Why Is Evil Being Good So Important To Some People...


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

451 to 500 of 904 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Freehold DM wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I never said he'd rather let Zod kill people than kill Zod. Just that he would give his own life before he would do so. Careful about putting words in my mouth.

Unless he's giving his life to permanently imprison Zod, or Zod is already imprisoned, this is kinda a distinction without a difference. I mean...once Superman is dead, Zod's pretty much got a 100% chance of killing others.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't like an idealistic version of Superman, but there are limits.

very much agreed and well said. Zod and other insane/evil kryptonians have been a problem storywise for a long time. Lots of hand waving and storyline torturing.

Basic serial heroic fiction problem. You want to reuse good villains, so you can't kill them off. And when you do, they just get brought back for some later storyline anyway.

Back in earlier comic days - Silver Age at least, villains died all the time. Mostly accidentally or at the hands of their own schemes. Mostly to provide dramatic endings. And then they'd show up in a few months or years with an implausible excuse. They backed off on that because it was becoming more of a joke than heroes coming back from the dead.

As for Zod & Superman, it's not as much a problem in the comics as in movies. Logically, even if Superman was dead, he's far from the only one on Earth who could take on Zod. Nor is Zod nearly the most powerful threat out there.
And even if Superman did go against his moral code and deliberately kill Zod (or anyone else), he'd still come back. Some later writer would want to do another Zod story. It would all be for nothing.
At least Batman's genre-savvy enough to know that. When the Joker breaks out of Arkham to go on a killing spree, he sometimes gets a call to let him know there's trouble. When the Joker's thought dead and comes back there's no warning. I don't think Superman has the same level of genre awareness though.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
3. Except there was no acid here. This is lava and letting some one immolate. While. You. Watch. And. Preach. To. Them. About. How. Much. They. Suck.

This isn't a Star Wars thread, but, in defense of Obi... He believed that he had dealt a fatal wound to Anakin. Also according to the novelization Padme was somehow latently Force Sensitive and was sustaining his life until the Emperor reached him, or he would have died.

The technology used to save him was also a unique secret prototype and he had a 0% chance of survival without it. So as far as Obiwan knew Anakin was already dead at that point. His friend had become a mad murderer and forced him to kill him.

So... It's understandable.

It's understandable that Obi thought he would die.

It's NOT understandable that Obi was willing to let him scream in agony for minutes rather than killing him cleanly.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:

It's understandable that Obi thought he would die.

It's NOT understandable that Obi was willing to let him scream in agony for minutes rather than killing him cleanly.

Urgh... This isn't a Star Wars thread but... My time as the "Ask A Jedi" guy and writer/interviewer for Star Wars news is forcing me to comment...

Technically Obiwan couldn't kill him. A Jedi isn't allowed to take the life of a helpless opponent. They aren't even supposed to mercy kill.

This was a sticking point for Luke later in the Mindor novel because he did it.


thejeff wrote:


There are plenty of things that we have determined through the scientific method, that once fell into "no reason we can determine".
I, and I think Orfamay, read "no reason that we can determine" as "we don't know" rather than "We know we can't ever know".

And, in particular, if one are claiming that something is "arbitrary," that's specifically labelling it as "we know we can't ever know." (Words have meanings, you know: ar·bi·trar·y /'ärb əˌ,tre rē/ adjective based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. "Arbitrary" specifically precludes any reason, even unknown ones.)


HWalsh wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
3. Except there was no acid here. This is lava and letting some one immolate. While. You. Watch. And. Preach. To. Them. About. How. Much. They. Suck.

This isn't a Star Wars thread, but, in defense of Obi... He believed that he had dealt a fatal wound to Anakin. Also according to the novelization Padme was somehow latently Force Sensitive and was sustaining his life until the Emperor reached him, or he would have died.

The technology used to save him was also a unique secret prototype and he had a 0% chance of survival without it. So as far as Obiwan knew Anakin was already dead at that point. His friend had become a mad murderer and forced him to kill him.

So... It's understandable.

Anyway... Back on topic.

Evil in Pathfinder is measurable. We know certain spells are evil. We may not know why, but we know they are.

The nay sayers who refuse to accept that without an in depth Paizo explanation are frankly out of order. We know it's Evil, why isn't really important.

This isn't an in-universe opinion it is an in-universe fact.

In universe it's evil. I certainly haven't disputed that. The only thing I suggest is that EVIL by the book is not analogous to evil in reality. It kind of seems like you get the conclusion before you get the premise, and it seems to me personally as a kind of Cartesian circle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Anyway... Back on topic.

Evil in Pathfinder is measurable. We know certain spells are evil. We may not know why, but we know they are.

The nay sayers who refuse to accept that without an in depth Paizo explanation are frankly out of order. We know it's Evil, why isn't really important.

This isn't an in-universe opinion it is an in-universe fact.

In universe it's evil. I certainly haven't disputed that. The only thing I suggest is that EVIL by the book is not analogous to evil in reality. It kind of seems like you get the conclusion before you get the premise, and it seems to me personally as a kind of Cartesian circle.

If you want me to agree that casting an Infernal Healing spell in reality isn't evil, I'll happily go along.

It'd be delusional, but not evil.

Sovereign Court

HWalsh wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:

It's understandable that Obi thought he would die.

It's NOT understandable that Obi was willing to let him scream in agony for minutes rather than killing him cleanly.

Urgh... This isn't a Star Wars thread but... My time as the "Ask A Jedi" guy and writer/interviewer for Star Wars news is forcing me to comment...

Technically Obiwan couldn't kill him. A Jedi isn't allowed to take the life of a helpless opponent. They aren't even supposed to mercy kill.

This was a sticking point for Luke later in the Mindor novel because he did it.

Okay - but I wasn't talking about it as a light side/dark side thing. I'll give you that it's a Jedi rule that he had to leave him screaming in agony.

I'm arguing that it was just as evil of an act as using force lightning.

I'm not trying to change what is light side vs dark side. I'm just arguing that they aren't really good & evil respectively.


I have no trouble whatsoever with the idea that the Jedi/Sith divide is across the Law/Chaos axis, rather than the Good/Evil axis, but then I felt the OD&D/Basic three alignment system was perfectly functional.


thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Anyway... Back on topic.

Evil in Pathfinder is measurable. We know certain spells are evil. We may not know why, but we know they are.

The nay sayers who refuse to accept that without an in depth Paizo explanation are frankly out of order. We know it's Evil, why isn't really important.

This isn't an in-universe opinion it is an in-universe fact.

In universe it's evil. I certainly haven't disputed that. The only thing I suggest is that EVIL by the book is not analogous to evil in reality. It kind of seems like you get the conclusion before you get the premise, and it seems to me personally as a kind of Cartesian circle.

If you want me to agree that casting an Infernal Healing spell in reality isn't evil, I'll happily go along.

It'd be delusional, but not evil.

It's weird that you can respond to my post without acknowledging it's contents. The world from your perspective must be interesting.


Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Anyway... Back on topic.

Evil in Pathfinder is measurable. We know certain spells are evil. We may not know why, but we know they are.

The nay sayers who refuse to accept that without an in depth Paizo explanation are frankly out of order. We know it's Evil, why isn't really important.

This isn't an in-universe opinion it is an in-universe fact.

In universe it's evil. I certainly haven't disputed that. The only thing I suggest is that EVIL by the book is not analogous to evil in reality. It kind of seems like you get the conclusion before you get the premise, and it seems to me personally as a kind of Cartesian circle.

If you want me to agree that casting an Infernal Healing spell in reality isn't evil, I'll happily go along.

It'd be delusional, but not evil.
It's weird that you can respond to my post without acknowledging it's contents. The world from your perspective must be interesting.

Back to that talking past each other thing. :)

I consider my response relevant because the parts of the PF alignment system that really break are ones dealing with magic - spells or creatures, which don't exist in the real world so the analogy breaks down.

Sovereign Court

Hitdice wrote:
I have no trouble whatsoever with the idea that the Jedi/Sith divide is across the Law/Chaos axis, rather than the Good/Evil axis, but then I felt the OD&D/Basic three alignment system was perfectly functional.

Maybe even LN vs CE to be kind to the Jedi.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder does not just explore the idea of evil enough.
Core book was wrong with just saying it is about killing stuff, because then it does not oppose Good properly.

If Good is sacrificing yourself for others, Evil is sacrificing others for yourself. So greed, hunger for power. To kill another is expression of many sins. Pride of being in control of ones life. Greed of taking ones life. Desiring to consume another person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I have no trouble whatsoever with the idea that the Jedi/Sith divide is across the Law/Chaos axis, rather than the Good/Evil axis, but then I felt the OD&D/Basic three alignment system was perfectly functional.
Maybe even LN vs CE to be kind to the Jedi.

Something to remember is that the Jedi are not the same as the (personification of the) Light Side of the Force.

Personally -- meaning, this opinion is worth what you paid for it -- I think that Lucas' vision is that the Light Side represents Good and the Dark Side represents Evil. But that doesn't mean that everything a Jedi does is the only way that Good can be expressed.

The Jedi's avoidance of emotion is not in itself good, and that was one of the themes of the second (I-III) trilogy. However, acceptance of emotion is not in itself good, either (and, I think, arguably worse in Lucas' vision). I think of the Jedi code as a khumra, the Jewish tradition of "building a fence around the Torah" to minimize the chance of a violation. For example, the actual commandment about not mixing meat and dairy is derived from an injunction against (roughly translated) "cooking a kid in its mother's milk." (Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21)

We can interpret this several ways:

* The traditional and most widely accepted interpretation is you can't have meat and dairy products together in the same meal.

* A slightly narrower interpretation would suggest that you can't cook meat and dairy products together (no cheeseburgers), but having a glass of milk with your cheeseless burger is fine.

* An even narrower interpretation would suggest that you can't cook the meat of mammals together with milk (so still no cheeseburgers), but chicken parm is fine (chickens don't give milk).

* A ridiculously narrow interpretation would be that you can't cook meat with the milk of the animal that gave birth to it. So a bison burger with goat's milk cheese would be fine. Or even a regular cheeseburger, but where the cheese came from a different specific cow.

* An even more ridiculously narrow interpretation would confine the prohibition to goat meat alone (or even more narrow, to kids [young goats] alone). Eat all the beef you want.

Why pick the broad interpretation? Well, because you're "building a fence around the law." If you never violate the broadest interpretation, you're certainly kept from violating the narrower ones, but the reverse is not true. And since God isn't in the habit of letting us hit the FAQ button,....

But this means that not everything demanded by Jewish law is necessarily demanded by God Himself, and everyone understands and accepts that, even if it sometimes results in individually bad results.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also have no problem with the Jedi code being an arcane quasi-legal belief system that's been translated through several languages to exist in many concurrently extant iterations. :)

Edit: That's small "a" arcane, not PF magic-type arcane.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:


I'm arguing that it was just as evil of an act as using force lightning.

I'm not trying to change what is light side vs dark side. I'm just arguing that they aren't really good & evil respectively.

*sigh*

You guys are really insisting on keeping up the Star Wars debate.

Fine.

No. Force Lightning is far more evil. Why? Refusing to mercy kill isn't evil. It's neutral at best.

Force Lightning is consciously creating an imbalance in the source of all life and actively perverting the source of all life by making it actively kill itself.

By growing this imbalance they also risk one day killing all life. So yeah, letting one whiney child murderer scream for the few seconds of life he has left after suffering a fatal wound is much smaller on the evil scale.


thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Anyway... Back on topic.

Evil in Pathfinder is measurable. We know certain spells are evil. We may not know why, but we know they are.

The nay sayers who refuse to accept that without an in depth Paizo explanation are frankly out of order. We know it's Evil, why isn't really important.

This isn't an in-universe opinion it is an in-universe fact.

In universe it's evil. I certainly haven't disputed that. The only thing I suggest is that EVIL by the book is not analogous to evil in reality. It kind of seems like you get the conclusion before you get the premise, and it seems to me personally as a kind of Cartesian circle.

If you want me to agree that casting an Infernal Healing spell in reality isn't evil, I'll happily go along.

It'd be delusional, but not evil.
It's weird that you can respond to my post without acknowledging it's contents. The world from your perspective must be interesting.

Back to that talking past each other thing. :)

I consider my response relevant because the parts of the PF alignment system that really break are ones dealing with magic - spells or creatures, which don't exist in the real world so the analogy breaks down.

It a good thing I'm not making an analogy then. Spells and magic effects upon the nature and prevalence of evil or good changes how you look at those terms. If those effects are acknowledged(which they are. Everyone agrees that spells with the evil subtype are evil by the rules), then we need to redefine what evil means. If you need to redefine a word, then you have changed what the word means

In my opinion, that is a reasonable conclusion given the argument.


Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Anyway... Back on topic.

Evil in Pathfinder is measurable. We know certain spells are evil. We may not know why, but we know they are.

The nay sayers who refuse to accept that without an in depth Paizo explanation are frankly out of order. We know it's Evil, why isn't really important.

This isn't an in-universe opinion it is an in-universe fact.

In universe it's evil. I certainly haven't disputed that. The only thing I suggest is that EVIL by the book is not analogous to evil in reality. It kind of seems like you get the conclusion before you get the premise, and it seems to me personally as a kind of Cartesian circle.

If you want me to agree that casting an Infernal Healing spell in reality isn't evil, I'll happily go along.

It'd be delusional, but not evil.
It's weird that you can respond to my post without acknowledging it's contents. The world from your perspective must be interesting.

Back to that talking past each other thing. :)

I consider my response relevant because the parts of the PF alignment system that really break are ones dealing with magic - spells or creatures, which don't exist in the real world so the analogy breaks down.

It a good thing I'm not making an analogy then. Spells and magic effects upon the nature and prevalence of evil or good changes how you look at those terms. If those effects are acknowledged(which they are. Everyone agrees that spells with the evil subtype are evil by the rules), then we need to redefine what evil means. If you need to redefine a word, then you have changed what the word means

In my opinion, that is a reasonable conclusion given the argument.

Well, you did say "analogous".

And yes, I guess we need to redefine what evil means: only to the extent we need to deal with these non-real world things. Generally in doing so, they've looked at the way cultures that believed in magic and undead and demons and the like thought about evil.


thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Anyway... Back on topic.

Evil in Pathfinder is measurable. We know certain spells are evil. We may not know why, but we know they are.

The nay sayers who refuse to accept that without an in depth Paizo explanation are frankly out of order. We know it's Evil, why isn't really important.

This isn't an in-universe opinion it is an in-universe fact.

In universe it's evil. I certainly haven't disputed that. The only thing I suggest is that EVIL by the book is not analogous to evil in reality. It kind of seems like you get the conclusion before you get the premise, and it seems to me personally as a kind of Cartesian circle.

If you want me to agree that casting an Infernal Healing spell in reality isn't evil, I'll happily go along.

It'd be delusional, but not evil.
It's weird that you can respond to my post without acknowledging it's contents. The world from your perspective must be interesting.

Back to that talking past each other thing. :)

I consider my response relevant because the parts of the PF alignment system that really break are ones dealing with magic - spells or creatures, which don't exist in the real world so the analogy breaks down.

It a good thing I'm not making an analogy then. Spells and magic effects upon the nature and prevalence of evil or good changes how you look at those terms. If those effects are acknowledged(which they are. Everyone agrees that spells with the evil subtype are evil by the rules), then we need to redefine what evil means. If you need to redefine a word, then you have changed what the word means

In my opinion, that is a reasonable conclusion given the argument.

Well, you did say "analogous".

And yes, I guess we need to redefine what evil means: only to the extent we need to deal with these non-real world things. Generally in doing so, they've looked at the way cultures that believed in magic and...

Yeah, I did say analogous. I feel like the 'is not' in front of it is key.


HWalsh wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:


I'm arguing that it was just as evil of an act as using force lightning.

I'm not trying to change what is light side vs dark side. I'm just arguing that they aren't really good & evil respectively.

*sigh*

You guys are really insisting on keeping up the Star Wars debate.

Fine.

No. Force Lightning is far more evil. Why? Refusing to mercy kill isn't evil. It's neutral at best.

Force Lightning is consciously creating an imbalance in the source of all life and actively perverting the source of all life by making it actively kill itself.

By growing this imbalance they also risk one day killing all life. So yeah, letting one whiney child murderer scream for the few seconds of life he has left after suffering a fatal wound is much smaller on the evil scale.

What canon source are you quoting here?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am glad we can have this conversation on the morality issues presented by the Star Wars prequel trilogy. As a follow-up question, what type of action was it when the Jedi rescued Jar-Jar Binks from being crushed in the first movie?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I am glad we can have this conversation on the morality issues presented by the Star Wars prequel trilogy. As a follow-up question, what type of action was it when the Jedi rescued Jar-Jar Binks from being crushed in the first movie?

Evil, obviously.

They could have spared the world from more Jar-Jar.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:


Plasma swords can be used to kill cleanly. Force Lightening, if I recall correctly, specifically targets nerve endings to make the subject feel excruciating pain.
And yet Obi Wan didn't go to the dark side when he cut off Anakin's arm, chopped off his legs, and left him to slowly burn to death next to lava, obviously screaming in agony?
Did he enjoy doing it? Was he the aggressor?

Okay - but how is that any different from using force lightning to defend yourself?

Using force lightning to defend yourself is more akin to deliberately choosing the most savage and brutal response to a situation when other means surfice. You can not calmly defend yourself with Force Lightning, it needs to be triggered by rage. No matter why you're using it, you're traveling the path to the Dark side because of this.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I am glad we can have this conversation on the morality issues presented by the Star Wars prequel trilogy. As a follow-up question, what type of action was it when the Jedi rescued Jar-Jar Binks from being crushed in the first movie?

A predestined step on the road to failure.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:


Plasma swords can be used to kill cleanly. Force Lightening, if I recall correctly, specifically targets nerve endings to make the subject feel excruciating pain.
And yet Obi Wan didn't go to the dark side when he cut off Anakin's arm, chopped off his legs, and left him to slowly burn to death next to lava, obviously screaming in agony?
Did he enjoy doing it? Was he the aggressor?

Okay - but how is that any different from using force lightning to defend yourself?

Using force lightning to defend yourself is more akin to deliberately choosing the most savage and brutal response to a situation when other means surfice. You can not calmly defend yourself with Force Lightning, it needs to be triggered by rage. No matter why you're using it, you're traveling the path to the Dark side because of this.

Savage and brutal? I don't know about that. I've seen people force choked to death, and I've seen people cut in half with a lightsaber, but I've never seen anyone actually die from force lightning. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:


Plasma swords can be used to kill cleanly. Force Lightening, if I recall correctly, specifically targets nerve endings to make the subject feel excruciating pain.
And yet Obi Wan didn't go to the dark side when he cut off Anakin's arm, chopped off his legs, and left him to slowly burn to death next to lava, obviously screaming in agony?
Did he enjoy doing it? Was he the aggressor?

Okay - but how is that any different from using force lightning to defend yourself?

Using force lightning to defend yourself is more akin to deliberately choosing the most savage and brutal response to a situation when other means surfice. You can not calmly defend yourself with Force Lightning, it needs to be triggered by rage. No matter why you're using it, you're traveling the path to the Dark side because of this.
Savage and brutal? I don't know about that. I've seen people force choked to death, and I've seen people cut in half with a lightsaber, but I've never seen anyone actually die from force lightning. :P

You're asking me to put logic and sense into a mythos George Lucas cooked up. You have to give me some slack here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:


Savage and brutal? I don't know about that. I've seen people force choked to death, and I've seen people cut in half with a lightsaber, but I've never seen anyone actually die from force lightning. :P

Yeah we have. Clone Wars.

We have also seen this in the novels as well. We have also seen, in the novels, the medical work that needs to be done after being subjected to Force Lightning. Its not electricity.

Even days after being hit by it you have to be in surgery or you could die from it. Luke nearly died after he got back from the Force Lightning he took. It is a violent, rage-fueled, torturous, death.

Regardless, can we please go back to Pathfinder?


I never watched Clone Wars. I don't think I read any of the novels after Splinter of the Mind's Eye.

Regardless, how's this for a compromise: if you were running a Pathfinder/d20 Star wars mash-up, would you have alignment requirements beyond the light side/dark side mechanics for Jedi classes?


Hitdice wrote:

I never watched Clone Wars. I don't think I read any of the novels after Splinter of the Mind's Eye.

Regardless, how's this for a compromise: if you were running a Pathfinder/d20 Star wars mash-up, would you have alignment requirements beyond the light side/dark side mechanics for Jedi classes?

Sort of.

Supposing if I were to run Star Wars using the Pathfinder system, there would be a Dark Side score.

For any character who was Force Sensitive if their Dark Side score were ever higher than their Wisdom Score they fall to the Dark Side. This instantly changes them to an Evil Alignment (Lawful Good/Neutral becomes Lawful Evil, Neutral Good/True Neutral becomes Neutral Evil, Chaotic Good/Neutral becomes Chaotic Evil) any attempt to act in discord with the "evil" aspect of their Alignment would have to make a Will Save DC 5 + Dark Side score. Other characters may aid this roll.

It would be possible, eventually to become irredeemably evil.

Evil Acts = +1 Dark Side point.

But regardless, can we please return this to focus on Golarion. I understand, people are doing this at this point because the discussion of alignment and this kind of conversation go hand in hand.

However...

This thread was specifically about the reasons why people choose to argue with the specific incidents where the rules hard call out something is evil (and/or dishonorable). This isn't a discussion for, "What is evil?"

That is a whole different can of worms.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I've gotta go to work so I'll try to make this short.

The moment protection from... makes someone more that alignment is the moment I stop caring about alignment. At this point, the alignment on my character sheet is as pointless as whether or not my character chose to wear blue or orange today.

At which point, it just won't matter. I'll go ahead and save that dying child, because that's the right thing to do. I won't care if it means that eventually my alignment reads "Neutral Evil" on my sheet because the good actions are never weighed against the evil actions by many people, because it doesn't matter.

All that matters, to me, is that my character is altruistic, protective of life, and concerned for others, and avoids hurting, oppressing, and killing whenever possible. If my character is going to go to Hell because she went around casting infernal healing on people, so be it. She's only all the more altruistic for damning her own soul to save others, and thus more heroic to me.

If alignment doesn't matter, then I cease to care what alignment I have and just do whatever anyway.


HWalsh wrote:


This thread was specifically about the reasons why people choose to argue with the specific incidents where the rules hard call out something is evil (and/or dishonorable).

I just realised I posted my reasons why specifically evil spells making you evil is nonsense in another thread, not this one. It was about the same time. I suspect you all already have the gist of my opinion, but anyway with a quick copy/paste

Me wrote:

So [evil] spells are inherently evil. Casting evil spells slowly increases the amount of evil in the world (or however you fluff it), so the very act of casting them is evil, no matter what your intent is, or how you use the effect. It doesn't have to be a major change, but eventually it will change your alignment. Fine in and of itself.

The logical extension to that is that using [good] spells is inherently good. no matter what your intent or how you use them you are adding to the good in the world. Doing something for personal gain that does not harm another is the very essence of neutral, it cannot be evil by any definition of the word. So spamming magic circle against evil for your own benefit is ultimately inherently good and cannot be nullified or reduced by a neutral act without some pretty tortuous reasoning, therefore it is eventually going to make you actually good.

And that does not sit right with me, nor does treating [evil] spells differently to [good] spells. So I'm left with the heartfelt belief that alignment tags are a purely rules function, and tying them to acts of alignment is nonsense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaladin the Radiant wrote:

I'm also not seeing the source of "all morality in Golarion is absolute". Spells and such? Yeah, I rationalize that as, as mentioned, the magic being powered by supernatural force tied to that alignment. But that doesn't mean all morality is absolute, even in the setting. Summoning lantern archons is Good because you're drawing on Good energy and power, which would presumably affect the state of one's soul. Whether to forgive the orphan kid who stole bread from you, that's still not involving supernatural forces of any kind, at least not by default, so I see no reason there should be some arbitrary line in the sand making some choices 100% good and others 100% evil.

Anyone got a source for there being ONLY objective morality in Golarion, not just that evil spells are evil and praying to evil deities is evil? (Or the reverse, of course.)

Whether supernatural forces are involved doesnt matter.

All morality in Golarion is objective because "Detect Evil" works, and works consistently across different worldviews. A Drow who spends his whole life murdering and plotting against his fellows detects as evil, even though in his society that would be considered neutral, even to other members of his race, even to things much more evil than him, and even if he might only be doing it to survive.

More pertinent, a Kobold warrior who spends his whole life raiding gnome villages and killing them is evil, even though his society says gnomes are evil and killing them is ridding the world of the sneaky savages. He thinks of himself as good, but he still detects as evil.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


Savage and brutal? I don't know about that. I've seen people force choked to death, and I've seen people cut in half with a lightsaber, but I've never seen anyone actually die from force lightning. :P

Yeah we have. Clone Wars.

We have also seen this in the novels as well. We have also seen, in the novels, the medical work that needs to be done after being subjected to Force Lightning. Its not electricity.

Even days after being hit by it you have to be in surgery or you could die from it. Luke nearly died after he got back from the Force Lightning he took. It is a violent, rage-fueled, torturous, death.

Well, apparently according to the novels there is a suspiciously identical seeming Force Lightning that ISN'T evil, so...

Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Berinor wrote:
Would you have a problem with a brief writeup of a deity that said "Paroz - LE - Domains: Fire, Sun, Community, Law"? I'm not told why he's evil and there's no reason that those domains are associated with evil.

Just an aside, but if my understanding's correct, Pathfinder's deities always have whatever alignment domains are tied to their actual alignment. If Paroz is truly Lawful Evil, then he'll have both Evil and Law as domains by default, and then two other domains reflective of the rest of his portfolio. If he doesn't have Evil as a domain, he's not wicked enough for his alignment to register as evil, much like how Abadar can tolerate such repugnant practices as slavery and ghettos, but isn't an Evil god the same way Asmodeus is. The Divine Source mythic ability specifically requires the first domains you pick be the ones matching you're alignment, unless you're Neutral one one or both spectrums


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

I've gotta go to work so I'll try to make this short.

The moment protection from... makes someone more that alignment is the moment I stop caring about alignment. At this point, the alignment on my character sheet is as pointless as whether or not my character chose to wear blue or orange today.

At which point, it just won't matter. I'll go ahead and save that dying child, because that's the right thing to do. I won't care if it means that eventually my alignment reads "Neutral Evil" on my sheet because the good actions are never weighed against the evil actions by many people, because it doesn't matter.

All that matters, to me, is that my character is altruistic, protective of life, and concerned for others, and avoids hurting, oppressing, and killing whenever possible. If my character is going to go to Hell because she went around casting infernal healing on people, so be it. She's only all the more altruistic for damning her own soul to save others, and thus more heroic to me.

If alignment doesn't matter, then I cease to care what alignment I have and just do whatever anyway.

In that case though your character is acting, pretty much, either amorally or they are acting out of ignorance.

They *know* the spell is evil but *do not know* why the spell is evil. Namely they don't know what the spell might be doing that they don't know about, also known as, they don't know the reason the spell is evil.

This could be out of hubris, for example, "I don't see why it's evil so I am going to do it anyway! I do what I want!"

Then, of course, if the backlash of... What does that character do once they find out that the spell does something horribly bad? Namely that it causes people to die, or that it somehow bolsters the forces of evil in a way not previously known. Do they sit back and go, "Ho-hum, I didn't know. Tee hee. I guess I'll stop now."

(Which wouldn't work because the comeback response would be, "You knew the spell was evil when you cast it, people tried to tell you it was evil, and you kept doing it anyway you monster.")

Or do they have a crisis?

Me... If I found out that I had been hurting people my whole life because I refused to pay attention to facts... I'd be in a bad place.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

In that case though your character is acting, pretty much, either amorally or they are acting out of ignorance.

They *know* the spell is evil but *do not know* why the spell is evil. Namely they don't know what the spell might be doing that they don't know about, also known as, they don't know the reason the spell is evil.

This could be out of hubris, for example, "I don't see why it's evil so I am going to do it anyway! I do what I want!"

False on pretty much all accounts. She's acting very morally, and she does in fact know why the spell is evil. Because like all evil aligned spells it is either using the raw essence of evil to repel its opposite, or it is calling or deriving power from a creature that is from an evil-aligned plane.

Also, she is by definition, acting very moral. In fact, she is not willing to compromise on her morals.

Quote:

Then, of course, if the backlash of... What does that character do once they find out that the spell does something horribly bad? Namely that it causes people to die, or that it somehow bolsters the forces of evil in a way not previously known. Do they sit back and go, "Ho-hum, I didn't know. Tee hee. I guess I'll stop now."

(Which wouldn't work because the comeback response would be, "You knew the spell was evil when you cast it, people tried to tell you it was evil, and you kept doing it anyway you monster.")

Or do they have a crisis?

Except that the spell doesn't do anything except what it says it does. That's how magic works. You can't judge others, players or otherwise, for stuff you made up, or nebulous maybes and what-ifs. Don't be dumb.

That's about as valid as if I ran out and told two guys they can't be kissing each other because "You don't know what sort of things this will bring about, and even though I have no evidence for it, what you're doing is wrong because it doesn't fit my head-cannon".

There's nothing that verifies the claim that casting protection from law somehow empowers the forces of chaos, or casting magic circle against evil to trap an elemental means an angel somewhere gets its wings. So...that's a dumb argument.

Quote:
Me... If I found out that I had been hurting people my whole life because I refused to pay attention to facts... I'd be in a bad place.

Fact? I don't think that word means what you think it means.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

In that case though your character is acting, pretty much, either amorally or they are acting out of ignorance.

They *know* the spell is evil but *do not know* why the spell is evil. Namely they don't know what the spell might be doing that they don't know about, also known as, they don't know the reason the spell is evil.

This could be out of hubris, for example, "I don't see why it's evil so I am going to do it anyway! I do what I want!"

False on pretty much all accounts. She's acting very morally, and she does in fact know why the spell is evil. Because like all evil aligned spells it is either using the raw essence of evil to repel its opposite, or it is calling or deriving power from a creature that is from an evil-aligned plane.

Also, she is by definition, acting very moral. In fact, she is not willing to compromise on her morals.

Quote:

Then, of course, if the backlash of... What does that character do once they find out that the spell does something horribly bad? Namely that it causes people to die, or that it somehow bolsters the forces of evil in a way not previously known. Do they sit back and go, "Ho-hum, I didn't know. Tee hee. I guess I'll stop now."

(Which wouldn't work because the comeback response would be, "You knew the spell was evil when you cast it, people tried to tell you it was evil, and you kept doing it anyway you monster.")

Or do they have a crisis?

Except that the spell doesn't do anything except what it says it does. That's how magic works. You can't judge others, players or otherwise, for stuff you made up, or nebulous maybes and what-ifs. Don't be dumb.

That's about as valid as if I ran out and told two guys they can't be kissing each other because "You don't know what sort of things this will bring about, and even though I have no evidence for it, what you're doing is wrong because it doesn't fit my head-cannon".

There's nothing that verifies the claim that casting protection from law somehow empowers the...

Not really. Remember Paizo can, and has, done retcons in the past. Heck evil spells actually changing your alignment is a retcon. In the end, the character willingly did evil, knowing it was evil, and still kept doing it.

So yeah, I can judge someone for that, that, by definition, is not good.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Not really. Remember Paizo can, and has, done retcons in the past. Heck evil spells actually changing your alignment is a retcon. In the end, the character willingly did evil, knowing it was evil, and still kept doing it.

Yes, because my point was that it doesn't matter anymore. It's blue vs orange. I don't care about blue or orange. So the character will just continue to follow their moral compass and the alignment on their character sheet can just fall where it may, because it matters less than the clothes she chooses to wear.

Further, basing morality on unknowns and/or future retcons is dumb, because until anything actually surfaces that supports it, it's all hypothetical. It's as fruitless as saying something stupid like "Eating cheese will destroy the world, and while I cannot prove that it will destroy the world, it might one day in the future, and if it does, it will be your fault, because you ate cheese willingly while there was no evidence".

It's that dumb.

Quote:
So yeah, I can judge someone for that, that, by definition, is not good.

You can judge anyone how you like. I just won't care because I've no reason to care about your judgments, since I only care about the opinions of the reasoned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Quote:
So yeah, I can judge someone for that, that, by definition, is not good.
You can judge anyone how you like. I just won't care because I've no reason to care about your judgments, since I only care about the opinions of the reasoned.

That word: "Reasoned" You don't know what that word means.

My *reasoning* is simple:

We know the spell is evil.
We know casting the spell is an evil act.
If you routinely do evil acts then you are not good.
Ends don't justify the means as far as morality are concerned.

And, look, to be honest, you and I have been in morality threads before. I don't care about your opinions either to be honest because I don't think that you are a very reasoning person either.

If a character really wants to help heal people, they can learn to do that. Become a Cleric. Become a Collegiate Arcanist and learn Cure Light Wounds. Become a Paladin and Lay on Hands. We can go on and on and on, heck, learn UMD and get a level 1 wand.

But casting Evil spells just because you don't care if its evil or not, then arguing that your actions aren't evil, makes no sense. It doesn't make a character heroic to do so, especially if the character doesn't actually believe there is anything wrong in it and thus doing so should merit no punishment in the afterlife.

The idea that, "I cast Infernal Healing to help people and that is good!" Is nonsense when there are other ways to heal people. The argument, "Well I am a Wizard! This is the only way I can!" "Learn another way. There are tons of them.

Instead what you are really saying is: "I want to Heal People but can't be bothered to learn a non-evil way. So I will justify my actions because this way I don't have to give up any power to do so."

That isn't good. That isn't making a sacrifice to help people. That simply happens to be an easy thing that the character can do to help people by a character who doesn't care about morality anyway aside from their own definition of it.

Which is fine. That is a perfectly valid character. Good? Probably not. Neutral? Most likely. Evil? Eh, debatable, it depends what other spells they use often and what else they do.

If, for example, someone has to keep casting: "Protection from Good" that usually is an indication that they aren't doing a lot of good things. I haven't even seen Protection from Good cast in the last 10 or so Campaigns I have been in. I don't play evil characters so I rarely clash with good casters and/or beings.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Quote:
So yeah, I can judge someone for that, that, by definition, is not good.
You can judge anyone how you like. I just won't care because I've no reason to care about your judgments, since I only care about the opinions of the reasoned.

That word: "Reasoned" You don't know what that word means.

My *reasoning* is simple:

We know the spell is evil.
We know casting the spell is an evil act.
If you routinely do evil acts then you are not good.
Ends don't justify the means as far as morality are concerned.

Putting aside the ends and means argument, which is an argument unto itself (an argument I don't think the alignment rules supports you in either, since the alignment rules are quite clear on what is good and evil, and the only reason that killing orcs to save people is because the ends actually DO justify the means for Paladins to even exist), my contention with your response to my post was that you are claiming an authority based on...nothing.

That's it. Nothing. You're literally basing your argument on lots of "what ifs". Well, y'know, we can literally make any argument we like that way and try to justify it to ourselves and others. It's the same way that people can argue that gay people cause earthquakes and similar stupidity.

That's what I mean when I say it is unreasoned. It is, factually, no different than me saying that you shouldn't do *anything* because a *bad thing* might happen. You shouldn't give money to the poor, because it might make them a target for muggers. You shouldn't park under a tree, because an elephant might knock the tree down on the car. You shouldn't have a different moral standard than myself, or you'll end up in Hell.

Back it up, or don't. That much is simple.

Quote:

And, look, to be honest, you and I have been in morality threads before. I don't care about your opinions either to be honest because I don't think that you are a very reasoning person either.

If a character really wants to help heal people, they can learn to do that. Become a Cleric. Become a Collegiate Arcanist and learn Cure Light Wounds. Become a Paladin and Lay on Hands. We can go on and on and on, heck, learn UMD and get a level 1 wand.

But casting Evil spells just because you don't care if its evil or not, then arguing that your actions aren't evil, makes no sense. It doesn't make a character heroic to do so, especially if the character doesn't actually believe there is anything wrong in it and thus doing so should merit no punishment in the afterlife.

The idea that, "I cast Infernal Healing to help people and that is good!" Is nonsense when there are other ways to heal people. The argument, "Well I am a Wizard! This is the only way I can!" "Learn another way. There are tons of them.

Instead what you are really saying is: "I want to Heal People but can't be bothered to learn a non-evil way. So I will justify my actions because this way I don't have to give up any power to do so."

That isn't good. That isn't making a sacrifice to help people.

This is exactly why I said it doesn't matter. If the only reason it's evil is just because it is, then it doesn't matter. See, in the actual alignment rules, evil means hurting, oppressing, and killing things. Those are what it means to be evil, and if you're evil because of those things it's because you actually did something that defines you.

Because it means you routinely hurt people. And you oppress people. And you kill people. It says something, very strongly, about who you are as a person and your actions.

But if you're evil because you can cast infernal healing as one of your sorcerer spells, well...so what? I don't care. It wouldn't stop me from inviting you to my child's birthday party, or babysitting my children, playing D&D with you, or being your friend, or my holding you in esteem, or just generally viewing you as a great person. You might ping on detect evil checks but you aren't actually evil as far as I'm concerned because you're not out there hurting, oppressing, or killing.

In normal D&D, I tend to dislike evil characters because hurting, oppressing, and killing are pretty universally reviled things. Being evil means you are a bad person who does bad things. Not that you're simply acting like a normal person but wearing the wrong uniform.

For the same reason, I like good characters, because I respect and admire characters that are altruistic, protective of life, and concerned for others. Being good means you are a good person who does good things. Not that you're simply acting like a normal person but wearing the right uniform.

But, if it's just how many celestial badgers you can poop out in a day, or how many times you used magic circle against evil as the circle used to conjure an earth elemental, it's pointless. It has little to no narrative value to the character, and so I simply don't care.

"You're character is evil!
"Why?"
"Because she cast infernal healing a lot."
"Oh, okay."
"Doesn't that bother you?"
"No. Not really. Because if that's the reason, it doesn't matter."
"Why doesn't it matter?"
"Because she's still a good, heroic person, to me, and now she's also immune to unholy blight spam that the demons and devils she fights usually fry her with."


Also, as for whether or not someone would cast something like magic circle against good or anything upon a similar vein, I'd like to note that in the core rulebook you see things like Abyssal blooded sorcerers picking up spells like unholy aura as a bloodline power (which means they just get it because of their heritage, it's not a chosen spell).

Said spell...
Affects everyone in a 20 ft. radius around you (up to 1 target/level).
It applies a +4 bonus to AC and +4 bonus to saves against creatures of all alignments (not just vs good); so there's a reason to cast it right there and affect your whole party with it if possible. It also functions as a protection from good spell when it comes to blocking mind-control, and deals Strength damage to good creatures who attack you, and provides SR 25 vs good-aligned spells/creatures.

There's plenty of incentive to cast this spell frequently in combat, especially if your team has minions, animal companions, or whatever, because while a full heroic party may have maxed deflection/resistance gear, being able to drop a +4 AC/saves onto all your summoned monsters and/or secondary helpers is a good deal.

Similarly, a celestial blooded sorcerer is probably going to frequently employ magic circle against evil a lot since it's a spell they just get. Even if the sorcerer would otherwise be evil, this spell is likely to get lots and lots of use.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I see two contributing factors. The first is that players often seen [evil] in a spell discriptor and see it as a purely mechanical flair. They don't see it from an intended or character perspective where casting the spell requires calling on some dark god's power or crushing a baby bird to power it. Evil just make a spell seem darker, but not having a specific change to how it works for the player.

I think that the same thing can be said with poison. Players are often most interested in weapon poisons, things used in battle. However, the dishonor that we associate with poison has more to do with its history of being slipped into food and drink. Players see a difference between a battlefield weapon and something more subtle and sinister.

The other issue is that it forces a confrontation between a desired outcome and the morality involved in reaching it. People can and will justify their actions, and people rarely see themselves as the bad guys. For many people the ultimate arbiter of their actions is their own conscientious (which they can tell to shut up when it is convenient).

Consider pirating things online. Objectively, it is stealing, but people come up with all kinds of ways to justify it. Imagine, though, if before downloading something there was a popup sign from the websie that said "just so you know, this is moraly wrong no mater what you tell yourself." People would be pretty unhappy with that because it would force them to choose between the thing they wanted and what was objectively right. That is why people do not like [evil] spells.


Objectively, it is copyright infringement, depending on how you do it.


justicar347 wrote:


Consider pirating things online. Objectively, it is stealing, but people come up with all kinds of ways to justify it. Imagine, though, if before downloading something there was a popup sign from the websie that said "just so you know, this is moraly wrong no mater what you tell yourself." People would be pretty unhappy with that because it would force them to choose between the thing they wanted and what was objectively right. That is why people do not like [evil] spells.

This is a good answer (one of the few on-topic ones actually) and I agree. Me, personally, my good characters don't cast evil spells. They know those spells are evil, they may not understand precisely what the evil part actually is, but if it is evil then it is evil. It doesn't matter if I understand why, or, in a world like Golarion where evil is a fact and not an opinion, if I agree with it. Evil is evil and good people don't do evil things.

What flabberghasts me is why anyone would have a problem with not having a character who is Good. I play neutral characters, they generally are pretty open about it.

"I don't consider myself a good person, but I'm not a bad person either."

Meanwhile my good characters are Good.

It has been a very long time since I played an evil character (I don't find it fun) and usually, since in Pathfinder Evil and Good are quantifiable things, they understand that they are evil and usually they are okay with that. Why? Because they are ultimately selfish and could care less what other people think and at the end of the day so long as they are happy then that is all that matters to them.

I honestly thing, maybe, just maybe, this is some of the player projecting into/through the character. They don't think, "This is what my character is doing."

I'm disconnected. Gwyn, the Paladin of Iomedae, is much better of a person than I am. He is more moral, he has a stronger will, he can resist temptation on a level that I never will be able to. He's Lawful Good.

Would I like to be like Gwyn? Eh? Maybe? Gwyn is an awesome person, but his life is terrible. He's constantly getting hurt, giving stuff away, he doesn't own a home, he pretty much travels around putting himself in constant danger, most of the time refusing any rewards, all because its the right thing to do.

I'm more into some creature comforts. I like my computer, and I like relaxing, I like long showers. If I see someone broken down on the side of the road, I'm likely to pull over and offer help. I've never not pulled over anyway. I'll help someone, but if I am working on a personal project, I'm likely to say that I don't have the time to do so unless it is really important that my help is needed. Under Pathfinder rules, I'm probably not Good aligned, and that is okay. I'd probably be, what old 2nd Edition AD&D called Neutral (Good) (not to be confused with Neutral Good)


You can be both Neutral and still consider yourself Good, because human fallibility.

Of course, there is sanity in some of the unchained alignment rules. "Outsiders only" is probably the best thing, with some handwaving that you can ascend into having a outsider like alignment if you are really high level paladin/cleric.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
justicar347 wrote:
Consider pirating things online. Objectively, it is stealing, but people come up with all kinds of ways to justify it. Imagine, though, if before downloading something there was a popup sign from the websie that said "just so you know, this is moraly wrong no mater what you tell yourself." People would be pretty unhappy with that because it would force them to choose between the thing they wanted and what was objectively right. That is why people do not like [evil] spells.

Consider that a real argument can be made for pirating online to hurt people, and those that consider it not a moral issue primarily seem to think that harm doesn't exist.

However, the argument here is "it's evil", "why?", "because it is". Which means that even if it's true within the rules, it just doesn't matter to anyone who's actually concerned with the morality of their character rather than the title of their character's morality.

Hence, pointless.

The only way that a near rational argument can be made is to make up a series of what-ifs and speculations that basically aren't true, or at least there's no way of verifying they are true, and would be wholly subjective to the setting that was involved. You could make up a scenario where casting protection from evil gives an angel wings somewhere in the cosmos, or that casting infernal healing somehow strengthens the cosmic forces of evil in some nebulous and undefined way, but at that point it's "yeah, cool story bro" material.

It has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to use evil powers and justify it. The justification doesn't matter. Because of being evil doesn't really entail actually being evil, then why shouldn't I be evil? Either way I don't do any of the things I'd rather people not do, and I don't have to stop doing all the great things that I would, so the alignment doesn't matter. It just means you get to play a heroic goodguy while also getting to be a stronger alignment.

It's a win mechanically and narratively. Y'know what, in hindsight, this is great. A free pass against all spells your enemies are using for being the same heroically altruistic protective concerned character that you were always is just a strait buff. Here here, let's have it for blue & orange morality. :D

The Exchange

Hwalsh wrote:
We are discussing why people fight it. What about the idea of defined evil/dishonorable actions drives people to rebel against them.

There are two reasons, why I fight it:

1. I consider the D&D alignment system the most stupid thing ever invented in roleplaying history. There is way too much abstraction and details breaking my suspension of disbelief (see Ashiel's posts for some good examples) and no official interpretation or ruling has succeeded in making it playable for us. That brings us to the second point.

2. I'm european (or more specifically, german) and while I have a lot of respect and sympathy for my american friends, it seems that we have very different ideas about what is good and evil in the real world. That's part of the problem in so far as the D&D alignment system is very much influenced by the american view of things. I have yet to play in a D&D group where this didn't led to problems because someone had problems accepting at least part of the rules definition of alignment.

Quote:
What flabberghasts me is why anyone would have a problem with not having a character who is Good.

Because that's what I wanna be when playing roleplaying games. Even when playing an anti-hero it would basically come down to play someone with a heart of pure gold (just not showing it for whichever reason). That's even true when playing games where you're by definition a bad guy (Vampires, Shadowrun). I strive to be a good person in real life (and I fail often enough), so I can really do without the failing part when playing games.

So an alignment system telling me that I can't be good for reasons that would be considered as being good in real life, or worse, defines things as good I consider as evil? Just doesn't translate with me.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Aw geez Ashiel, guess you should've checked your sources before messing with us. Checkmate moralists

internal Hurlin wrote:

You anoint a wounded creature with devil’s blood or unholy water, giving it fast healing 1. This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor. The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic, though this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment.

Simultaneously, in space, this spell compels known space god Desna to squish 1d4 of her beautiful sentient butterflies. She must then make a Will save against the spell's DC, with an inherent -40 penalty on her roll, or cry for a number of minutes equal to the caster level. Spell Resistance does not apply. The butterfly may make a save for half damage, but it will still die, you bastard.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You want to know the real problem with Infernal Healing? They nerfed trolls specifically to make the whole "what damage can I heal, what damage can I not?" bookkeeping p-i-t-a unnecessary. And then they come out with this spell and force you to track damage from silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, and spells or effects with the good descriptor. Like, what was the point, then? Poor trolls.

"Hey, don't worry, let me heal you up."
"Don't bother! This wound is from a silver blade."
"Really? I thought our cleric already healed that."
"No, I think he healed the burns I got from the dragon. Crap, I dunno..."
"Hey, guys! Quit arguing about that and come and save this bleeding orphan!"
"Can't do that. Sorry, Dave. I'm pretty sure that's an evil act or something? Why is this s&%# always happening to orphans, anyways?"
" . . . now that I think of it, I think this bite is from that Celestial Dire Rat the elf summoned. Can you heal that? Does that count?"

And before you think you're all clever: Celestial template doesn't cause your attacks to be treated as Good. Summoned Monsters remain a loophole.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You seem to be having an inflamed alignment debate thread. Do you need help with that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aah! Kill it! Kill it with silver, good-aligned weapons, or spells/effects with the good descriptor!

451 to 500 of 904 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Why Is Evil Being Good So Important To Some People... All Messageboards