| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how Sean is being disingenuous in his post.
If you disagree with him, feel free to explain why he's wrong.
I call it a joke thread because the OP seemed pretty tongue in cheek.
Because he wouldn't say that casting spells with the [good] descriptor would replace the need for atonement spells. The whole post was grasping at straws. Because it smacks of SEARCHING for a reason to make the argument fit. Because he makes up a word to poke fun at the idea he is arguing against.
Satire is often tongue-in-cheek, but that doesn't mean it isn't serious in topic.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I fail to see how Sean is being disingenuous in his post.
If you disagree with him, feel free to explain why he's wrong.
I call it a joke thread because the OP seemed pretty tongue in cheek.
Because he wouldn't say that casting spells with the [good] descriptor would replace the need for atonement spells. The whole post was grasping at straws. Because it smacks of SEARCHING for a reason to make the argument fit. Because he makes up a word to poke fun at the idea he is arguing against.
Satire is often tongue-in-cheek, but that doesn't mean it isn't serious in topic.
I disagree. Sean points out (correctly) that alignment and energy types are two very different things that the game treats in very different ways, and therefore an analogy using one in place of the other is inherently flawed.
He then cites RAW for why aligned spells affect alignment.
So it's bad when Sean makes up a funny word to show why someone's argument is wrong, but it's good when you (or the OP) make up a funny situation to show why someone's argument is wrong?
Ooh, see, I made a comparison there to show you the illogical nature of your argument. By your own rules, your only options are to either admit you're wrong or disingenuously argue that one situation is different than the other!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how Sean is being disingenuous in his post.
If you disagree with him, feel free to explain why he's wrong.
I call it a joke thread because the OP seemed pretty tongue in cheek.
Because he wouldn't say that casting spells with the [good] descriptor would replace the need for atonement spells. The whole post was grasping at straws. Because it smacks of SEARCHING for a reason to make the argument fit. Because he makes up a word to poke fun at the idea he is arguing against.
Satire is often tongue-in-cheek, but that doesn't mean it isn't serious in topic.
I disagree. Sean points out (correctly) that alignment and energy types are two very different things that the game treats in very different ways, and therefore an analogy using one in place of the other is inherently flawed.
He then cites RAW for why aligned spells affect alignment.
So it's bad when Sean makes up a funny word to show why someone's argument is wrong, but it's good when you (or the OP) make up a funny situation to show why someone's argument is wrong?
Ooh, see, I made a comparison there to show you the illogical nature of your argument. By your own rules, your only options are to either admit you're wrong or disingenuously argue that one situation is different than the other!
No, Sean makes up an argument so he doesn't have to address what's actually happening. What actually happening is that some GM's have a hang-up associated with alignment and need to come to grips with the fact they are being jerks.
Unless you are prepared to say that Sean (or you for that matter) would force a neutral cleric who casts bless water 2 or 3 times a day to shift alignment up to good then you have to admit that the "energyment" argument is a total red herring. Unless you go around tracking the [LAW] spells your players cast to force an alignment shift then you must admit that you are treating [EVIL] differently. And you must admit that your special treatment is in no way rules related, it is only related to your personal hangups about what you see as the "proper" way to play an alignment. GM's that do that are being jerks. They need to stop.
Also, if someone actually does track [LAW] spells or would push a neutral cleric up to good because they cast bless water I really hope you tell your players ahead of time that you are a pedantic nit picker, because they deserve to know that about your style before they waste 4 hours on your game.
Also, making up words isn't satire, it's being a jerk.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, case (2) then? :)
It hasn't come up much when I GM, but as a player I sure as hell consider casting [Good] spells Good acts, [Law] spells Lawful acts, etc. if I'm playing a Chaotic Evil character, I avoid casting those spells because they are antithetical to my character's morality.
If I made a habit out of casting good spells, I think I GM would be fully within his rights to tell me I've been playing outside my alignment and bump me a notch or two away from CE.
The real red herring here is the comparison between energy and alignment. If that's what you mean by the energyment argument, then congrats, we agree on something!
what about the evil conjurer that uses summoned archons to do his bidding or the good cleric who summons a demon to save a burning orphanage? do they get a sudden alignment shift for using spells of an opposite alignment?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I made a habit out of casting good spells, I think I GM would be fully within his rights to tell me I've been playing outside my alignment and bump me a notch or two away from CE.
Which itself begs the question of how many castings of Protection from Evil are needed to balance out skinning alive an orphan for entertainment. Or should it be phrased as how many orphans do you need to skin to cancel out a single casting of Protection from Evil? It's kinda hazy here which action has more "morality points" attached to it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Morality should not be a "add some, remove some" point exchange system, but the interpretation that spells affect alignment would encourage such. Also, using what Sean K Reynolds said as a point of argument isn't going to help much considering his rather questionable track record, especially when it comes to the Monk and some other things.
So, case (2) then? :)
It hasn't come up much when I GM, but as a player I sure as hell consider casting [Good] spells Good acts, [Law] spells Lawful acts, etc. if I'm playing a Chaotic Evil character, I avoid casting those spells because they are antithetical to my character's morality.
If I made a habit out of casting good spells, I think I GM would be fully within his rights to tell me I've been playing outside my alignment and bump me a notch or two away from CE.
The real red herring here is the comparison between energy and alignment. If that's what you mean by the energyment argument, then congrats, we agree on something!
So, I missed it in you post. You have a neutral cleric who likes to bathe in holy water because it makes her skin feel amazing. She casts bless water twice a day (on non-adventuring days.) Would you shift her alignment to good after a few months of that?
alignment is very much a part of the rules that is more for roleplaying than it is for mechanics. If I had an evil character that regularly used good spells, I would basically have him start feeling guilt and remorse for his actions, and he would probably slowly dial back his evil until at least a neutral state (assuming he didn't outright stop using those spells). Best analogy I can think of is what Darla endured in Angel after being raised to life as a human.
The reverse would happen with evil spells.
Also, I somehow expect that these tactics wouldn't give you a good shot at escaping the abyss or hell. In Golarion at least, Pharasma is the ultimate judge of souls, and given that she basically knows everything you have ever done, I don't think you can cheat the system.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I missed it in you post. You have a neutral cleric who likes to bathe in holy water because it makes her skin feel amazing. She casts bless water twice a day (on non-adventuring days.) Would you shift her alignment to good after a few months of that?
If I witnessed that, I may slide closer to Elementalist [Wood].
Ben did say he ran things equally in all directions, so I think we should believe him.
alignment is very much a part of the rules that is more for roleplaying than it is for mechanics. If I had an evil character that regularly used good spells, I would basically have him start feeling guilt and remorse for his actions, and he would probably slowly dial back his evil until at least a neutral state (assuming he didn't outright stop using those spells). Best analogy I can think of is what Darla endured in Angel after being raised to life as a human.
The reverse would happen with evil spells.
Also, I somehow expect that these tactics wouldn't give you a good shot at escaping the abyss or hell. In Golarion at least, Pharasma is the ultimate judge of souls, and given that she basically knows everything you have ever done, I don't think you can cheat the system.
That's fine, if that's the case then uncouple mechanics and alignment. Don't have alignment restrictions on feats and classes and then say they aren't meant to be view in tandem.
alignment is very much a part of the rules that is more for roleplaying than it is for mechanics. If I had an evil character that regularly used good spells, I would basically have him start feeling guilt and remorse for his actions, and he would probably slowly dial back his evil until at least a neutral state (assuming he didn't outright stop using those spells). Best analogy I can think of is what Darla endured in Angel after being raised to life as a human.
The reverse would happen with evil spells.
Also, I somehow expect that these tactics wouldn't give you a good shot at escaping the abyss or hell. In Golarion at least, Pharasma is the ultimate judge of souls, and given that she basically knows everything you have ever done, I don't think you can cheat the system.
What if you, as DM, had a player with an evil character casting good spells?
Would you FORCE him to start playing more 'good'?
What if he refuses? Or continues to sacrifice babies and only casts good spells so he doesn't ping as evil?
It's pretty universally recognised that telling your players what actions their PCs have to take is up there with DMPCs for bad DMing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would honestly say that an evil character using a significant number of Good spells to solve his problems may not be correctly pegged alignment wise. Note that I say "may not".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's amazing how fast these boards can stop a thread from being fun because people started seriously arguing about the topic the thread is making fun of. 4chan has a better track record than this.
I can see working something out with the player where he slowly takes on the attributes of an ooze, at the cost of other attributes or spell schools of course.
I see no reason to banish fun for the sake of simply obeying RAW, so long as it remains balanced and in keeping with established fiction.
Unless you go around tracking the [LAW] spells your players cast to force an alignment shift then you must admit that you are treating [EVIL] differentlyAnd I would have absolutely no problem with treating Evil differently. As I see it, casting evil spells willy nilly as your first option in approaching any problem definitely slides you towards evil. Those who live in an "Ends Justify The Means" mentality tend to slide that much faster.
You can not however slide towards Good this way, because I don't use mirror equivalency towards alignments. I always rule that it is far easier to move towards evil than to inch towards good. I've contemplated making simmilar rules regarding Chaos and Law, given the nature of entropy, but have not done so yet.
That's a fine houserule. It strays enough from the written rules that you should be upfront with new players about it. It also doesn't belong in any form of rules discussion.
So, it's fine in this thread (not the rules forum) but strays enough from the written game that you should really preface the statement with, "I know this is just a houserule but I feel like this works...," that way people can feel perfectly free to ignore you because it isn't the default assumption.
Mind you, ooze bites can be pretty painful.
An øøze once bit my sister!
Certain spells have the tag "acid" (without quotes) right next to the school of magic.
Three examples are Acid Splash, Acid Arrow, and Acid Fog
We have it house ruled that the use of these spells slowly shift your characters biological makeup into that of a ooze.
But my question is, should it?
Happy Thanksgiving Guys
Um, no more than you turning into a fire elemental if you kept casting fire spells. However, if your homebrew games are being run in a world where magic influences the body in small to massive portions, that's all on your GM. I would make sure the GM specifically which types of magic alter the body, when, how much, if it can be resisted, and what sort of things happen as it slowly transforms (benefits, flaws, creature type change, alignment change, etc.).
Of course, the GM should be aware what sort of balance issues this may have for the spellcasters in the game. It is also extra bookkeeping. It's unique and interesting, but with every cool innovation also comes the baggage.
I was just kidding in the OP but that idea sounds pretty damn cool albeit complicated.
