Letric |
I know Cleric have total restrictions on this, what about Wizards? Will this eventually shift my alignment?
I'm a bit confused, RP wise my character left Acadamae because one of our teachers suggested that we summon anything in order to learn and gain power. I always assumed in my mind that it was referring to Planar Binding, not actual Summon Monster where you have total control of your summon unless disrupted by something magical.
What about Infernal Healing? Or SM (evil)? Will it be safe for me to summon these things?
We lack a Paladin in our party, or actually anyone who could make the Knowledge check to figure out it's something evil.
Our party is level 4 and my character still doesn't have a strong bond with his companions, thought he won't leave them to die, and will try to do the right thing.
Necromancer Paladin |
You can cast [evil] spells.
Whether it changes your alignment is debated and can go either way based on the Rules as Written. Personally, I'd say no since in addition to it being a valid interpretation of the rules, it also stops things like people changing their alignments to good by casting protection from evil over and over.
QuidEst |
This will depend on the GM. Summoning evil things tends to be viewed as a bit more evil than, say, Magic Circle Against Good. Having control is a mitigating factor, but you are providing a fiend with some sort of information that it could potentially pass on if it's important. The Summon Good Monster feat is nice for having some options more in line with your alignment.
Letric |
Cool. I'm not a Summoner mostly, but usually Evil Summons are just way better in combat or for some spell like abilities.
Considering I have this liberty, this is good information. Spoke to my DM and he only ruled that for Infernal Healing I'd need the Material Components, since it's either Devil's Blood or Unholy Water, and I don't think you come across those easily if you RP it.
Mechanical Pear |
I think it was 3.5 where casting an evil spell would slowly tilt you to the evil alignment. Don't remember if it's official in PF.
I would say mostly, yes, it makes you kinda evil. Ultimately, it's up the DM, but I like to play where, if I plan on constantly casting evil spells, I'd try to be neutral. You could do a balance of evil spells and good quests, and pull of neutral just fine.
You could make a case, though, with Summon Monster. You take evil creatures, and make them fight evil creatures. Lots of RP ways to make that good. Or, at least, not evil.
Necromancer Paladin |
I think it was 3.5 where casting an evil spell would slowly tilt you to the evil alignment. Don't remember if it's official in PF.
3.5e was actually abit confused about that... one book (which ... has a lot of bad implications when it comes to alignment) said it was evil while another had a PrC based around summoning and calling evil creatures but Couldn't be evil or they lost their class abilities.
CampinCarl9127 |
8 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW Nothing restricts an arcane caster from casting whatever spells they want.
GM Fiat I would make note of this. If a NG wizard is casting infernal healing and blood transcription on a normal basis, I'm going to mention that they are performing undeniably evil acts. A spell here or there won't do too much, but if you are consistently relying on evil spells I would have a discussion with the player between sessions about possibly slipping their alignment towards evil. Unless something incredibly dramatic is performed I would never force a sudden alignment shift on a character (like a paladin suddenly burning down an orphanage). It is something I would much rather work with the player on. Talk to your GM. Open communications and talk about what you both want out of your character and his role in the campaign.
The Sword |
+1 Camping Carl.
Speak to the DM and fellow players. Some groups are relaxed about it, some see alignment more restrictively.
As with most things, occasional use doesn't normally create a problem - spamming can do. If it's a home game speak to the DM about reskinning the infernal healing to a good version.
Though I will say an evil act is an evil act whether or not there is a paladin there to catch you at it ; ) Maybe work on that bond with your fellow party members.
dragonhunterq |
Of course if your GM rules that [evil] spells are inherently evil, then play a cleric and enjoy holy smiting the local orphanages and kitty sanctuaries with no danger of turning evil.
DM_Blake |
13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always marvel at this disconnect that some players have about alignments.
"I wrote NG on my characters sheet so now I have to NG things - if I do something that isn't labeled as NG, does that change my character sheet?" is a common question we get around here (the alignment changes and the wording is always different, but it always boils down to that question.
That is ultimately backward to what alignment should mean...
Why did you write NG on your sheet?
The best answer is that your character BEHAVES that way. He actually wants to be NG, he generally wants to behave in ways that would cause him to be labeled as a NG person. It's who he is. So, because he is this way, you wrote NG on the character sheet.
It should never be the other way around.
Alignment is not a strait jacket that forces you to play in ways you don't want to, just because those two little letters are written there on your character sheet. You should play the way you WANT to play and then write whatever letters are closest to the behaviors you WANT to exemplify.
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 you can cast them, even without your alignment ever changing. But the real question is why would somebody who is TRULY NG and lives by those bullet points actually ever want to cast evil spells?
If you can answer that with a truly valid answer (usually something along the lines of "it's a necessary evil to produce the most good int he long run") then you're absolutely fine. That's what NG people do. But if you can't answer that question, or if your answer is something else like "I like calling upon infernal powers to get stuff done" then maybe NG isn't the right alignment for you.
Either way, keep on casting those spells, but if your answer to my last question is unsatisfying to a NG alignment, or if those bullet points weren't an accurate picture of who your character is, then maybe you need to change the letters on your character sheet.
CampinCarl9127 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not entirely true. Alignment descriptor spells are categorically defined as the alignment they are part of. Casting an evil spell is, in fact, an evil act. A mild one in most circumstances, but evil nonetheless.
Edit:
Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil; that's why they have that descriptor. Same goes for Good or Lawful or Chaotic. That means that certain classes can't really cast them at all (divine classes of different alignments), but that other classes (arcane spellcasters, for the most part) can cast them as much as they like. But casting alignment spells a lot will and should turn the caster toward that alignment, unless the GM doesn't care about alignment and doesn't enforce such changes, in which case the GM should let EVERY player at the table know that alignment doesn't impact the game so that players who do play as if it does have a chance to adjust their play styles as appropriate. Removing the alignment types of certain spells has implications, though, and before you do so make sure that no one in your group is planning on building a character who uses the alignemnt descriptors in their character build!
Necromancer Paladin |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not entirely true. Alignment descriptor spells are categorically defined as the alignment they are part of. Casting an evil spell is, in fact, an evil act. A mild one in most circumstances, but evil nonetheless.
Actually the rules do not say that. That is merely one interpretation of the text, one that several others disagree with.
Edit: James Jacobs =! Rules. He has repeatedly said that his opinion =! rules, but merely his interpretations and how he would run it based on his experience playing D&D and his personal preference. James Jacobs is the creative director and primarily has control over Golarion, he is not one of the rules designers.
Edit2: One thing to note is, regardless of whatever interpretation the GM goes with, do note that alignment does not change your characters personality and that even under the [Alignment Descriptor] = Alignment act interpretation it can lead to a character being evil purely because of the spells they cast, and it will not alter your characters personality or require them to change to follow their new alignment. It would change how alignment effects affect him and interact with alignment dependant class features, that's it.
HyperMissingno |
You can cast evil spells and summon evil creatures, though I must ask why you would want to as there's usually a better alternative for your situation. I mean infernal healing is only 10 HP that heals slowly and you have access to small earth elementals on the summoning front. Soon you're gonna get the pouncing kitties as well as archons like the lantern archon with a DR piercing laser or the hound archon with DR 10/evil who is a tank and a half.
(I swear I don't mean to keep posting after Arachno)
j b 200 |
I would make a distinction between Summon Monster and Raise Dead.
Summon monster while has the [evil] descriptor, I would argue is not "that" evil. Especially since you have full control over the summoned.
Raise Dead (etc.) on the other hand, is explicitly evil because creating undead is Evil (with a capitol E). If I had a wizard (or summoner) in my game that summoned demons with SM, as long as they don't exclusively summon evil creatures (not counting fiendish lions etc.) that player would not experience any drift. That same wizard creates undead more than once or twice, I would first give them a warning, and if it continues, I would have their Alignment shift to N then NE.
DM_Blake |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CampinCarl9127 wrote:Not entirely true. Alignment descriptor spells are categorically defined as the alignment they are part of. Casting an evil spell is, in fact, an evil act. A mild one in most circumstances, but evil nonetheless.Actually the rules do not say that. That is merely one interpretation of the text, one that several others disagree with
Yes, the rules do say that casting a spell with an [evil] descriptor is evil:
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 you have an [evil] spell. That's its descriptor. It governs how the spell interacts with other stuff. One of those "other stuff" is "alignment". It says so right there.
So an [evil] spell interacts with alignment.
Now, obviously, casting it doesn't make you automatically evil. Most classes have no class restrictions about casting [evil] spells so there's really no problem for most casters.
But there very definitely is a problem for a few casters, e.g. clerics.
The very fact that there is a problem for clerics PROVES conclusively that this [evil] descriptor DOES govern how these spells interact with alignment.
This in turn is conclusive RAW evidence that casting an [evil] spell is, in fact, an evil act.
We can argue til we're blue in the virtual face (smurf) about whether a NG guy can cast an [evil] spell, but the rules are quite clear that casting that [evil] spell is an evil act.
Arachnofiend |
I would make a distinction between Summon Monster and Raise Dead.
Summon monster while has the [evil] descriptor, I would argue is not "that" evil. Especially since you have full control over the summoned.
Raise Dead (etc.) on the other hand, is explicitly evil because creating undead is Evil (with a capitol E). If I had a wizard (or summoner) in my game that summoned demons with SM, as long as they don't exclusively summon evil creatures (not counting fiendish lions etc.) that player would not experience any drift. That same wizard creates undead more than once or twice, I would first give them a warning, and if it continues, I would have their Alignment shift to N then NE.
You have just as much control over a raised mindless zombie as you do a summoned devil. More, actually, because devils are capable of creativity.
Either way you're bringing an evil being into the world of your own volition. If you intend to do positive things in the short term and choose to willfully ignore the long term consequences then you might want to consider putting "Neutral" on your character sheet.
Enlight_Bystand |
I would make a distinction between Summon Monster and Raise Dead.
Summon monster while has the [evil] descriptor, I would argue is not "that" evil. Especially since you have full control over the summoned.
Raise Dead (etc.) on the other hand, is explicitly evil because creating undead is Evil (with a capitol E). If I had a wizard (or summoner) in my game that summoned demons with SM, as long as they don't exclusively summon evil creatures (not counting fiendish lions etc.) that player would not experience any drift. That same wizard creates undead more than once or twice, I would first give them a warning, and if it continues, I would have their Alignment shift to N then NE.
I believe above should read animate dead
Animate dead = create zombies/skeletons. Leads to create undead
Raise dead = bring someone back to life. Leads to resurrection.
Necromancer Paladin |
So an [evil] spell interacts with alignment.
The rules do not state how it interacts with alignment outside of the things that say that it interacts with alignment.
For example, Good Clerics cannot cast Summon Monster as an [evil] descriptor spell.
Outside of how the rules say it interacts with alignment, it does not interact with alignment when it comes to the Rules. Individual GM's can make their own interpretations, but both interpretations are valid.
The Sword |
There are accepted different ways for using alignment in the game. Sometimes alignment does have fixed restrictions. Sometimes it does need to be a straightjacket - albeit a loose fitting one.
For instance I have played in games where the PCs are required to be good aligned. This has been when the DM wants our goodness to be the main motivation. For instance when we tackled Rappan Athuk.
I DM'd Way of the Wicked and restricted alignments to NE or LE, as advised by the writer to try and limit infighting within the party.
I currently DM the Skull & Shackles and have requested the players not to chose lawful good - because I made it clear that piracy and acting against lawful kingdoms was the main motivator.
Pathfinder society restricts evil alignment. Presumably to encourage party unity.
While normally characters can act however they like, sometimes for the integrity of the campaign some alignments and by extension the actions that would cause one to shift to those alignments are restricted. Thid is absolutely as much within the rules of Pathfinder as much as choosing methods of determining ability scores and which books are available for use.
To be clear these rules are set by the campaign not the core Rulebook.
DM_Blake |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM_Blake wrote:So an [evil] spell interacts with alignment.The rules do not state how it interacts with alignment outside of the things that say that it interacts with alignment.
For example, Good Clerics cannot cast Summon Monster as an [evil] descriptor spell.
You're conflating class consequences with the descriptor. They're not the same thing.
The fact that good clerics cannot cast an evil spell PROVES that the spell is evil.
Which means it's evil for everybody.
The fact that the rest of the casters are allowed to cast evil spells does NOT make these spells non-evil. They're still evil spells being cast by good people with no consequences.
In other words, the existence of consequences for an evil act does not make the act evil, nor does the lack of consequences make the act non-evil.
Or another way to look at it is that an evil spell is not "evil when a cleric does it but otherwise not evil". It's evil all time, for everybody, even though clerics might be the only class that cares.
Necromancer Paladin |
The fact that good clerics cannot cast an evil spell PROVES that the spell is evil.
Which means it's evil for everybody.
Based on this line of thinking prestidigitation is an evil act.
Question, when a lawful evil wizard binds an angel (a living sentient physical manifestation of objective good) and forces it to do his bidding, is it a good act? How many angels does my wizard have to enslave to become good?
graystone |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM_Blake wrote:The fact that good clerics cannot cast an evil spell PROVES that the spell is evil.
Which means it's evil for everybody.
Based on this line of thinking prestidigitation is an evil act.
Question, is binding an angel (a living sentient physical manifestation of objective good) and forcing it to do your bidding a good act?
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...
Rysky |
DM_Blake wrote:The fact that good clerics cannot cast an evil spell PROVES that the spell is evil.
Which means it's evil for everybody.
Based on this line of thinking prestidigitation is an evil act.
Question, when a lawful evil wizard binds an angel (a living sentient physical manifestation of objective good) and forces it to do his bidding, is it a good act? How many angels does my wizard have to enslave to become good?
1) Wut?
2) Yes. No. The yes was in regards to your first version of the question.
Rysky |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Necromancer Paladin wrote:DM_Blake wrote:The fact that good clerics cannot cast an evil spell PROVES that the spell is evil.
Which means it's evil for everybody.
Based on this line of thinking prestidigitation is an evil act.
Question, is binding an angel (a living sentient physical manifestation of objective good) and forcing it to do your bidding a good act?
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...
Words cannot begin to describe how much I f$%#ing hate this fallacy. This isn't one single act who's alignment interactions are determined by the first thing you do. It's multiple acts.
Summoning a Devil = Evil
Saving an innocent = Good
Saving another innocent = Good
Saving another innocent = Good
Etc...
Same with the above with using Holy Smite to slaughter townsfolk.
Casting Holy Smite = Good
Killing an innocent = Evil
Killing another innocent = Evil
Killing another innocent = Evil
Etc...
Deadmanwalking |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify the RAW thing:
Per the RAW, [evil] spells do not change one's alignment.
Per the people at Paizo, they do. This is also officially canonical for the Golarion setting.
So, per RAW, they do so in Golarion but not in homebrew settings. There are a couple of rules lie this (Clerics need a deity in Golarion, but not other settings per RAW, for example).
Also, what Rysky said. Allowing [good] or [evil] spells to be aligned acts does not mean that you can use them for terrible things and come out smelling like roses (or great things and instantly be terrible).
Say that casting a [good] spell is a Good act akin to tipping your waiter. Minor, but definitely Good. You do it enough and do nothing objectionable and maybe you wind up being Good. You do it routinely alongside other Good acts you definitely become Good. But you do it between murdering children (or as part of a plot to murder children), it's not gonna make a damn bit of difference.
Necromancer Paladin |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Wut?
Good clerics can't cast that either. Just because a good god doesn't provide it to a priest does not mean it's evil. It just means the god isn't providing the spell.
2)Yes.No. The yes was in regards to your first version of the question.
The first version of the question was "binds an angel (a living sentient physical manifestation of objective good) and forces it to do his bidding, is it a good act?" .... so I don't see why that would be a yes and the revised version a no. Both are forcing an angel to do things.
If Good deities don't grant there's a reason for that.
Possibly because... they're made of good so don't have access to powers that manipulate evil? Just because a good god has no claim to summoning demons doesn't mean that summoning a demon is an evil act. It just means that the god has no claim to summoning demons.
graystone |
Necromancer Paladin wrote:DM_Blake wrote:The fact that good clerics cannot cast an evil spell PROVES that the spell is evil.
Which means it's evil for everybody.
Based on this line of thinking prestidigitation is an evil act.
Question, when a lawful evil wizard binds an angel (a living sentient physical manifestation of objective good) and forces it to do his bidding, is it a good act? How many angels does my wizard have to enslave to become good?
1) Wut?
2) Yes.
#1 blake said that because "good clerics cannot cast" so it must be evil, and they can't cast prestidigitation now can they? Hence prestidigitation must be evil by that logic.
#2 So an evil person casting a protection from evil spell on himself to protect himself from other evil people is good? And if another evil guy summons an angel to disembowel me he has to worry about going neutral?
Next post: So when is a spell like Infernal Healing EVER evil?
Heal person GOOD
Cast spell EVIL
Looks like a push at worst...
And that STILL leaves you with the ridiculous conclusion that no matter how EVIL you've been adventuring you can fix it all up during downtime by preparing and casting a bunch of 'good' spells. Of better yet, how about I 'bank' up good acts by casting spells before hand like buying an indulgence. That way I don't have to worry how evil I act later...
It all seems pretty silly and arbitrary. I can burn you alive with lava, explode your head, feed you to a swarm of insects or suffocate you and it's totally fine. Cause a bit of non-damaging pain and it's evil. WTH...
Rysky |
Rysky wrote:1) Wut?Good clerics can't cast that either. Just because a good god doesn't provide it to a priest does not mean it's evil. It just means the god isn't providing the spell.
Quote:2)Yes.No. The yes was in regards to your first version of the question.The first version of the question was "binds an angel (a living sentient physical manifestation of objective good) and forces it to do his bidding, is it a good act?" .... so I don't see why that would be a yes and the revised version a no.
Quote:If Good deities don't grant there's a reason for that.Possibly because... they're made of good so don't have access to powers that manipulate evil? Just because a good god has no claim to summoning demons doesn't mean that summoning a demon is an evil act. It just means that the god has no claim to summoning demons.
1) oh duh me, because it's not on their spell list. But not being on one's spell list is completely different than being barred from casting spells that are.
2) I'm half asleep and mixed up the "is this an evil act" right above it.
3)That is a confusing statement that is at odds with itself. Saying that Good Gods don't use Evil powers doesn't mean it's Evil? That's asinine.
Player: I want to play a cleric that summons demons but I'm good.
GM: Sorry, the only gods that allow the summing of of Demons are evil.
Player: So summoning Demons is evil?
GM: Nope! Has nothing to do with alignment, by pure coincidence only the Evil Gods have access to demons for some odd reason.
Dafuq.
HyperMissingno |
So this means my cleric of Gozreh can cast protection from/magic circle against chaos/law to keep herself NG, right? |D Seriously the protection from/magic circle X spells need to lose their alignment descriptors. I mean resist/protection from energy doesn't gain elemental descriptors when you resist a certain type of energy, why the heck do these spells carry them?
Rysky |
So if you run into a dominated good creature, you can't cast protection from good to protect yourself? If you need a lock picked, you're not allowed to summon babau demons?
Id say no to planar binding, necromancy line stuff, but a little summoning shouldn't come amiss.
I don't see why you couldn't use PfG in the first scenario, and summoning an assassin demon to pick a lock is kinda overkill lol
dragonhunterq |
For PFS you are fine, The casting of the spell is explicitly not an evil act
And the rules tell us how the spells interact with alignment, so we know what protection from good does vs a good foe and a non-good foe. Nowhere does it state that casting [evil] spells is an evil act.
It's fluff/house rules/setting specific when you state otherwise, not a rule.
DominusMegadeus |
People seem to be unable to tell the difference between Summoning and Calling. They are two very different spell types in terms of risk of actual Evil being done against the caster's will.
Summons can't do anything unless you tell them to. RAW is vague on what a summon really is, so it's possible they're not even real creatures until the moment you summon them, and then they stop existing. James Jacobs has said something similar in his Ask thread, but I've seen other conflicting posts from him before. Needless to say, it's purely opinion.
Calling is the spell type that actually brings a real "flesh" and "blood" Outsider into the world. That can f+&% up. Those creatures can misinterpret and subvert your commands. That's why you should usually just call Angels and the like who will be willing to fight Evil and disinclined to eat your soul.
High level Good Outsiders are also incredibly badass. Look at this beast.
Rysky |
Rysky wrote:Necromancer Paladin wrote:DM_Blake wrote:The fact that good clerics cannot cast an evil spell PROVES that the spell is evil.
Which means it's evil for everybody.
Based on this line of thinking prestidigitation is an evil act.
Question, when a lawful evil wizard binds an angel (a living sentient physical manifestation of objective good) and forces it to do his bidding, is it a good act? How many angels does my wizard have to enslave to become good?
1) Wut?
2) Yes.
#1 blake said that because "good clerics cannot cast" so it must be evil, and they can't cast prestidigitation now can they? Hence prestidigitation must be evil by that logic.
#2 So an evil person casting a protection from evil spell on himself to protect himself from other evil people is good? And if another evil guy summons an angel to disembowel me he has to worry about going neutral?
Next post: So when is a spell like Infernal Healing EVER evil?
Heal person GOOD
Cast spell EVIL
Looks like a push at worst...And that STILL leaves you with the ridiculous conclusion that no matter how EVIL you've been adventuring you can fix it all up during downtime by preparing and casting a bunch of 'good' spells. Of better yet, how about I 'bank' up good acts by casting spells before hand like buying an indulgence. That way I don't have to worry how evil I act later...
It all seems pretty silly and arbitrary. I can burn you alive with lava, explode your head, feed you to a swarm of insects or suffocate you and it's totally fine. Cause a bit of non-damaging pain and it's evil. WTH...
1)Because it's not on their spell list, which is many leagues different than not being able to cast it from being actively barred from casting it by their divine power. Going off that interpretation it's every alignment since Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic Clerics can't Cast it either.
Healing magic is neither good nor or evil, it goes off of positive energy, not holy energy. Healing someone can be a good or evil act depending on why on your healing them.
Infernal Healing is evil because you are using unholy water (literally liquid evil) or the blood of a devil (also literally liquid evil) in order to heal someone. You're not using some unaligned energy like Cure Light Wounds, you're using actual pure Evil to heal someone.
For the rest this is what you get when you divorce reasoning and mechanics completely, an evil a&!*#$& sitting around casting good spells all day to become good would either, depending on the GM, have no change because he's an evil a@*@+*& and might just feel warm and fuzzy for a bit or actually start to turn good and might reflect on what he's done as he develops morals.
If a player is just spamming good spells to scribble a G on their character sheet with no regard to their character's mindset or motives they're a f*~#ing moron and deserve to be slapped.
Necromancer Paladin |
1) oh duh me, because it's not on their spell list. But not being on one's spell list is completely different than being barred from casting spells that are.
In setting, there isn't really any difference. They just aren't able to cast them. Nothing suggests it's because doing so is an aligned act.
3)That is a confusing statement that is at odds with itself. Saying that Good Gods don't use Evil powers doesn't mean it's Evil? That's asinine.
No, that's like saying because an Evil god has the domain of community in a setting and no good gods happen to have that domain, that communities are evil. Just because a non-good gods are the only one with access to it, doesn't mean it's evil. It just means they don't have power over friggin demons.
Another question. Say my neutral character wants to get into a good afterlife, so he regularly casts protection from evil over and over and over, and does not do any other acts in regards to Good or Evil. Will he get into a Good afterlife or a Neutral afterlife?
or actually start to turn good and might reflect on what he's done as he develops morals.
Alignment does not alter a characters personality or mindset.
If a player if just spamming good spells to scribble a G on their character sheet with no regard to their characters mindset or motives they're a f&~!ing moron and deserve to slapped.
Actually it's pretty in line with most of the evil characters I've played... There is a good degree of benefit from detecting as good when your evil.
Necromancer Paladin |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For PFS you are fine, The casting of the spell is explicitly not an evil act
And the rules tell us how the spells interact with alignment, so we know what protection from good does vs a good foe and a non-good foe. Nowhere does it state that casting [evil] spells is an evil act.
It's fluff/house rules/setting specific when you state otherwise, not a rule.
This is just perfect. Even in PFS it isn't evil :P
Rysky |
Rysky wrote:1) oh duh me, because it's not on their spell list. But not being on one's spell list is completely different than being barred from casting spells that are.In setting, there isn't really any difference. They just aren't able to cast them. Nothing suggests it's because doing so is an aligned act.
Quote:3)That is a confusing statement that is at odds with itself. Saying that Good Gods don't use Evil powers doesn't mean it's Evil? That's asinine.No, that's like saying because an Evil god has the domain of community in a setting and no good gods happen to have that domain, that communities are evil. Just because a non-good gods are the only one with access to it, doesn't mean it's evil. It just means they don't have power over friggin demons.
Another question. Say my neutral character wants to get into a good afterlife, so he regularly casts protection from evil over and over and over, and does not do any other acts in regards to Good or Evil. Will he get into a Good afterlife or a Neutral afterlife?
Quote:or actually start to turn good and might reflect on what he's done as he develops morals.Alignment does not alter a characters personality or mindset.
Quote:If a player if just spamming good spells to scribble a G on their character sheet with no regard to their characters mindset or motives they're a f&~!ing moron and deserve to slapped.Actually it's pretty in line with most of the evil characters I've played... There is a good degree of benefit from detecting as good when your evil.
1)Yes there is. If a Good aligned Cleric researches a way to cast a divine prestidigitation they can do so. There is no way for a Good aligned Cleric to research and cast Blasphemy however.
2) If no non-evil deities have the Community domain in setting the I'd be inclined that communities in that setting are evil. Not the case in Golarion.
3) No, magical masturbation will not get you a free ticket to heaven.
4) Correct, a character's personality and mindset affect their Alignment. You don't do good actions because you're Good, you're Good because you genuinely do good actions.
5) Then they do a quickie to get a Good high. That's it.
nicholas storm |
Parsing the core rulebook, the only thing I see is the section on descriptor:
"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 to me, the evil descriptor has no bearing on affecting the alignment of someone casting the spell.
dragonhunterq |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a player is just spamming good spells to scribble a G on their character sheet with no regard to their character's mindset or motives they're a f#!%ing moron and deserve to be slapped.
If you cast an evil spell and a GM slaps evil on your character sheet with no regard to your characters mindset or motives...
well, they are your words...
Necromancer Paladin |
1)Yes there is. If a Good aligned Cleric researches a way to cast a divine prestidigitation they can do so. There is no way for a Good aligned Cleric to research and cast Blasphemy however.
*replace prestigitation for any spell a good cleric can't cast*
2) If no non-evil deities have the Community domain in setting the I'd be inclined that communities in that setting are evil. Not the case in Golarion.
We are not talking about golarion. In golarion I'm pretty sure it's an evil act to cast an evil spell, I mean, it's James Jacob's setting and CampinCarl9127 has already shown James Jacob's views on the matter (though in PFS it is houseruled so that isn't what happens). So we must be talking setting neutral based on the rules.
3) No, magical masturbation will not get you a free ticket to heaven.
So why does doing the exact same thing ethically get you a free ticket to hell?
You don't do good actions because you're Good, you're Good because you genuinely do good actions.
Or, because you want to Ping as good :P
5) Then they do a quickie to get a Good high. That's it.
According to what?
Kazaan |
Remember, Good isn't pragmatic. It's hard to justify using Evil spells based on reasoning of "they work better". So it's not so much that the Evil spell "contaminates" you, but more that you're making little choices that pile up and, eventually, your character doesn't care so much about being Good and Noble and more about how well he performs in combat. Alignment and Action ought to be reciprocal for good roleplay; the alignment on your sheet doesn't dictate your actions but it also isn't just an inert element. Moral tension can make for very good roleplay if handled well. Maybe decide if your character really is devoted to being NG or if he's starting to slide into TN territory; and roleplay accordingly.