PossibleCabbage |
Personally, I believe that all beings with intelligence can be any alignment whatsoever, and that's how I run my games.
If you're intelligent enough to choose, you're intelligent enough to choose which things you want and which things you don't. If you're not locked into finding some things desirable simply because of your race, culture, or plane of origin, demons are free to choose good and angels are free to choose evil.
I think this is, at the very least, much more interesting than the alternative. You shouldn't be able to trust someone just because they've got a halo and you shouldn't be automatically against someone just because they've got horns.
HyperMissingno |
Actually, the bestiary says aligned outsiders can change their alignments. It's just immensely rare. I can understand paladins being very suspicious and assuming that it is a trick though.... since... well... who would think that it's being honest.
Quote:If a demon is repenting it means someone magically altered his alignment.Not true.
Quote:Where did people get the idea that true dragons are tied to their alignments? I've seen people say it everynow and then in alignment discussions but I've never seen a source.... Either way, that's not how it works in PFRPG. Chromatic dragons can change their alignments as easily as a kobold or orc or goblin or gnoll or gnome.Same for a chromatic dragon.
It comes from Paladins doing double smite damage against them. Also I was under the impression that outsides and true dragons where tied to fate itself and could not change alignment even slightly. Apparently I was misinformed on that part. Hell I was told they could not even perform actions that would not result in advancing or more of their alignments under normal circumstances, which is why both outsiders and dragons have a habit of...performing genetic experiments with mortal races.
Drahliana Moonrunner |
We could even cut this whole thing down to what I meant by making him a normal human being. He admits to baby murder, and is honestly repentant. You take him prisoner and confirm this.
Conflict ensues.
Even an Iomedan Paladin will take him to the courts to stand judgement if at all possible. I'm going to assume that just because a person feels regret, you're not going to try to claim that they should not answer for their acts. A sincere atonement may, if nothing else, change their afterlife judgement.
Necromancer Paladin |
It comes from Paladins doing double smite damage against them. Also I was under the impression that outsides and true dragons where tied to fate itself and could not change alignment even slightly. Apparently I was misinformed on that part.
According to bestiary the only creatures that have difficultly changing alignment are non-sentient and planar creatures, and even then it says about how there are outsiders of non-standard alignments but they are rare and generally outcasts.
I think paladins probably get extra smite against them because it's Knight vs. Evil Dragon.... I mean, undead also don't have to be evil, but dev's sometimes forget that.
cerhiannon |
So, assuming the OP's character has NG written on his sheet because his character:
- Does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
- Does what is good and right without bias for or against order.
- Excels at seeing both sides of a situation, and they use this ability to inform their actions, doing what they believe will produce the most good.
- Seeks to do the most good in the world to make it a better place and to help others when possible.
- Gives great consideration to their actions before deeming them correct.
Is that your character?
If not, then did you write the wrong two letters on your character sheet? Is there a better alignment that describes your character?
If that IS your character, then why do you want to cast these evil spells?
Seriously, you should examine that. I'm not saying you can't. Of course..."
With respect to Infernal Healing I can think of one solid reason for an arcane caster to regularly use that spell and not shift from any Good alignment. If the party lacks any other healing spells. Admittedly this is an unlikely situation in home games, in organized play it is not as unlikely.
DominusMegadeus |
"A chance encounter with a fellow servant of Sarenrae, an earnest young cleric named Kyra, triggered a crisis of faith in Zadim, and the killer revealed his role in the plot to the young woman. Kyra, who subscribed to a far less militant doctrine than that preached by the Dawnflower Cult, rejected Zadim's bloody tactics, reminding him that Sarenrae herself valued goodness, redemption, and healing over murderous tactics, no matter the quarry. If Gordreth the Butcher had truly been redeemed, killing him for past deeds meant directly violating the most holy values of Sarenrae, erasing the man's redemption in an act of bloody murder.
Such an affront, she assured, would be enough for Sarenrae to withdraw her favor from a dedicated follower, stripping away the divine bond so important to the servant's faith and work."
There we go.
Butcher became a honest-to-the-gods Paladin of Abadar after he murdered a bunch of dudes. Kyra, iconic Cleric of Sarenrae, claims that killing him after he was redeemed would be enough to sever a cleric's connection to the Dawnflower.
Dread Knight |
Necromancer Paladin wrote:It comes from Paladins doing double smite damage against them. Also I was under the impression that outsides and true dragons where tied to fate itself and could not change alignment even slightly. Apparently I was misinformed on that part. Hell I was told they could not even perform actions that would not result in advancing or more of their alignments under normal circumstances, which is why both outsiders and dragons have a habit of...performing genetic experiments with mortal races.Actually, the bestiary says aligned outsiders can change their alignments. It's just immensely rare. I can understand paladins being very suspicious and assuming that it is a trick though.... since... well... who would think that it's being honest.
Quote:If a demon is repenting it means someone magically altered his alignment.Not true.
Quote:Where did people get the idea that true dragons are tied to their alignments? I've seen people say it everynow and then in alignment discussions but I've never seen a source.... Either way, that's not how it works in PFRPG. Chromatic dragons can change their alignments as easily as a kobold or orc or goblin or gnoll or gnome.Same for a chromatic dragon.
I think you're looking at it wrong.
Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.
The smite evil effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the paladin rests and regains her uses of this ability. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on Table: Paladin, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level.
This says evil-aligned Dragon not Chromatic Dragon, it'd work just as well on a LE Silver Dragon as it would on a CE Red Dragon and it wouldn't work on a NG Black Dragon just like it wouldn't work on a CG Brass Dragon
Drahliana Moonrunner |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"A chance encounter with a fellow servant of Sarenrae, an earnest young cleric named Kyra, triggered a crisis of faith in Zadim, and the killer revealed his role in the plot to the young woman. Kyra, who subscribed to a far less militant doctrine than that preached by the Dawnflower Cult, rejected Zadim's bloody tactics, reminding him that Sarenrae herself valued goodness, redemption, and healing over murderous tactics, no matter the quarry. If Gordreth the Butcher had truly been redeemed, killing him for past deeds meant directly violating the most holy values of Sarenrae, erasing the man's redemption in an act of bloody murder.
Such an affront, she assured, would be enough for Sarenrae to withdraw her favor from a dedicated follower, stripping away the divine bond so important to the servant's faith and work."
There we go.
Butcher became a honest-to-the-gods Paladin of Abadar after he murdered a bunch of dudes. Kyra, iconic Cleric of Sarenrae, claims that killing him after he was redeemed would be enough to sever a cleric's connection to the Dawnflower.
Thing is... Sarenrae is still supplying divine power to the clerics of that sect. So the issue is obviously more complex than it seems. If Godreth's soul still goes to Sarenrae's petting zoo, after his execution by the iconic slayer, his redemption still counted where it mattered.
DM_Blake |
Rysky wrote:1)AGAIN, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SPELL NOT BEING ON A SPELL LIST, AND BEING BARRED BY YOUR GOD FROM CASTING A SPELL THAT IS.Not when it comes to the argument of "If your good god won't let you cast it, it must be evil". That is that reply was to.
Yeah, I know this thread advanced about a hundred posts while I was out teaching chess, but I have to respond to this.
I apologize to everybody on this thread. I thought the CONTEXT of my post was clear. I think most of you got it. Necromancer Paladin seems to have been the only one I've seen so far that didn't, so I'll spell it out for him.
The post I made was specifically in context to a deity preventing his clerics from casting spells with an opposed alignment descriptor. You know, since this thread is all about spells with alignment descriptors.
Had this thread been about those sneaky mean bastard deities who refuse to grant spells to their clerics because the spells are not on the cleric's class list, well, I would have been incorrect in what I said. But since the thread was all about alignment descriptors, I think my original post that Necromancer Paladin failed to grasp stands well enough on its own, within that context.
Necromancer Paladin |
Yeah, I know this thread advanced about a hundred posts while I was out teaching chess, but I have to respond to this.
I apologize to everybody on this thread. I thought the CONTEXT of my post was clear. I think most of you got it. Necromancer Paladin seems to have been the only one I've see so far that didn't, so I'll spell it out for him.
The post I made was specifically in context to a deity preventing his clerics from casting spells with an opposed alignment descriptor. You know, since this thread is all about spells with alignment descriptors.
Had this thread been about those sneaky mean bastard deities who refuse to grant spells to their clerics because the spells are not on the cleric's class list, well, I would have been incorrect in what I said. But since the thread was all about alignment descriptors, I think my original post that Necromancer Paladin failed to grasp stands well enough on its own, within that context.
... I knew all that already -.-
It seems you have misunderstood me. I was saying that "Just because it isn't granted to clerics of good gods =! it's evil" just that is isn't provided to clerics of good god. Clerics in settings wouldn't even know it's on the cleric spell list anymore, since they never had it. To the clerics in the game, there is no difference between the god not giving you a spell because of alignment and not getting a spell because it's from a domain that you didn't your god doesn't provide. Why doesn't a good cleric get prestigitation? Because it just happens to not be provided by their god. That's all. That a good god not providing a spell doesn't mean it's an evil act. It just means the god isn't giving you that spell.
DM_Blake |
I'm still going to say that clerics don't live in a vacuum. There are other clerics around. Gazillions of them.
A cleric of Iomedae knows that he cannot prepare Prestidigitation and he cannot prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells. Maybe that might seem the same to him, but...
Clerics of Asmodeus can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Baalzebul can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Belial can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Dispater can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Geryon can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Mammon can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Mephistopheles can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Nergal can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Zon-Kuthon can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Charon can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Norgorber can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Set can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Urgathoa can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Abraxas can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Baphomet can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Cthulhu can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Dagon can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Hastur can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Jubilex can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Lamashtu can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Nyarlathotep can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Orcus can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Pazuzu can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Rovagug can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Shub-Niggurath can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Clerics of Yog-Sothoth can prepare [evil] Summon Monster spells.
Just to name a few.
But not a one of them can cast Prestidigitation. And every one of them cannot prepare [good] Summon Monster spells while our inquisitive cleric of Iomedae certainly can.
Scholars on all sides of the equation, good, evil, neutral, divine, arcane, psychic, and anything else in the multiverse have been consulted to figure out why this disparity exists.
At least one of them has whipped up a DC 15 Knowledge(Arcana) check and figured out the reason by now. Or maybe just a handful of judicious Commune spells. Whatever that reason is, I'm sure by now the entire world has learned that those arcane Prestidigitation spells are just not something that ANY god grants - I'm sure the wise scholars of the land have discovered the reason for it by now, even if the tarrasque posting this reply has not.
And, whatever the reason that Prestidigitation is not on divine lists, I'm sure the same scholars of the land have deduced, correctly, that Summon Monster is on the list but deities of certain alignments feel strongly opposed, intractably opposed, to granting Summon Monster spells of opposite alignments purely because of the opposed alignments.
Deadmanwalking |
Champions of Purity, p. 17 actually specifically says that casting an Evil spell is an Evil act. To quote:
Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement.
So...yeah, that's how that works in Golarion. Note the minor, though. Minor acts of any alignment rarely send you immediately to that alignment unless taken in the complete absence of other factors.
Milo v3 |
Snip
None of what you just said goes against my point of that just because evil spells are not provided by your god doesn't mean the reason it's not provided is that it's an evil act rather than... that good gods can't provide [evil] spells or the energies of [evil] spells conflicting with Good faith.
It Could be because they're evil acts, but there is nothing suggesting that it is because they're evil acts. Let alone it being any proof that they are evil acts...
So...yeah, that's how that works in Golarion.
Yeah, Golarion's pretty concrete on the topic.
Rysky |
So a NG wizard can't cast a infernal healing to save his dying friend now? Or should he just stand and watch them bleeding to death to keep his alignment?
I used to think it was aim but not means to judge the G and E...
Have you not read the thread?
Yes the NG wizard can cast Infernal Healing, an evil act, to save his dying friend that he cares about, a good act.
These examples aren't all consolidated into all or nothings, they're multiple acts.
Deadmanwalking |
So a NG wizard can't cast a infernal healing to save his dying friend now? Or should he just stand and watch them bleeding to death to keep his alignment?
I used to think it was aim but not means to judge the G and E...
Can you shove a crying widow off her wife's body to get a lifesaving potion to save your friend? Yes, you can.
Casting Infernal Haling to save your friend is probably less evil than that, and in both cases, the saving a life sorta outweighs the minor Evil of the act.
RDM42 |
Incidently on my view of 'racial alignments' - except as they relate to things like evil outsiders - 98% or the race is going to be within one step on each axis of the 'base alignment'. If the race is listed 'lawful neutral' 98% of that race will be lawful neutral, neutral, lawful good or lawful evil.
If the race is lawful evil, 98% of its members will be lawful evil, lawful neutral, neutral evil or neutral neutral.
Within that subset 2/3 will be the base alignment.
Things like a lawful good member of a chaotic evil race will be vanishingly RARE.
Deadmanwalking |
Incidently on my view of 'racial alignments' - except as they relate to things like evil outsiders - 98% or the race is going to be within one step on each axis of the 'base alignment'. If the race is listed 'lawful neutral' 98% of that race will be lawful neutral, neutral, lawful good or lawful evil.
If the race is lawful evil, 98% of its members will be lawful evil, lawful neutral, neutral evil or neutral neutral.
Within that subset 2/3 will be the base alignment.
Things like a lawful good member of a chaotic evil race will be vanishingly RARE.
Based on published stuff by Paizo, this is maybe a bit of an exaggeration in the official setting...but not a huge one for most non-PC races. And it's certainly true that the vast majority are within one step of the Most of the non-Evil Orcs around are CN, for example.
ryric RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is infernal healing still even a thing now that we have celestial healing? I was hoping that argument could die the death it deserves.
Either way, here's my counterargument to "but they'll die if I don't heal them with my Evil spell!":
You chose to make an Evil spell your only method of healing. You could have chosen to have a wand or potion of CLW to save people, but infernal healing is "more efficient", or "cheaper," so you compromise your morals for it...If you are a wizard, you chose to prepare it "just in case" - or, let's be honest, possibly for routine use.
IMO that's actually the whole point of the spell - to encourage otherwise good people to make small moral compromises by being such an effective temptation. Each casting diminishes their goodness in a tiny way, but thousands of adventurers casting it regularly make a noticeable dent in the overall good in the world. Asmodeus is pleased.
And no, I would never "force" an alignment shift for casting any Evil (or Good) 1st level spell, no matter how often. Alignment in my games is a holistic thing, and an otherwise Good character that occasionally slips up (or even has a bad habit) is fine. Now if the player had G on their sheet but was casting a lot of Evil spells, and doing a bunch of other morally dubious things, then we might want to discuss what should actually be written there. But you have to look at the whole picture not individual acts.
Entryhazard |
"DM_Blake wrote:The fact that good clerics cannot cast an evil spell PROVES that the spell is evil.All that does is prove that good deities don't grant it not that it's an evil act to cast it.
And NG deities allow you to cast spells without alignment descriptors and the ones with Law and Chaos, so they're not against what isn't diametrically opposed to them
BretI |
Just remember that summoning a fire immune devil to save dozens of women and children from a burning building is a total evil act in his book. I mean you had the option of sending the fire elemental to carry people out... :P
But don't worry because enough protection from evil spells will fix that evil right up cuz reasons...
You could summon Water Elementals to put out the fire. Summoning is about picking the right tool for the job.
People also might want to know why was it your character chose to learn the Infernal language rather than Aquan? After all, in order to get the creatures to do anything other than fight you need to be able to communicate with them.
---
The alignment system has always been problematic. You will get some GMs that claim a chaotic can never be honorable because keeping your word is a lawful action. It isn't a single choice that decides your overall alignment, but the combination of many choices. Constantly choosing to summon evil creatures isn't a good act, but arcane casters don't have a god looking over their spell selection and saying "No!" when they make a bad choice.
Haladir |
To the question of "Can a NG wizard cast spells with the [Evil] descriptor?" the answer is unequivocally "Yes." Wizards can cast whatever spells they want.
The question of what implications this act has on alignment is a matter of house rules. So the correct answer is "Check with your GM."
One thing that I keep in mind is that a Good character shouldn't want to cast spells with an [Evil] descriptor: choosing whether or not to do so sould be a moral quandary. A truly Good character would generally choose to use a different spell if there is any choice in the matter. And just because something is quicker or easier does not make it the right choice.
(We already know how this works in PFS. Let me say for the record that I disagree with this ruling, and don't follow that in my home games.)
How I personally rule in my games...
Spells with alignment descriptors actually tap into the supernatural forces associated with that alignment. Casting these spells are unleashing the associated supernatural force into the world, and are certainly an act of that alignment. So, when you cast infernal healing, the spell actually taps into the supernatural forces of Hell, opening up a link between the caster, subject, and an actual devil somewhere. The spell temporarily grants the devil's fast healing ability onto the subject, making a small-but-real connection between the souls of the caster and subject and that devil. Each use of the spell chews a little bit on the souls of caster and recipeint. Using it once in a great while won't have long-term alignment consequences, but relying on this spell on a regular basis certainly will start to turn both caster and recipient toward evil.
(Yes, I know that's not explicitly in the spell description: That's my interpretation of how this spell works in my campaign world. As the GM, I get to make that ruling in my games.)
Same is true of a spell like chaos hammer: It is unleashing Chaotic energy into the world, and using it it a Chaotic act. A minor one, but still a chaotic act.
Results may vary, use as perscribed by your GM, offer not valid in all campaign worlds.
Haladir |
Either way, here's my counterargument to "but they'll die if I don't heal them with my Evil spell!":
You chose to make an Evil spell your only method of healing. You could have chosen to have a wand or potion of CLW to save people, but infernal healing is "more efficient", or "cheaper," so you compromise your morals for it...If you are a wizard, you chose to prepare it "just in case" - or, let's be honest, possibly for routine use.
IMO that's actually the whole point of the spell - to encourage otherwise good people to make small moral compromises by being such an effective temptation. Each casting diminishes their goodness in a tiny way, but thousands of adventurers casting it regularly make a noticeable dent in the overall good in the world. Asmodeus is pleased.
That's my interpretation entirely.
A Good caster should not want to cast this spell.
There are always other choices: use a potion of cure light wounds, cast stabilize, or just treat the wounds with a Heal check!
Is casting infernal healing quicker and more effective than any of these? Yes. But keep in mind that robbing someone is usually a more effective way of getting some quick cash than working an honest job!
David knott 242 |
ryric wrote:Is infernal healing still even a thing now that we have celestial healing? I was hoping that argument could die the death it deserves.Do you have a citation for this? I would absolutely love to find such a spell, but apparently it is not on the PFSRD yet.
It is in the recently released Arcane Anthology. As I recall, the Celestial Healing spell actually provides slightly less healing than the Infernal Healing spell.
Lord Twitchiopolis |
ryic wrote:Either way, here's my counterargument to "but they'll die if I don't heal them with my Evil spell!":
You chose to make an Evil spell your only method of healing. You could have chosen to have a wand or potion of CLW to save people, but infernal healing is "more efficient", or "cheaper," so you compromise your morals for it...If you are a wizard, you chose to prepare it "just in case" - or, let's be honest, possibly for routine use.
IMO that's actually the whole point of the spell - to encourage otherwise good people to make small moral compromises by being such an effective temptation. Each casting diminishes their goodness in a tiny way, but thousands of adventurers casting it regularly make a noticeable dent in the overall good in the world. Asmodeus is pleased.
That's my interpretation entirely.
A Good caster should not want to cast this spell.
There are always other choices: use a potion of cure light wounds, cast stabilize, or just treat the wounds with a Heal check!
Is casting infernal healing quicker and more effective than any of these? Yes. But keep in mind that robbing someone is usually a more effective way of getting some quick cash than working an honest job!
Of course Infernal Healing is faster and better.
That's the allure of it.And that's how the darkness slowly, subtly works its way into your life.
My two copper.
Like many of those before in this thread;
If you are a caster who's casting isn't restricted to an alignment, you can cast a handful of aligned spells without worry of alignment shift.
However, multiple castings will slowly drag your alignment down.
Additionally, a aligned caster should feel uncomfortable casting spells with the opposing alignment, only doing so when there are no other options.
A Good aligned wizard may cast animate dead.
However, he shouldn't.
He may do so when the situation is "OH CRAP! OH CRAP! I'M THE ONLY ONE STANDING AND THIS MONSTER'S GONNA WRECK THE TOWN IF I CAN'T STOP IT! I'M SORRY VALEROS BUT I HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE!" without fear of alignment reprisals.
If his attitude is more "Val's body is really heavy. Meh, he can carry himself back to town. Come on, Zombie Val!" then he should probably be Neutral at least.
Attitude and outlook matter.
of course, people always seem to try to make arguments to validate it when it comes to Good vs Evil.
Maybe we would be best off using the Law/Chaos axis for this conversation.
Letric |
I wasn't expecting so many replies, had to read a lot! Yes my Wizard is NG, and he wants to do Good above all, help his friends stay alive and succed.
Recently we had a TPK. We kinda suck as a party in terms of decision making/tactics.
We were resurrected for story means and not starting again from zero, it was boring as hell and had no point.
Thing is, having Infernal Healing helps someone for a total of 11 rounds. That means that for 11 rounds that someone would be stabilized is went down to negative hp.
We just died, I mean, it's clear that something is wrong. I do want to do good, but sometimes in order to do that good I might have to cast a demon, because, well, they wouldn't be affected by Evil effects for example, in case we're fighting something that has an alignment type attack against good.
I'm not saying I'll be casting Evil spells all the time, but in the case of SM I'm in control after all, and sometimes, maybe, we could use the extra power.
If every combat you're having is failing, being extremely hard and you're basically almost dying, you start to question things. Maybe you're not doing everything you can. Maybe you could do something extra that might help you, right?
What if by not tapping into that little extra I'm risking the life of my friends? We know each other for not a long time, but a lot happened, we died together. I died because I couldn't leave that stupid half-orc behind that I'm not even sure I completely like.
That's my premise. What if I could do more? More to help others, friends and to protect those who I care for?
DM_Blake |
That's my premise.
That's a perfectly fine NG premise. Ideally your character would probably regret the necessity, and would probably prefer to summon something non-evil when he can, but would "fight fire with fire" when necessary.
So your actions fit the alignment you've chosen. No conflict.
Make sure your GM agrees; some might not.
PossibleCabbage |
It's certainly arguable that in some cases using "evil" means for "good" ends is justifiable, though certainly not in every case.
I mean, if you summon a bunch of demons and force them to build low-cost housing for the poor and orphanages then you dismiss them back to their plane before they can get up to any mischief, that's probably a net good act.
So if your character feels that in a particular case the means can be justified by the ends, then go ahead and do it; you're a wizard not a cleric.
DM_Blake |
I mean, if you summon a bunch of demons and force them to build low-cost housing for the poor and orphanages then you dismiss them back to their plane before they can get up to any mischief, that's probably a net good act.
But the real question is, why would a GOOD character choose demons to do that? Can't he summon angels for that instead?
My contention is, if you see a problem and your initial thought is "Wow, I gotta get me some demons to solve this" then you're probably not GOOD in the first place. Good people don't think like that.
Sure, occasionally you might think "I want some angels to solve this but they can't get THIS job done, so I'm forced to use demons instead" and that fits the NG alignment perfectly. But just choosing demons as the first-choice goto summons is pretty far out of scope for a good alignment.
Letric |
That's kinda my point. Sometimes evil summons are just better in combat for the situation.
I'm trying not to make it a permanent thing, but if my desire is to save my friends, I don't think I'll stop and look "oh I'm casting an evil spell", I'll just think along the lines "this will save my friends, it has to be done".
Will I commit an evil act besides the casting to save my friends? I don't know. Maybe? That's where I have to draw the line probably.
Is there something as a greater good? Is it worth willingly sacrificing someone if the good it will do it's far more? I can't tell you that.
I'm a Wizard, if summoning an evil demon will help me defeat something and summoning something good might not work, then, it's hard to not do it.
Brain in a Jar |
3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
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.
I'd like to see this put to rest once and for all.
FAQ Question
How do spells with alignment descriptors interact with alignment?
Is casting a spell with an alignment descriptor ([Evil], [Good], [Chaos], or [Law]) an aligned act as per the alignment rules?
Rysky |
PossibleCabbage wrote:I mean, if you summon a bunch of demons and force them to build low-cost housing for the poor and orphanages then you dismiss them back to their plane before they can get up to any mischief, that's probably a net good act.But the real question is, why would a GOOD character choose demons to do that? Can't he summon angels for that instead?
My contention is, if you see a problem and your initial thought is "Wow, I gotta get me some demons to solve this" then you're probably not GOOD in the first place. Good people don't think like that.
Sure, occasionally you might think "I want some angels to solve this but they can't get THIS job done, so I'm forced to use demons instead" and that fits the NG alignment perfectly. But just choosing demons as the first-choice goto summons is pretty far out of scope for a good alignment.
I would so do this to royally f*#~ with Abadarites, granted that's not a Good (alignment) reason but it would make me feel better.
ryric RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if you summon a bunch of demons and force them to build low-cost housing for the poor and orphanages then you dismiss them back to their plane before they can get up to any mischief, that's probably a net good act.
As a GM I would have so much fun with using summoned demons to build houses - houses with hidden deathtraps, secret altars to dark powers, nonsensical layouts, slightly off measurements to make life there a series of petty annoyances, one way secret doors to trap curious children in the walls, and so forth. The demons' every working moment would be spent finding ways to subvert your commands. You would end up with the worst possible place to live on the material plane.
Building houses is not a situation where I want living embodiments of chaos and suffering doing the work. That orphanage would have "FUTURE ADVENTURE SITE" written all over it in big letters, with flashing neon signs. Orphanage built by literal demons? That's a horror movie plot not an altruistic act!
Crai |
From levels 1 through 13, I played a NG Wizard who had a structured, primary schtick of being an optimized spellcaster who emphasized the casting of both [Good] and [Evil] descriptor wizard spells. Of those 13 levels, 5 were played in 3.5 rules, the remaining 8 were played after transitioning to Pathfinder rules. When I say *optimized*, I mean he had mechanically-synergetic feats, ACFs, archetypes, spells, traits, magic gear, etc. that helped make those alignment descriptor spells extremely potent.
Being of NG alignment - and comfortable with it, he was always looking to find the right balance of casting primarily Evil and Good descriptor spells ... without letting the process actually affecting his primary personality and disposition (i.e. he wanted to stay at NG and avoid a shift to another alignment). This obviously involved some collaboration with the GM to make this spellcaster concept doable. And it wasn't just a numbers game either. Meaning, you can't just say that for every 1 Evil spell he cast, he needed to maintain his alignment by casting 2 Good spells. This was due to the GM adjudication that higher level Good/Evil spells had more alignment shift risk than lower level Good/Evil spells.
That all said, it was a fun spellcaster to play for all those years. Especially because this alignment shift risk was fun for me to manage as a game-within-a-game. And too, because the character was a blast to RP because of his fixation with the constant internal tug-of-war struggle between Good & Evil that resided within his core psyche.
In summation, I think there's something to be said by mathematically or statistically "weighting" alignment descriptor spells for a Wiz/Sorc ... allowing options for a savvy Wiz/Sorc player to manipulate and balance their usage without having his/her alignment shift to an undesirable status.
PossibleCabbage |
But the real question is, why would a GOOD character choose demons to do that? Can't he summon angels for that instead?
Well, if left to their own devices Angels will probably do good on their own but Demons will probably do evil. So if you summon Angels you're taking them away from the good they have been doing, in order to get them to do good where you want them to. If you summon Demons and force them to do good things, not only are those good things going to be done, but you're also preventing them from doing whatever ungood acts they would have been doing on their own.
Also, maybe you're a jerk in addition to being a good character, and you just like to make Demons do stuff they hate doing. You have to watch them carefully, lest they build in the aforementioned deathtraps, but "I hate demons, so I'm going to mess with them by summoning them" is reasonable. Plus you might find one or two demons that really honestly enjoys helping people or other acts of altruism, so you can help facilitate his or her redemption this way.
DM_Blake |
Crai, that sounds really fun. By why is a GOOD character concerned with balancing good and evil? I think you missed the axis there. Your NG guy should have worried about balancing Law and Chaos. Or he should have been LN and then he would have been justified in balancing Good and Evil.
In other words, the character you're describing was FIRMLY planted on the side of good, so why is he trying so hard to exist between good and evil - that's what (some) neutrals do.
DM_Blake |
3.5 Malconvoker prestige class is all about using evil outsiders to fight evil. The prestige class actually has "non-evil" as a prerequisite.
Using evil to fight evil makes sense, in the same way that using fire to fight fire does.
Using evil to build orphanages does not.
Using evil whimsically does not sound like something a good person would likely want to do. Using evil out of necessity, preferably rarely, because it is the best choice in a bad situation, sounds like something a good person would do - especially a NG person.
dragonhunterq |
Slight different angle to this discussion.
...
It's best to let players play their characters as they want.
Whilst GMs are responsible for the alignments of PCs they are encouraged to take a stand-off role with regard to PC alignment. I don't think that casting aligned spells is worth messing with a (non-divine caster) players alignment.
How much do you think that casting [alignment] spells should impact alignment? Never, when it's noticable that more spells are [alignment] than not, casting an evil spell every day, casting an evil spell every so often, a single casting?
DM_Blake |
I would never change a PC's alignment because of that PC's behavior/actions without talking to the player and having him agree that the alignment should change. (note: I'm not including magic/curses/etc. that force an alignment change).
That said, if I have a PC with a certain alignment recorded on his character sheet and the player is playing the PC according to a different alignment, I would have a talk with the player and point out that his characters' behavior is inconsistent with his alignment.
The result of that talk will either be that the PC begins behaving in a manner more appropriate for his alignment or the player changes the alignment on the character sheet (player changes it, not me). Either way, the future behavior will be consistent with the future alignment.
Problem solved.
It's not punishment. I'm not trying to be a jerk. I really don't care what alignment is written or what the behavior is, I'll GM that game and create adventures for that character no matter what his alignment is. All I want to do is help the player understand his character by providing the official alignment guidelines and helping the player pick the one guideline (alignment) that the PLAYER wants and then help him try to stay with those guidelines.
For this purpose, I would have that talk if a NG character were choosing [evil] spells when he didn't need to. In my book, he's deliberately choosing evil actions and should only be doing that when there are no other choices and it's for the greater good in the long run. Doing it more often and/or more casually than that is inappropriate for that alignment and it's time for the alignment talk with the player.
CampinCarl9127 |
Using evil to build orphanages does not.
Although I do agree with you, that sounds hilarious to see.
Using evil whimsically does not sound like something a good person would likely want to do. Using evil out of necessity, preferably rarely, because it is the best choice in a bad situation, sounds like something a good person would do - especially a NG person.
Lilpinny Marfedelom - The embodiment of whimsical evil.
DM_Blake |
DM_Blake wrote:Using evil to build orphanages does not.Although I do agree with you, that sounds hilarious to see.
Yeah, not only the hilarity that Ryric pointed out a few posts up, but also the hilarity of seeing these demons doing manual labor and the local villagers running in terror from the awful demons, and the local law enforcement showing up to arrest the evil demonologist who summoned them (but maybe just standing there in their riot gear watching the demonic construction battalion build the crazy trap-riddled orphanage since no crime has been committed - unless summoning demons IS a crime).
DominusMegadeus |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, if you summon a bunch of demons and force them to build low-cost housing for the poor and orphanages then you dismiss them back to their plane before they can get up to any mischief, that's probably a net good act.As a GM I would have so much fun with using summoned demons to build houses - houses with hidden deathtraps, secret altars to dark powers, nonsensical layouts, slightly off measurements to make life there a series of petty annoyances, one way secret doors to trap curious children in the walls, and so forth. The demons' every working moment would be spent finding ways to subvert your commands. You would end up with the worst possible place to live on the material plane.
Building houses is not a situation where I want living embodiments of chaos and suffering doing the work. That orphanage would have "FUTURE ADVENTURE SITE" written all over it in big letters, with flashing neon signs. Orphanage built by literal demons? That's a horror movie plot not an altruistic act!
SUMMONS DON'T WORK THAT WAY.
They do exactly what you say exactly as you say it. They don't work around your orders or try to murder people unless you tell them to.
CALLING Demons to build an orphanage would be stupid and probably kill everyone, but SUMMONS are 100% safe. Please read how spells work.
lemeres |
I am not reading the posts (because...alignment threads- that leans your alignment to chaotic flame war, particularly ones that get over 100 posts in a few hours)... but not listening much to other people and pushing your own opinion is basic internet etiquette really.
Overall, I think that summon evil things is an slightly evil act, but can be solved with 3 hail sarenraes and a donation to the local churches of a few coins (based on your income- silver at first, gold when you have that flowing like water).
Letric |
I was noticing the same issue will arise with Lantern Archon.
I pretty much have to summon non aligned creatures, otherwise Archon will make me Lawful.
That's where I fail to see the similarity with Evil summons. Why would summoning an Archon make you more lawful?
You suddenly start abiding a code? You care extremely about your words? Suddenly doing good isn't enough but now it must be done under certain criteria?