor section isn't the same as the evil described in the alignment section.
I could make that interpretation. That doesn't make it valid or reasonable support for that conclusion.
Gaberlunzie[Evil]
This poster is now evil, since I put brackets after her name, and by her own logic, the evil does not stop being evil because it is in brackets. Thus she is now evil.
*Pronouns based on avatar pic.
Yes, if I were a published NPC and designated as evil, then I would be considered an evil NPC and be affected by holy word. Because unless explicitly stated otherwise, evil means evil, and arguing I'm immune to it because you put my alignment in brackets is silly.
Yes, if I were a published NPC and designated as evil, then I would be considered an evil NPC and be affected by holy word. Because unless explicitly stated otherwise, evil means evil, and arguing I'm immune to it because you put my alignment in brackets is silly.Gaberlunzie[Evil]
This poster is now evil, since I put brackets after her name, and by her own logic, the evil does not stop being evil because it is in brackets. Thus she is now evil.
*Pronouns based on avatar pic.
"Evil Subtype: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the evil-aligned outer planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, page 299)."
You are not an outsider are you?
Evil alignment is represented by the letter E, not the word evil.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Certain spells have the tag "evil" (without quotes) right next to the school of magic.
Three examples are Animate Dead, Blood Transcription and Nightmare.
Please note not all Evil aligns spells are from the school of magic Necromancy, however, it seems the majority are, just not all of them. It has been ruled at our table that the consistent use of such spells will result in an alignment shift.
My question to you is, should it?
Thanks for your time.
Ask yourself this. Should summoning celestial badgers make you go to heaven? Should you be able to buy away your sins with a UMD check? If the answer is NO, then similarly casting spells tagged with [Evil] will not make you more evil, any more than casting fireball makes you, the caster, more on fire because it has the [Fire] tag.
Imprisoning angels with Planar Binding is a [Good] spell to boot, which means if you have an evil wizard enslaving angels, it would actually make him more good to be doing so.
The alignment rules themselves (located in the Additional Rules chapter of the core rulebook) make no mention of spells having any effect on alignment. The only things that have an effect on alignment unless specifically noted in the effect's entry are what you DO as a character, not what you use.
If you are altruistic, protective of life, and respectful of the rights of sentient beings, you are doing and being Good. If you are hurting, oppressing, or killing, you are doing and being Evil. What spells you use has 0% effect on your alignment. What it DOES have an effect on is what spells you can cast as a cleric from your class spells (which doesn't even directly relate to your god, since a Neutral-aligned god cannot grant Lawful spells to a Chaotic follower, even if they're handing out lawful spells like candy to their Lawful and Neutral followers).
If a wizard casts infernal healing to save someone's life and becomes more evil for doing so, then your GM is quite literally doing it wrong as he is acting 100% contrary to what the rules actually say on the matter.
"Evil Subtype: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the evil-aligned outer planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, page 299)."You are not an outsider are you?
Evil alignment is represented by the letter E, not the word evil.
First off: If the rules make an explicit exception, that is an exception. Secondly: Note that it says usually.
If I were made into an NPC sheet that said I was a Humanoid [evil] but that left out any other comment on my alignment, I'd be considered evil. If it stated my alignment was not in line with my subtype, that would be an exception.
Just as if Infernal Healing stated "this is not an evil spell", it would be an exception.
If [evil] wasn't related to evil, then this line: "if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype" would be superflous. You don't find text like that in the native or giant subtype, do you?
It marks it as an exception. An exception that neither the spell descriptor section nor any individual spells with the [evil] descriptor has. Thus, they are not exceptions and fall under the default rule of evil being evil. Just like hit dice is hit dice unless otherwise stated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My rules support is the definition of descriptors. Because you interpret it a different way does not mean I am wrong.That you seem to claim - without any rules support whatsoever - that putting evil in brackets makes it lose the meaning of evil, doesn't mean it is so.
You could argue that it is hinted at as the intent of the rules, but it is in no way written in the rules.
You may interpret it that way, but that doesn't mean it supports it.
For example, I could argue that Sleep doesn't work on a 1st level character, because the description of Hit Dice doesn't state it determines the effect of spells. I could say that clearly the usage of HD in the Sleep spell is different than the definition of Hit Dice since that refers to the number of dice used for calculating hit points, not the resistance to spells.
No, you actually could not, because it specifically notes that those levels provide hit dice. Notice how in literally every class entry it tells you which hit die the class provides?
And since the rules don't say a 1st level character has four or less HD (in the Sleep sense), sleep doesn't work.
Kind of like how you argue that evil as described in the descriptor section isn't the same as the evil described in the alignment section.
Getting obvious rules wrong as part of your argument is probably not a good place to start. Again, classes explicitly provide hit dice each level. If they did not, then you would always have less than 4 HD even at 20th level.
Further, the alignment rules specifically note what does affect your alignment. Despite the fact there are many spells with [Alignment] descriptors, and many, many instances where they would come up in the game (such as casting protection from law to ward against devils), spells are not mentioned anywhere in the actual alignment rules. Further, in the rules governing spellcasting, it is never stated that casting spells makes you more/less a given alignment.
100% of everything that is put forth about casting [X] makes you more [X] is not found in alignment rules at all. It's made up. A fabrication of people who never actually read the rules, or in some cases, people with some semblance of authority trying to inject their house rules into the core and make the game less user-friendly for everyone else.
However, those tags do mean something. They have mechanical effects. For example, if you cast detect law, you are going to sense spells like magic circle against chaos. If you cast dispel good, it will affect spells with the [Good] descriptor. If you cast protection from evil on someone, it's going to protect against unholy blight even if the cleric casting it is Neutral.
Ask yourself this. Should summoning celestial badgers make you go to heaven? Should you be able to buy away your sins with a UMD check?
To be fair, it's pretty unclear even by RAW to how high degree using a magic item is similar to casting a spell. By default, it seems spell-like abilities are considered as spells unless otherwise mentioned, while items are different from spells unless otherwise mentioned. Though the rules aren't clear at all on this.
In the rest of the post I largely agree with you that the implementation of good/evil spells is very badly done. I don't mind it being in the game, but it should make a lot more sense than it currently does.
On the HD subject by the way...
Note that there are a number of effects and prerequisites that rely on a character's level or Hit Dice. Such effects are always based on the total number of levels or Hit Dice a character possesses, not just those from one class. The exception to this is class abilities, most of which are based on the total number of class levels that a character possesses of that particular class.
Next, add the class levels to the monster, making all of the necessary additions to its HD, hit points, BAB, CMB, CMD, feats, skills, spells, and class features. If the creature possesses class features (such as spellcasting or sneak attack) for the class that is being added, these abilities stack. This functions just like adding class levels to a character without racial Hit Dice.
Hit Die: d12
Hit Die: d8
Hit Die: d8
Hit Die: d8
Hit Die: d10
Hit Die: d8
Hit Die: d10
Hit Die: d10
Hit Die: d8
Hit Die: d6
Hit Die: d6
While every level in a class explicitly provides an additional hit die, it's even possible to have more or less HD than your actual level. This is most commonly seen with monstrous characters, where your HD can be more or less than your character level.
Apples and Oranges, I guess.
Still, you might want to find a different argument. The alignments rules don't agree with you and neither do hit dice rules. I would recommend some casual reading.
No, you actually could not, because it specifically notes that those levels provide hit dice. Notice how in literally every class entry it tells you which hit die the class provides?
But it doesn't say those hit dice are the same as the hit dice referred to in the sleep rules, just like it doesn't say the evil in the alignment section is the same as referred to in the infernal healing spell.
Getting obvious rules wrong as part of your argument is probably not a good place to start.
Evil being evil is obvious. If they argue that evil isn't evil, it's very valid to make a parallell to another game term.
Further, the alignment rules specifically note what does affect your alignment.
Yes, they state that evil creatures debase and destroy innocent life, so if you aren't doing that you aren't evil. And it doesn't further define "innocence", so an imperial inquisitor would be fine with committing genocide against gnomes since "there is no such thing as innocense, only degrees of guilt".
Also, "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.", so any form of hurting is evil. So apparently the inquisitor might be evil and the innocence clause is irrelevant, but anyone trying to use force to stop him is also evil. However, it doesn't say encouraging others to murder is evil, so apparently me giving a bunch of weapons to the imperial inquisitor to aid in the genocide of gnomes is totally not evil.So basically, if I try to use force to stop the inquisitor, I'm evil. But if I lend him my magic staves of eternal damnation and torture I'm not, because I'm not personally hurting anyone.
Because the alignment section gives a complete, final and inarguable list of everything that is evil, and if it's not on the list it isn't evil, even if it says "evil" in big letters black on white.
Alternatively, if evil implies hurting people, infernal healing is implied to hurt people.
"100% of everything that is put forth about casting [X] makes you more [X] is not found in alignment rules at all. It's made up. "
Likewise, claiming that supplying weapons of mass destruction to a demon lord bent on genocide is made up and not found in the alignment rules at all.
To be fair, it's pretty unclear even by RAW to how high degree using a magic item is similar to casting a spell. By default, it seems spell-like abilities are considered as spells unless otherwise mentioned, while items are different from spells unless otherwise mentioned. Though the rules aren't clear at all on this.
Ask yourself this. Should summoning celestial badgers make you go to heaven? Should you be able to buy away your sins with a UMD check?
*sigh*
Ring around the rosie...A spell successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way. Assume the scroll spell's caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll, unless the scriber specifically desired otherwise.
...
Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character taking the potion doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done so. The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the effect (though the potion indicates the caster level, the drinker still controls the effect).
The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the object is the target.
So now that that is out of the way...
In the rest of the post I largely agree with you that the implementation of good/evil spells is very badly done. I don't mind it being in the game, but it should make a lot more sense than it currently does.
It really isn't. There are a lot of problems in 3.x/Pathfinder, but this is a false one. This is users making up a problem and then complaining about it. The rules are actually much clearer and I'd dare say amazingly sane and fair when it comes to alignment, the rules never once say anything about spell-tags changing someone's alignment, etc.
It's inventing a problem to **** about. I'm just calling said people out for that, because I'm quite frankly tired of it.
Look, if you're completely literal and anal about reading the rules, you might come to the conclusion that [evil] isn't evil. You might also come to the conclusion that hit dice isn't hit dice. But then the alignment rules don't make any sense at all, since they become an extremely limited check list of do's and don'ts that have no resemblance at all to what we usually consider the words to mean (like, giving magic staffs of eternal torture and damnation to a demon lord intent on genocide isn't evil, but slapping an attempting murderer is).
If you're not completely anal about counting them word by word, evil means evil and obviously so, and _even the developers have come out and said it_.
I'm all for not being too literal and legalistic about these things, what I'm annoyed with is how arbitrarily people apply it to reach their preferred conclusions; we should be super-literal and legalistic about the alignment rules not explicitly saying "casting evil spells is evil" - despite the devs themselves saying what can be basically paraphrased to "well, duh, that goes without saying", but at the same time we should include various other things not listed in the alignment section as aligned actions because it makes sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it doesn't say those hit dice are the same as the hit dice referred to in the sleep rules, just like it doesn't say the evil in the alignment section is the same as referred to in the infernal healing spell.
Hit dice are defined. Unless it defines a separate kind of HD, then HD are HD.
Evil being evil is obvious. If they argue that evil isn't evil, it's very valid to make a parallell to another game term.
You're missing the point. It has little to nothing to do with whether these things are or are not evil. It has everything to do with whether using them makes you evil. That's the part that's driving people nuts.
If I, as a Neutral-aligned cleric cast holy smite to destroy my enemies, it is treated as [Good] aligned for game effects. Protection from good will ward against it (even though I'm not a good caster), detect good will see it like a star in the night. Dispel good can dispel the effects. But if I'm not actively doing good with it, MY ALIGMMENT IS NOT CHANGING. In fact, I could actually be casting this spell and BECOMING MORE EVIL because I'm mowing down lots of commoners with it (who still take 1/2 damage).
In a similar fashion, a Paladin who picks up a +3 unholy sword doesn't fall for swinging the sword. Sure, the sword itself is [Evil], but what he does with it determines what HIS ALIGNMENT is. That much is clear by the actual alignment rules.
The onus of proof is on you now, because you are inventing mechanics that do not exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, if you're completely literal and anal about reading the rules, you might come to the conclusion that [evil] isn't evil. You might also come to the conclusion that hit dice isn't hit dice. But then the alignment rules don't make any sense at all, since they become an extremely limited check list of do's and don'ts that have no resemblance at all to what we usually consider the words to mean (like, giving magic staffs of eternal torture and damnation to a demon lord intent on genocide isn't evil, but slapping an attempting murderer is).
Actually, it's not. Alignment has no check list of dos and don'ts. The 3.x/PF alignment system is one of the cleanest systems of morality that you'll find. It's very simple and strait-forward, and it's near universal in its concepts. It details what constitutes as aspects of *insert alignment here* such as altruism being good, killing being evil, etc.
It explicitly and rightfully doesn't make any hardcoded alignment things and recognizes that situations matter. A Paladin who slays an orc while protecting someone (including himself) is not acting in keeping with evil (but nor is he actively acting in keeping with good). Fortunately there's this big ol' middle ground between the extremes.
On a side note, giving powerful gifts to a demon bent on genocide isn't evil itself. At least, the gift-giving is not. It's irresponsible, and probably stupid, but unless you gave said gift with the intent on furthering the fiend's schemes, you're not becoming more evil than you would have for giving your friend a chair for Christmas and then said friend using the chair to bludgeon someone to death makes you a murderer. Giving it to a known chair-bludgeoner might make you pretty dumb though. :P
If you're not completely anal about counting them word by word, evil means evil and obviously so, and _even the developers have come out and said it_.
I'm all for not being too literal and legalistic about these things, what I'm annoyed with is how arbitrarily people apply it to reach their preferred conclusions; we should be super-literal and legalistic about the alignment rules not explicitly saying "casting evil spells is evil" - despite the devs themselves saying what can be basically paraphrased to "well, duh, that goes without saying", but at the same time we should include various other things not listed in the alignment section as aligned actions because it makes sense.
It's not about legalese vs making sense. What you propose is absurdity. When presented with the absurdity, you blamed the alignment rules for being broken while citing rules that don't actually exist in said rules.
Step back and take responsibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm having a hard time following this thread any more because every post is referring to Gaberlunzie and I resolved not to touch his posts with a 10 foot pole a while back.
He bases his opinion on his opinion and calls it fact because he has "evidence" (more opinion) supporting it. There is no point in replying to him.
"Evil Subtype: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the evil-aligned outer planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, page 299)."
You are not an outsider are you?
Evil alignment is represented by the letter E, not the word evil.First off: If the rules make an explicit exception, that is an exception. Secondly: Note that it says usually.
If I were made into an NPC sheet that said I was a Humanoid [evil] but that left out any other comment on my alignment, I'd be considered evil. If it stated my alignment was not in line with my subtype, that would be an exception.
Just as if Infernal Healing stated "this is not an evil spell", it would be an exception.
If [evil] wasn't related to evil, then this line: "if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype" would be superflous. You don't find text like that in the native or giant subtype, do you?
It marks it as an exception. An exception that neither the spell descriptor section nor any individual spells with the [evil] descriptor has. Thus, they are not exceptions and fall under the default rule of evil being evil. Just like hit dice is hit dice unless otherwise stated.
Who said [evil] wasn't related to evil? I just pointed out that [evil] is not used in NPC stat blocks to mark alignment. The letter E is used in that case.
You are the one that suddenly felt the need to defend the idea that [evil] means evil after reading the Evil subtype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who said [evil] wasn't related to evil? I just pointed out that [evil] is not used in NPC stat blocks to mark alignment. The letter E is used in that case.
You are the one that suddenly felt the need to defend the idea that [evil] means evil after reading the Evil subtype.
Marroar is 100% right. The [Evil] subtype doesn't even make you actually evil. All creatures have an alignment. Some creatures have an alignment subtype. Those two do not even have to match (but usually do). The subtype has no influence over the actual alignment or personality of the character in question, but it does have a mechanical influence over them in the sense that their alignment is treated as X (where X is the corresponding subtype) for all effects based on alignment, in addition to whatever their actual alignment is.
So if a devil decided to become Neutral, they still ping as evil outsiders on detect evil, and holy smite still doesn't harm fallen angels because it explicitly doesn't affect good creatures (and the [good] subtype makes them count as good creatures even if they aren't), and if you whack an inevitable who's turned chaotic with an anarchic weapon, they're still going to take extra damage.
If anything it actually points out that while alignments are actually tangible in the game, literally being a force of their own, they are also divorced from the core concept of alignment that is based on your actions and/or persona, existing as two distinct but related things.
The most telling bit is this here:
Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is.
Because alignment and alignment subtypes are related, but they are also not the same thing. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, blood transcription can highly encourage pseudo vampirism, and nightmare can be considered a form of torture.
Generally, outside of the cut and paste template nature of some spells like summoning, most spells labeled as evil tend to be sketch, and have few uses outside of sketch things.
So this should be more of an argument about whether a particular spell deserves the evil descriptor (ie- they are, by their nature, too sketch to that you would feel proud taking about them with your LG clergyman)
Part of the problem is that "sketch" is kind of a flexible term. For example-- Animate Dead. If a character uses it to revive a T-Rex (a wild animal-- is desecrating its corpse really significant to anybody?) to use as a mount, in what way is it evil?
Now, Animate Dead to revive all the dead folks who were laid to rest in a local cemetery, sure. That's almost certainly evil. I'm sure one could find a situation where one could defend even a Paladin's right to cast the spell in the local graveyard without falling, but it'd be a pretty narrow set of circumstances or a pretty odd Paladin.
Funny thing...technically doing anything to a corpse is not evil. There are TONS of things you can do to a body that are socially unacceptable, gross, and down right icky and squicky, but a corpse is an object that is no longer a sentient creature. Its soul has departed. Animate dead doesn't entrap a soul and stuff it back into the corpse to be a slave to the caster, it's actual effect is closer to some sort of magically created automaton, as the creatures it produces are mindless, incapable of having an alignment other than Neutral (per the alignment rules, though they are incorrectly given an alignment), and the spell has no dominion over the souls of anything.
If the spell was changed to actually yank the soul of the afterlife and enslave it, sure, it would be heinously evil. Well, right up until you decided to use it to give people their lives back anyway ("Okay, you're an immortal fast zombie. Sorry, raise dead is above my huckleberry, but this is pretty close. Anyway, please enjoy your free will that I'm granting you and have a nice day"), then it would just be freakin' awesome. :P
However, nothing in this little 3rd level spell would imply that it does or has the power to do anything to the creature's soul. It's entirely focusing on the corpse (a soulless, lifeless object, incapable of feeling pain, like a dead piece of metal), filling it with a sort of energy, magically granting it a semblance of life and controlling it. Skeletons and zombies have more in common with golems, except they are more morally upright than the construction of a golem (because golems actually require you to do evil to create them, while animate dead merely requires you to use an evil power, which as we have just discussed is not the same thing).
Now create undead and greate greater undead I would buy, as it turns the creature into a sentient undead creature (and the ones that it turns them into are generally ascribed to be undead versions of the original person inhabiting the body), but those spells also don't give you any natural enslavement over them, though it does suggest that doing so is an expected strategy as it notes using other methods to control them (such as command undead or control undead), which again is evil because oppression is naughty.
Could we just accept that:
1. Using spells with the [Evil] doesn't necessarily make you evil (with Animate Dead having explicit text in it that makes it more severe than most), but pushes you (not necessarily by an earth-shaking amount) in that direction?
AND:
2. Some mistakes were made in the choice of which spells to apply the [Evil] descriptor to (or not apply it to, as in the case of Maddening Oubliette).
Infernal Healing has its own whole thread of what might make it deserve the [Evil] descriptor. Here is my copied and pasted (and slightly edited) take on it from what I posted there (which was partly reasoning on why not only Devils, but also Daemons and Demons (and probably other Evil Outsiders) would have an interest in developing something similar (although they may have not been able to do so yet), with higher level versions giving Regeneration instead of just Fast Healing:
If we go with some of the ideas presented in that thread about Infernal Healing/Fiendish Healing infusing the recipient with Evil, this becomes of even more interest to all 3 of the most common types of Fiends (and several others). Suppose that every Hit Point of damage healed (and at higher spell levels, lost body parts regenerated) is Fiendish flesh (since that is what has the Fast Healing and/or Regeneration in the first place), whose Fiendish nature doesn't go away (even after the spell ends) until the recipient would have naturally healed up the damage (also, have higher level Good healing be able to undo some of this Fiendish Conversion effect, but unreliably and inefficiently). If the recipient took some kind of damage (such as limb loss or an accursed non-healing wound, or even scar-inducing wounds) that never heals fully, then the Fiendish flesh just doesn't go away completely (although it can appear deceptively normal to the average observer, thus making it all the more insidious). Persisting Fiendish flesh not only attracts unwholesome attention (even if covered up, for characters and other creatures able to sense such things), but also confers unwholesome urges which may get too strong to resist (the Fiendish flesh has the [Evil] subtype) -- but with no hard limit below which a character is safe or above which a character is doomed to fall. If a recipient receives so much Fiendish Healing before natural healing removes the Fiendish nature that the recipient would have died without it, then the recipient actually gets morphed into a minor Fiend (or potentially not so minor, if the recipient was high enough level) and is extremely likely to fall to Evil. At this point, any recipient that can overcome the Evil urges was probably something like a Redeemed Fiend anyway (one of those rare creatures that has or at least used to have the Evil Subtype but not Evil Alignment), and probably had their own Fast Healing and/or Regeneration to start with.
* * * * * * * *
With respect to Animate Dead (and its lesser version), I thought this did sequester the soul, even if it didn't associate it with sentience the way Create Undead does -- thence Animate Dead being a nasty thing to do. But I could be missing something about this that isn't in the text of the Animate Dead spell itself (Pathfinder organization is better than the 1st Edition DMG, but still could use some work).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could we just accept that:
1. Using spells with the [Evil] doesn't necessarily make you evil (with Animate Dead having explicit text in it that makes it more severe than most), but pushes you (not necessarily by an earth-shaking amount) in that direction?
No.
2. Some mistakes were made in the choice of which spells to apply the [Evil] descriptor to (or not apply it to, as in the case of Maddening Oubliette).
Sure. Only really in the sense that it's inconsistent, though.
The [Evil] descriptor seems to be inconsistently applied because there's confusion among the devs about what it's supposed to be. Some believe it's supposed to be a moral condemnation, others believe it's a descriptor of what the power source is. And others that it's simply a descriptor of what it interacts with/alignments it opposes.
Hence why you have spells like Infernal Healing and Signifier's Rally (power source, it seems), Protection From Good and Blasphemy (alignment opposition/interaction), and Blood Transcription and Enemy's Heart (moral condemnation) all sharing the same descriptor.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can kind of understand why people get so confused by this. It's easy to rationalize why a spell is tagged as [Evil]. They do this using nothing but real world cultural ideas rather than using the ideas implicit in the setting, but they do it. It isn't wrong or even terribly difficult. As long as a thing "makes sense" in some fashion many people are willing to call it a day and claim that it's a perfectly functional rule. It's not really worth your time to debate whether a thing should be evil because there is more than one context in which a thing can be rationalized as evil and when you tell them they're wrong it completely goes against what they know and understand about evil.
Conceptualizing Alignment the way Ashiel does is really the only sane way to go if you value non-contradictory rules. But it is also really freakin' HARD. Remember you're not asking people to spit Evil into Evil and Evil. You're asking them to divide Evil into two overlapping but distinct versions of Evil with both subjective and objective applications and contradictory rules in both axis, as well as sub-categories of evil which are also conveniently called evil in a system that has authors that can't agree on the definition of evil. And then you're also asking them to do that for Good, Chaos, and Law (the absurdity of [Alignment] tags becomes more recognizable when you examine it on the [Law] and [Chaos] axis).
TOZ is right. [Evil] spells aren't actually evil actions except when they are used in an EVIL way. But that's confusing as s$&+. It's so confusing that it's easier for people to just tell you you're wrong and rationalize it somehow. After all, it doesn't effect most games.
Which, of course, leads to the question why even have alignment?
He bases his opinion on his opinion and calls it fact because he has "evidence" (more opinion) supporting it. There is no point in replying to him.
Fact 1: The alignment section makes as much reference to supporting genocide to be evil as casting [evil] spells to be evil. That is a pure fact.
Fact 2: Nothing in the rules separate evil (the descriptor) from evil (the alignment), in the same way that the rules don't separate hit dice (the amount of dice of hit points) and hit dice (the limit to what creatures can be affected by the sleep spell). Though it seems noone is currently arguing that evil isn't evil so that isn't really a necessary point anymore.Fact 3: When asked about it, developers' answer was "Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil; that's why they have that descriptor" (or in other words, "Well, duh").
Those are not opinions, those are facts. Now people are instead arguing that "well the rules don't say causing evil is evil". Which of course is a correct assessment of a strict reading of the rules, but also leads to the alignment rules becoming (in my opinion) worthless, since hiring assassins isn't evil, or summoning and letting lose a demon lord isn't evil (as you're only causing evil, you aren't taking an explicitly evil action, like any form of hurting is).
Either you read the alignment rules as a way to try to understand the intended communication, in which case casting evil spells is an evil action, or you read them purely through the words, in which case consciously and intently letting lose a demon lord isn't evil but slapping the demon on it's head is.
Or, you make some half-assed arbitarily applied "RAAAWWWWW!!!! (except when I don't like it) argument, and as long as people continue doing that, I'll continue to argue against their stupidity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which, of course, leads to the question why even have alignment?Because they choose to. The only reason to have any rules.
I disagree. Having rules is a fair way to end debates about how to resolve a part of the story. It can also inform the player how strong they are in relation to the world around them, give them a clear idea of what their characters can and cannot do, etc. But alignment doesn't really do that. Or anything really. Sure you CAN just have it to have it. But that's a lot of word count for a rule that's history has caused more debates than it's resolved.
Remember you're not asking people to spit Evil into Evil and Evil. You're asking them to divide Evil into two overlapping but distinct versions of Evil with both subjective and objective applications and contradictory rules in both axis
Actually, using Ashiel's interpretation you are asking people to just go to hir and get the "ok not ok" list of what's evil and not. Casting evil spells isn't evil (despite devs confirming the obviousness of it), consciously lending great magic power to a demon lord bent on genocide isn't evil (despite common sense saying it is) and killing orcs isn't evil (despite the alignment rules explicitly saying it is).
Of course, once you've reached a certain part of arbitrariness nothing becomes self-contradictory because everything is on a case by case basis with no continuous guideline, but it still makes the game extremely hard to understand even in cases that would normally not be considered difficult questions (such as the example of the demon lord above).
People who say "it's a big vague mess, go by whatever the group thinks because the alignment rules are written to be guidelines rather than hard rules"? No issue with them. But they don't staunchly claim that casting evil spells being evil is a "house rule".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He bases his opinion on his opinion and calls it fact because he has "evidence" (more opinion) supporting it. There is no point in replying to him.Fact 1: The alignment section makes as much reference to supporting genocide to be evil as casting [evil] spells to be evil. That is a pure fact.
Fact 2: Nothing in the rules separate evil (the descriptor) from evil (the alignment), in the same way that the rules don't separate hit dice (the amount of dice of hit points) and hit dice (the limit to what creatures can be affected by the sleep spell). Though it seems noone is currently arguing that evil isn't evil so that isn't really a necessary point anymore.
Fact 3: When asked about it, developers' answer was "Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil; that's why they have that descriptor" (or in other words, "Well, duh").Those are not opinions, those are facts. Now people are instead arguing that "well the rules don't say causing evil is evil". Which of course is a correct assessment of a strict reading of the rules, but also leads to the alignment rules becoming (in my opinion) worthless, since hiring assassins isn't evil, or summoning and letting lose a demon lord isn't evil (as you're only causing evil, you aren't taking an explicitly evil action, like any form of hurting is).
Either you read the alignment rules as a way to try to understand the intended communication, in which case casting evil spells is an evil action, or you read them purely through the words, in which case consciously and intently letting lose a demon lord isn't evil but slapping the demon on it's head is.
Or, you make some half-assed arbitarily applied "RAAAWWWWW!!!! (except when I don't like it) argument, and as long as people continue doing that, I'll continue to argue against their stupidity.
They're not opinions or facts. They're incorrect statements.
1) The alignment section states that evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Guess what genocide is and casting an [Evil] spell isn't (necessarily)?
2) They do. The [Evil] descriptor, (Evil) subtype, and having an evil alignment are three clearly defined and separate elements. "The amount of dice of hit points" and "the limit to what creatures can be affected by the sleep spell" aren't even close to the same thing, one is a stat creatures have (in the same way they have hit points or ability scores) and one is a rules element that references the hit dice of its targets.
3) House rules and opinions are nice. Sometimes devs have them too. But regarding my point, no, that isn't a quote (or a fact).
Nobody is arguing that causing evil isn't evil. You are misrepresenting people to artificially strengthen your position.
Calling people stupid isn't helping. Maybe you should take a break from the forums and calm down.