|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An Angel comes across a Devil having tea doing nothing, and the Angel has never met or heard of said Devil before, the Angel isn't going to murder them just because they exist.
Challenge them to a duel maybe, or get into a philosophical debate.
Agree completely. In reversed roles, the devil might attack the angel while it was busy pooring tea, but that's because the devil doesn't mind being evil.
"What's the point of defeating evil if you become evil, yourself, in the process?"
|
An Angel comes across a Devil having tea doing nothing, and the Angel has never met or heard of said Devil before, the Angel isn't going to murder them just because they exist.
Challenge them to a duel maybe, or get into a philosophical debate.
Agree completely. In reversed roles, the devil might attack the angel while it was busy pooring tea, but that's because the devil doesn't mind being evil.
"What's the point of defeating evil if you become evil, yourself, in the process?"
*nods*
|
You can't just ignore speed though. IH does slightly less than double CL1 CLW's average healing, but it takes ten times longer to do so. If it was priced like a wand of CMW it'd be strictly inferior, because CMW does more average healing and does it instantly.
I'm not ignoring the speed at all, but rather I count it just as much an advantage as a disadvantage.
Infernal Healing is usable (without UMD) by a lot more classes, and also has the advantage of being healing of (a short) time rather than all at once. That means that if you are continuing to take damage, there is less chance that a portion of the healing will wasted.
The thing to keep in mind, though, is that with CLW, you can very easily roll a 1, and for in combat, on the spot I need healing, that that means that CLW does 1 more point of healing that round, (but no more). In combat, I generally see IH used preemptively, and usually by classes that have a pet that is already kind of breaking the action economy anyway.
Generally speaking though, in my experience, both are more likely to be used outside of combat, and the time factor really isn't even an issue.
|
|
Sounds like we agree then, Wands of IH should be oriced accordling to a CL 5 Wand of CLW or a Wand of CMW.Your logic is missing the fact that CLW will heal 1d8+5 by 5 which heals 6 min and 13 max. CMW will cure 2d8+5; 7 for sure and up to 21. Where IH will only heal 10. That makes CMW much better in combat, better out of combat(unless you have a decent amount of time between combats). CLW is much better in combat and about even out of combat. CMW continues to get better by CL. IH does not get better... so where is IH better? Except for out of combat 3rd level and below.
Don't forget IH is also a full round cast, as opposed to a standard.
I definitely don't agree with that. The spell is balanced as a first level spell in the fact that it doesn't get better and the other options do. And that it is a full round spell. There is nothing wrong with the power of IH.
|
|
What am I supposed to be seeing then? Since you seem to be arguing against every reason for the spell to be evil in the first place.
I'm not arguing against it being evil at all. I was only saying some of the evidence given was poor evidence. So, evidently you are seeing something to argue against when it isn't there.
Uh, yes, yes there is. The same with CDGing something to make sure it stays down vs desecrating the corpse.
I think you're mixing up subjective and objective morality as it applies to the PF universe.
That pulley analogy is completely disingenuous and pointless to a topic of material components needed for spells.
Magical crutches? Not really the right term since Eschew Materials only does so much, and Metamgic lets you get around them for a bit but no, they are far from removable. If anything those abilities are for you to get around your crutches, not the spells.
It is not disingenuous. It is actually quite apt. The material component is a tool. An elevator is a tool. Just as a crutch is a tool. Eschew Materials does away with certain materials, False Focus does more and other options can be rid of even costlier materials. Including a feat that allows Raise Dead for free. The component is a crutch in that it HELPS the caster cast the spell. But the spell can be cast without the component. Though, for balance reasons, costly components are usually not removable without some other price. I don't know why you are so focused on components being some form of magical battery, but I'd be interested in a single line that actually gives you a reason to believe so.
Evil Spells wrote:
This section includes a large number of evil spells. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn’t enough to change her alignment; this only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period. A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won’t turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely alignment will change. Some spells require sacrificing a sentient creature, a major evil act that makes the caster evil in almost every circumstance.
Those who are forbidden from casting spells with an opposed alignment might lose their divine abilities if they circumvent that restriction (via Use Magic Device, for example), depending on how strict their deities are.
Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors
I'd say Summoning a Fiend falls under an "abhorrent act" as opposed to a simple protection from evil spell.
You say. But the game doesn't agree with you overtly. You should recognize the disconnect between your thoughts and what exists as fact in the game. That would give your points more potency. And also, even if summoning an evil outside was an abhorent act in game, as you say, but that would say nothing about the spells evil tag or whether or not an evil spell is more evil than a good spell is good.
I definitely don't agree with that. The spell is balanced as a first level spell in the fact that it doesn't get better and the other options do. And that it is a full round spell. There is nothing wrong with the power of IF.Sounds like we agree then, Wands of IH should be oriced accordling to a CL 5 Wand of CLW or a Wand of CMW.Your logic is missing the fact that CLW will heal 1d8+5 by 5 which heals 6 min and 13 max. CMW will cure 2d8+5; 7 for sure and up to 21. Where IH will only heal 10. That makes CMW much better in combat, better out of combat(unless you have a decent amount of time between combats). CLW is much better in combat and about even out of combat. CMW continues to get better by CL. IH does not get better... so where is IH better? Except for out of combat 3rd level and below.
Don't forget IH is also a full round cast, as opposed to a standard.
The average healing of Infernal Healing is 10 at first level. For CLW it starts from being 5.5 at first level to 10.5 at fifth.
There are some class archetypes, such as Life Oracle that can really jazz up CLW at high levels.
|
|
I definitely don't agree with that. The spell is balanced as a first level spell in the fact that it doesn't get better and the other options do. And that it is a full round spell. There is nothing wrong with the power of IF.Sounds like we agree then, Wands of IH should be oriced accordling to a CL 5 Wand of CLW or a Wand of CMW.Your logic is missing the fact that CLW will heal 1d8+5 by 5 which heals 6 min and 13 max. CMW will cure 2d8+5; 7 for sure and up to 21. Where IH will only heal 10. That makes CMW much better in combat, better out of combat(unless you have a decent amount of time between combats). CLW is much better in combat and about even out of combat. CMW continues to get better by CL. IH does not get better... so where is IH better? Except for out of combat 3rd level and below.
Don't forget IH is also a full round cast, as opposed to a standard.
The average healing of Infernal Healing is 10 at first level. For CLW it starts from being 5.5 at first level to 10.5 at fifth.
There are some class archetypes, such as Life Oracle that can really jazz up CLW at high levels.
Things I reviewed in my analysis. Time it takes to cast(this affects whether you can move and draw the wand and cast in the same turn). Magnitude of the effect divided by the time it takes to achieve that effect. Usefulness in and out of combat. Abilities which can increase the effect. Targets that can be affected. Usefulness as an attack(needed because CLW can be used to fight haunts and undead).
Add all that up, and CLW is the better option except for healing between fights... at level 1. It is just as good at this task at CL5, and it is superior in every other category at CL1.
|
|
I'm not arguing against it being evil at all. I was only saying some of the evidence given was poor evidence. So, evidently you are seeing something to argue against when it isn't there.
You've argued about all the evidence though.
I think you're mixing up subjective and objective morality as it applies to the PF universe.
Perhaps, but there are plenty of things in Pathfinder that falls under Objective. Intentionally annointing someone with Fiend's blood I believe would fall under that.
It is not disingenuous. It is actually quite apt. The material component is a tool. An elevator is a tool. Just as a crutch is a tool. Eschew Materials does away with certain materials, False Focus does more and other options can be rid of even costlier materials. Including a feat that allows Raise Dead for free. The component is a crutch in that it HELPS the caster cast the spell. But the spell can be cast without the component. Though, for balance reasons, costly components are usually not removable without some other price. I don't know why you are so focused on components being some form of magical battery, but I'd be interested in a single line that actually gives you a reason to believe so.
It's as much a tool as the keys to your car, or the gas and the oil. Unless you take feats to get around them they don't just help, they are required. You think the items are crutches while I think they're "batteries", even if they are crutches, how does that diminish what they are? Devil's Blood and Unholy Water are, quite literally, liquid evil. How does using them to cast a spell make them anything but?
You say. But the game doesn't agree with you overtly. You should recognize the disconnect between your thoughts and what exists as fact in the game. That would give your points more potency. And also, even if summoning an evil outside was an abhorent act in game, as you say, but that would say nothing about the spells evil tag or whether or not an evil spell is more evil than a good spell is good.
It agrees with me enough. It also gives GM room to adjudicate as they see fit.
Certain spells would it be hard to tell how strongly aligned they? Certainly. But others are obvious. Saying that using a little bit of planar energy is the same magnitude as summoning an outsider composed of said energy is nonsense. And the sidebar and the developers acknowledges this.
|
|
...Personally, I'm starting to think it might be better off to remove, (at least from PFS) the Wand of Infernal Healing entirely.
As a flavor item (the spell), it actually fails very hard because there is no actual penalty/downside/repercussions for using it. That is, it doesn't actually cause anyone to become more evil or tempt anyone towards anything.
It tends to be better off that Cure Light Wounds in most cases, healing more in most cases, and not requiring a roll for effectiveness. I personally also see the overabundance of healing in the game as a very bad thing all around.
It really should be balanced against CLW, or even CMW, and in many cases, I think it blows the Cure spells out of the water.
* Effective against a greater range of targets, so you don't have to worry about accidentally harming an ally you didn't know was allergic to Positive Energy
* Accessible by a much, much wider range or casters
* Is outright a better/more efficient at party healing (wand or spell form) <the one real exception is for in combat critical healing, but even then Cure spells are risky and my very well be the worse option>Even comparing it to Celestial Healing, it is just hands down the better, mechanically speaking, option, and I really feel that at the very least, these two spells should at least have pros and cons against each other, and flavor isn't enough to off set this.
If folks, especially in PFS are so build dependent on having free access to a Wand of Infernal Healing, then honestly that sounds like a very good reasoning to show that it is just way too good.
As far as Infernal Healing, and other Evil (or even questionably dark) magic turning you evil, I really don't see any issues with it, and kind of wish they would enforce that even more. Especially in PFS, (I know, a lot of paperwork) where it breaks the mood to hear players and characters talk about using Evil (or Evil-like) options willy-nilly and then expecting no one else to have an issue with that, or
Actually by PFS rules it would just make you spend more coins or prestige on Indulgences.
Someone could be altruistic selfless and kind while thinking its okay to cast evil spells. Maybe my character isn't concerned with the overarching constructs of "Good" and "Evil", he just wants to help people and sees that these particular spells will do that.
You have detached the spell from its context.
The [evil] tag is not a feeling, it is not currency. People who want to help people do not have access to this spell because they personally know it has [evil] tag on it and feel being evil by using it.The real reason because the scenario where people get the access to Infernal Healing involves selfish and evil culture. The reason to use the spell needs to have selfish motivations, that is what the [evil] tag is trying to say.
Consider this. Cure Light Wounds and Inflict Light Wounds are not tagged by any alignment. Why do they not have alignment tags? Because they are common place spells, they do not have an specific personal culture attached to them. You are allowed to use Inflict Light Wounds as a good character, because there is no implied context.
I also understand people wanting to rebel against this "implied context", but I think that is silly when the material in question comes from setting books.
They may start out as that, as Saethori pointed out, but they don't stay that way. They definitely don't stay Good, which is what altruisitc, selfless, and kind tend to encompass.
Well, that mostly depends on how many counterbalancing good acts they perform in between casts. It's only if they cast it multiple times in succession that they're likely to run into the issue of suddenly wanting to burn down an orphanage instead of donating to it.
|
|
They may start out as that, as Saethori pointed out, but they don't stay that way. They definitely don't stay Good, which is what altruisitc, selfless, and kind tend to encompass.Well, that mostly depends on how many counterbalancing good acts they perform in between casts. It's only if they cast it multiple times in succession that they're likely to run into the issue of suddenly wanting to burn down an orphanage instead of donating to it.
*nods*
|
|
Which is why if you want to maintain a Good alignment you should regularly casting of Protection From Evil or Celestial Healing to counterbalance it.They may start out as that, as Saethori pointed out, but they don't stay that way. They definitely don't stay Good, which is what altruisitc, selfless, and kind tend to encompass.Well, that mostly depends on how many counterbalancing good acts they perform in between casts. It's only if they cast it multiple times in succession that they're likely to run into the issue of suddenly wanting to burn down an orphanage instead of donating to it.
That would leave you Neutral, not good. Or if you cast too many you'd probably stop casting the other as you settled into your new Alignemnt.
|
|
Someone could be altruistic selfless and kind while thinking its okay to cast evil spells. Maybe my character isn't concerned with the overarching constructs of "Good" and "Evil", he just wants to help people and sees that these particular spells will do that.You have detached the spell from its context.
The [evil] tag is not a feeling, it is not currency. People who want to help people do not have access to this spell because they personally know it has [evil] tag on it and feel being evil by using it.The real reason because the scenario where people get the access to Infernal Healing involves selfish and evil culture. The reason to use the spell needs to have selfish motivations, that is what the [evil] tag is trying to say.
Consider this. Cure Light Wounds and Inflict Light Wounds are not tagged by any alignment. Why do they not have alignment tags? Because they are common place spells, they do not have an specific personal culture attached to them. You are allowed to use Inflict Light Wounds as a good character, because there is no implied context.
I also understand people wanting to rebel against this "implied context", but I think that is silly when the material in question comes from setting books.
Thats objectively not true per Horror Adventures. People can use evil spells for good reasons. It even lists that as a grey area morally.
So no, you don't have to have selfish reasons.
You probably have selfish reasons if picked those Evil Spells over others.
And just because you have a Pet the Dog moment doesn't make you Good.
|
|
I can control what spells my character casts, so no I won't stop casting Evil spells. I will just case enough Good spells to maintain my alignment.That would leave you Neutral, not good. Or if you cast too many you'd probably stop casting the other as you settled into your new Alignemnt.Which is why if you want to maintain a Good alignment you should regularly casting of Protection From Evil or Celestial Healing to counterbalance it.They may start out as that, as Saethori pointed out, but they don't stay that way. They definitely don't stay Good, which is what altruisitc, selfless, and kind tend to encompass.Well, that mostly depends on how many counterbalancing good acts they perform in between casts. It's only if they cast it multiple times in succession that they're likely to run into the issue of suddenly wanting to burn down an orphanage instead of donating to it.
Putting that much of a dissection on your characters's actions would make them more neutral aligned than good though.
|
|
Which is when my character casts Protection From Evil enough to become Good.Putting that much of a dissection on your characters's actions would make them more neutral aligned than good though.I can control what spells my character casts, so no I won't stop casting Evil spells. I will just case enough Good spells to maintain my alignment.That would leave you Neutral, not good. Or if you cast too many you'd probably stop casting the other as you settled into your new Alignemnt.Which is why if you want to maintain a Good alignment you should regularly casting of Protection From Evil or Celestial Healing to counterbalance it.They may start out as that, as Saethori pointed out, but they don't stay that way. They definitely don't stay Good, which is what altruisitc, selfless, and kind tend to encompass.Well, that mostly depends on how many counterbalancing good acts they perform in between casts. It's only if they cast it multiple times in succession that they're likely to run into the issue of suddenly wanting to burn down an orphanage instead of donating to it.
That kinda veers too a little too much into mets game territory, with you saying your character did something else and now your going to have them do something out of character to have an effect you want.
And that's also up to the GM who decides how much does what and how much you need.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
You've argued about all the evidence though.
Again, I didn't argue that Infernal Healing was not evil. I argued against certain evidence given as it was bad evidence. But I highlighted the evidence that clearly shows it is evil magic. So, considering I agree it is evil... I don't know why you keep saying I'm arguing that it isn't. I don't have to agree with every word someone says to agree that their conclusion is correct.
Perhaps, but there are plenty of things in Pathfinder that falls under Objective. Intentionally annointing someone with Fiend's blood I believe would fall under that.
And that is fine... for your tables. My only point is that it isn't set in stone. Or, rather, written officially in a book or FAQ. Until then it isn't true, it is opinion.
It's as much a tool as the keys to your car, or the gas and the oil. Unless you take feats to get around them they don't just help, they are required. You think the items are crutches while I think they're "batteries", even if they are crutches, how does that diminish what they are? Devil's Blood and Unholy Water are, quite literally, liquid evil. How does using them to cast a spell make them anything but?
I'm not arguing that a material component isn't part of a spell, nor that it isn't required to cast a spell without some method to be rid of the necessity. My argument is that they are not batteries and do not power a spell. Thus, using devil blood in such a way is not powering a spell but it is a requirement to cast the spell. Utilizing an objective evil substance is not evil much in the same way that the spell Command Undead is not evil. Sure, you are putting a use to evil... but what you do with it decides whether the action is evil or not. So, casting Infernal Healing is evil, but using the component is not evil. That is one more-than-minor action, instead both minor and more-than-minor actions. (more-than-minor is what the degree I call aligned casting, since it has a stronger effect then non-aligned spell casting actions.)
It agrees with me enough. It also gives GM room to adjudicate as they see fit.
Certain spells would it be hard to tell how strongly aligned they? Certainly. But others are obvious. Saying that using a little bit of planar energy is the same magnitude as summoning an outsider composed of said energy is nonsense. And the sidebar and the developers acknowledges this.
By enough do you mean not really at all? It literally says nothing about the difference between casting a good aligned spell or evil aligned spell other than that they should follow the same rules of potency. So, while casting an evil spell for a good reason is still evil, just only a tiny bit less evil in the final calculation.... casting a good spell for an evil reason is still good, just only a tiny bit less good in the final calculation. And it says nothing about whether an individual act is more evil than another other than to say sacrificing someone is definitely extra evil. So, no, it doesn't agree with your statement that teleporting an evil outsider is extra evil. It is not set in stone, it just gives you the latitude to decide, as GM, that it is so. Just as you can change or add any rule when you are GM.
It isn't even about whether the spell casting itself is more evil or not. The spells are uniformly evil, but what you do with them and what you need to do to cast them are calculated in the final alignment push. Murdering someone is a set abhorrently evil act. more-than-minor evil act(casting an evil spell) + abhorrent evil act(murder/sacrificing) = immediately pushed to evil. But An evil spell cast, any evil spell, multiple times(the GM sets the number, the book gives suggested normal numbers) will move your alignment. Again, up to the GM how evil casting an evil spell is... but it says nothing about the casting of any spell being more evil than another. Only that if you add other aligned acts to the casting of the spell, the spell doesn't limit how aligned the act is. And it says lawful, good, chaotic, evil spells should all follow the same rules as each other.
Basically, I'm arguing using "this is what the book says, such and such and then GMs can modify it" and you are arguing "this is how I would play it at my table". You can do that, certainly, but my argument is only about what is true in the book and is true for every table until the GM changes it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is when my character casts Protection From Evil enough to become Good.I can control what spells my character casts, so no I won't stop casting Evil spells. I will just case enough Good spells to maintain my alignment.Putting that much of a dissection on your characters's actions would make them more neutral aligned than good though.That kinda veers too a little too much into mets game territory, with you saying your character did something else and now your going to have them do something out of character to have an effect you want.
And that's also up to the GM who decides how much does what and how much you need.
To be fair you have argued that a devil caller would need to knowingly limit his protection from evil casting to prevent accidentally becoming good, as he would know it would turn him good. So, is this really different?
This is part of what makes this rule silly. There is now a recognizable by the characters universal law that casting aligned spell x forces your alignment to change. And not in the way that "I perform mundane aligned actions that eventually change my alignment" does, but in a much stronger way.So, if the character can recognize it why can't the character proactively do something about it? "I cast x and become evil so I cast y and become good, since that is what I want to be." This is why it can't be meta... as it fits in the realm of character knowledge. Which I can not see any way but silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair you have argued that a devil caller would need to knowingly limit his protection from evil casting to prevent accidentally becoming good, as he would know it would turn him good. So, is this really different?
This is part of what makes this rule silly. There is now a recognizable by the characters universal law that casting aligned spell x forces your alignment to change. And not in the way that "I perform mundane aligned actions that eventually change my alignment" does, but in a much stronger way.
So, if the character can recognize it why can't the character proactively do something about it? "I cast x and become evil so I cast y and become good, since that is what I want to be." This is why it can't be meta... as it fits in the realm of character knowledge. Which I can not see any way but silly.
This guy gets it.
|
|
Which is when my character casts Protection From Evil enough to become Good.I can control what spells my character casts, so no I won't stop casting Evil spells. I will just case enough Good spells to maintain my alignment.Putting that much of a dissection on your characters's actions would make them more neutral aligned than good though.That kinda veers too a little too much into mets game territory, with you saying your character did something else and now your going to have them do something out of character to have an effect you want.
And that's also up to the GM who decides how much does what and how much you need.
To be fair you have argued that a devil caller would need to knowingly limit his protection from evil casting to prevent accidentally becoming good, as he would know it would turn him good. So, is this really different?
This is part of what makes this rule silly. There is now a recognizable by the characters universal law that casting aligned spell x forces your alignment to change. And not in the way that "I perform mundane aligned actions that eventually change my alignment" does, but in a much stronger way.
So, if the character can recognize it why can't the character proactively do something about it? "I cast x and become evil so I cast y and become good, since that is what I want to be." This is why it can't be meta... as it fits in the realm of character knowledge. Which I can not see any way but silly.
Knowing the alignment of one spell and watching what you cast is different than "Hmm, I cast that one spell twice so now I'll have to cast this one fours times." You as a player know that casting aligned spells will change your alignment, your character most likely, but the exact amount is up to the GM, not you or your character.
This has always been a rule.
Doing an aligned act shifts your alignment to match.
And if your character realizes they're changing an alignment and want to switch they would do other actions rather than simply casting spells, since that's how they got into the mess in the first place. And if they think everything can be solved with spells and magically forcing their alignment they probably wouldn't want to switch back to begin with.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair you have argued that a devil caller would need to knowingly limit his protection from evil casting to prevent accidentally becoming good, as he would know it would turn him good. So, is this really different?
This is part of what makes this rule silly. There is now a recognizable by the characters universal law that casting aligned spell x forces your alignment to change. And not in the way that "I perform mundane aligned actions that eventually change my alignment" does, but in a much stronger way.
So, if the character can recognize it why can't the character proactively do something about it? "I cast x and become evil so I cast y and become good, since that is what I want to be." This is why it can't be meta... as it fits in the realm of character knowledge. Which I can not see any way but silly.Knowing the alignment of one spell and watching what you cast is different than "Hmm, I cast that one spell twice so now I'll have to cast this one fours times." You as a player know that casting aligned spells will change your alignment, your character most likely, but the exact amount is up to the GM, not you or your character.
This has always been a rule.
Doing an aligned act shifts your alignment to match.
And if your character realizes they're changing an alignment and want to switch they would do other actions rather than simply casting spells, since that's how they got into the mess in the first place. And if they think everything can be solved with spells and magically forcing their alignment they probably wouldn't want to switch back to begin with.
That's like saying "character A has 5 gems worth 100 gold each and 100 gold pieces. He wants to buy a 500gp item... but can't afford it since using gems is meta."
Both gold and gems have worth and the character knows this. So he can use both. The character knows "if I kill someone, that is evil and the universe says my very nature changes so that I am evil" and he knows "if I cast evil spell x, I will become evil faster than if I was selfish or greedy but not as fast as murder". So, if a character wants the universe to recognize them as evil immediately then the character knows casting spells is the fastest way to do that without murdering someone. The character would know this. Just as they know how many rounds a spell lasts and how much area the spell covers.And if you refuse to allow them to know what any number of casters would have figured out over the many years that magic has been practiced in the world... they can cast an evil spell 4 or however many times and change alignment and then they would know how much it takes. As there is a recognizable in world change for the characters to notice.
So, how can it be meta to use what a character knows?
The problem with the new rules is that it goes beyond the old rule. Yes, casting an evil spell was always an evil act... but now it is a strongly evil act that overcomes mundane evil acts that aren't things like murder. When, instead, it would fit in the world better to count as "I stole something" than "I stole something many times". Then spells couldn't overtake your normal nature, they would just be included.
|
|
Again, I didn't argue that Infernal Healing was not evil. I argued against certain evidence given as it was bad evidence. But I highlighted the evidence that clearly shows it is evil magic. So, considering I agree it is evil... I don't know why you keep saying I'm arguing that it isn't. I don't have to agree with every word someone says to agree that their conclusion is correct.
My apologies then, I must have missed that.
And that is fine... for your tables. My only point is that it isn't set in stone. Or, rather, written officially in a book or FAQ. Until then it isn't true, it is opinion.
Fair point.
I'm not arguing that a material component isn't part of a spell, nor that it isn't required to cast a spell without some method to be rid of the necessity. My argument is that they are not batteries and do not power a spell. Thus, using devil blood in such a way is not powering a spell but it is a requirement to cast the spell. Utilizing an objective evil substance is not evil much in the same way that the spell Command Undead is not evil. Sure, you are putting a use to evil... but what you do with it decides whether the action is evil or not. So, casting Infernal Healing is evil, but using the component is not evil. That is one more-than-minor action, instead both minor and more-than-minor actions. (more-than-minor is what the degree I call aligned casting, since it has a stronger effect then non-aligned spell casting actions.)
This is just something we will continue to disagree on then, since to me I do view using evil items to power/work with your abilities as evil. And that's not the best analogy since control undead isn't "powered" by undead, it's just something that affects them. What you do with them would be where the alignment repercussions come in.
By enough do you mean not really at all? It literally says nothing about the difference between casting a good aligned spell or evil aligned spell other than that they should follow the same rules of potency. So, while casting an evil spell for a good reason is still evil, just only a tiny bit less evil in the final calculation.... casting a good spell for an evil reason is still good, just only a tiny bit less good in the final calculation. And it says nothing about whether an individual act is more evil than another other than to say sacrificing someone is definitely extra evil. So, no, it doesn't agree with your statement that teleporting an evil outsider is extra evil. It is not set in stone, it just gives you the latitude to decide, as GM, that it is so. Just as you can change or add any rule when you are GM.
Yes, those are different amounts of alignment, and yes the book says by pointing out "abhorrent acts" and leaving it up to the GM, who are kinda allowed to make decisions about things, about how much which is which. And that's how it's gonna be until they release a book containing all alignment acts listed by how much they shift your alignments. To say that every spell and every act is equal is just nonsense.
It isn't even about whether the spell casting itself is more evil or not. The spells are uniformly evil, but what you do with them and what you need to do to cast them are calculated in the final alignment push. Murdering someone is a set abhorrently evil act. more-than-minor evil act(casting an evil spell) + abhorrent evil act(murder/sacrificing) = immediately pushed to evil. But An evil spell cast, any evil spell, multiple times(the GM sets the number, the book gives suggested normal numbers) will move your alignment. Again, up to the GM how evil casting an evil spell is... but it says nothing about the casting of any spell being more evil than another. Only that if you add other aligned acts to the casting of the spell, the spell doesn't limit how aligned the act is. And it says lawful, good, chaotic, evil spells should all follow the same rules as each other.
Sacrificing someone goes beyond abhorrent act and just flat out says your Alignemnt is instantly shifted to Evil if it wasn't already. The term "abhorrent act" though is mentioned separate from the sacrificing part. So yes there is spells that are more evil than others.
Basically, I'm arguing using "this is what the book says, such and such and then GMs can modify it" and you are arguing "this is how I would play it at my table". You can do that, certainly, but my argument is only about what is true in the book and is true for every table until the GM changes it.
I guess we have just vastly different readings of the book then.
|
|
That's like saying "character A has 5 gems worth 100 gold each and 100 gold pieces. He wants to buy a 500gp item... but can't afford it since using gems is meta."
-_-
These are completely different things and you know that.
Both gold and gems have worth and the character knows this. So he can use both. The character knows "if I kill someone, that is evil and the universe says my very nature changes so that I am evil" and he knows "if I cast evil spell x, I will become evil faster than if I was selfish or greedy but not as fast as murder". So, if a character wants the universe to recognize them as evil immediately then the character knows casting spells is the fastest way to do that without murdering someone. The character would know this. Just as they know how many rounds a spell lasts and how much area the spell covers.
That's just the thing, they wouldn't know how much aligned magic it takes. Knowing how many rounds it lasts is vastly different than how much it would affect your Alignemnt due to all the factors at play.
And if you refuse to allow them to know what any number of casters would have figured out over the many years that magic has been practiced in the world... they can cast an evil spell 4 or however many times and change alignment and then they would know how much it takes. As there is a recognizable in world change for the characters to notice.
You're assuming they would test this like it's an exact and perfectly calculable science. It's not. There's so many accountable factors, not to mention you're operating under the assumption that they wouldn't know the affects of Alignemnt likes its completely alien. They know that murder is evil, they know that casting evil spells is evil. There would be no need for a "Okay let's see how far we can go before your personality changes."
So, how can it be meta to use what a character knows?
Becauee your character doesn't know stealing (+1 Evil), feeding orphans (+1 Good), murder (+10 Evil), casting protection from Evil (+2 Good).
The problem with the new rules is that it goes beyond the old rule. Yes, casting an evil spell was always an evil act... but now it is a strongly evil act that overcomes mundane evil acts that aren't things like murder. When, instead, it would fit in the world better to count as "I stole something" than "I stole something many times". Then spells couldn't overtake your normal nature, they would just be included.
Unfortunately that was the most contentious thing that people clamored for. How much? Thankfully there's enough to infer that yes, different spells are ranked differently without an explicit ranking of them all, just like how there isn't an explicit ranking of non-spell evil acts. There's nuances and variables.
|
|
Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn’t enough to change her alignment; this only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period.
Yes, those are different amounts of alignment, and yes the book says by pointing out "abhorrent acts" and leaving it up to the GM, who are kinda allowed to make decisions about things, about how much which is which. And that's how it's gonna be until they release a book containing all alignment acts listed by how much they shift your alignments. To say that every spell and every act is equal is just nonsense.
Again, it isn't the spell being cast that is being called out as abhorrent, it is about how the spell is used. The book does not say any two different evil spells being cast can be different potency evil acts... it only mentions that how the spell is used(also that if you do an evil act in the performing of an evil act) can be included in the calculation for "how aligned". Not every act is equal, this is a no duh... but casting an evil aligned spell is as evil as casting an evil aligned spell is. Just as it doesn't really matter who you murdered, you murdered someone. (Note, killing and murdering are two separate things and can be delineated by "who"). And, while the Abhorrent statement and sacrificing are in separate sections, sacrifice is only called a "major evil" act, not even abhorrent. Also, both sections are talking about the same thing but that happen in different parts of casting. The "abhorrent" part is about what you do with the spell and "sacrifice" part is about what you do while casting the spell. But both are about adding together additional aligned acts onto the aligned act of casting the spell. Not about differing aligned potencies.
Say, for example, you cast an evil spell that requires you to sacrifice someone. This is a major evil act... because you sacrificed someone. But if you are able to remove the sacrifice part of the spell through some non-aligned method... casting the spell is now just as if you cast protection from good or any other evil spell. But if you use the spell to murder someone, it is now a major evil act again.Commanding Undead is utilizing an evil "substance", that is, you are now controling an undead(read: objectively evil) creature.
|
|
That's just the thing, they wouldn't know how much aligned magic it takes. Knowing how many rounds it lasts is vastly different than how much it would affect your Alignemnt due to all the factors at play.Determining that experimentally seems like something a wizard's guild would be into. Would also help inform lawmaking bodies of whether access to it should be controlled.
Soemthing that someone would try somewhere? Maybe? But it would, if not fail, produce no useful results other than "hey, this shit is evil and doing this would make us eviler."
With each person's mindset, and circumstances, and their alignment, it would be borderline impossible to accurately measure "how much" it takes from spells to shift your personality to a specified amount. In game I would view the personality change as gradual anyway rather than 1-2-3-Ding! anyway.
That and finding people who would agree to do this in the first place would be a thing in and of itself.
|
|
That is an interesting point. The rules say that good and evil spells follow the same rules.
So if using infernal healing is a minor Evil act regardless of how much good it does, then logically murdering someone with Holy Word is still a Good action.
Healing hit points is not an inherent Good action. So Infernal Healing is just evil.
Casting holy ward (good) would be counterbalanced by the murder (evil).
|
|
Again, it isn't the spell being cast that is being called out as abhorrent, it is about how the spell is used. The book does not say any two different evil spells being cast can be different potency evil acts... it only mentions that how the spell is used(also that if you do an evil act in the performing of an evil act) can be included in the calculation for "how aligned". Not every act is equal, this is a no duh... but casting an evil aligned spell is as evil as casting an evil aligned spell is. Just as it doesn't really matter who you murdered, you murdered someone. (Note, killing and murdering are two separate things and can be delineated by "who"). And, while the Abhorrent statement and sacrificing are in separate sections, sacrifice is only called a "major evil" act, not even abhorrent. Also, both sections are talking about the same thing but that happen in different parts of casting. The "abhorrent" part is about what you do with the spell and "sacrifice" part is about what you do while casting the spell. But both are about adding together additional aligned acts onto the aligned act of casting the spell. Not about differing aligned potencies.
Say, for example, you cast an evil spell that requires you to sacrifice someone. This is a major evil act... because you sacrificed someone. But if you are able to remove the sacrifice part of the spell through some non-aligned method... casting the spell is now just as if you cast protection from good or any other evil spell. But if you use the spell to murder someone, it is now a major evil act again.
Commanding Undead is utilizing an evil "substance", that is, you are now controling an undead(read: objectively evil) creature.
By that method of thinking, stealing and murdering would be the same evil since they aren't explicitly laid out.
For spells and abhorrent acts you have evil spells, then evil spells that summon evil outsiders. That's where the abhorrent part comes in.
Again, CU is in no way the same. You are not "utilizing" an evil substance in the same way that infernal healing does, CU isn't powered by undead. You cast it on undead and then what you have them do is where, if any, Alignemnt effects would come into play.
By that same logic disrupt undead should have a [Good] tag. It doesn't.
|
|
The exact number doesn't matter. Protection From Evil/Good/Law/Chaos are 1st level spell with no cost associated. If a 5th wizard has a free week he can cast it 50+ times.
All he really needs to know is an order of magnitude. IE If casting 10 good spells is generally enough, then he can cast 50 and be pretty sure his alignment has shifted(verified by someone with detect good ideally).
Incidently, this is how a lot of real life science is done. Data has noise and uncertainty, but you can compensate through probabilistic analysis.
Not when there is this many variables, and no controls.
You're assuming the caster in question would be comepletely detached and conservative with how they went about changing their personality and mindset, when that's contradictory in and of itself right there.
|
|
If using the spell, regardless of circumstances, has an effect, you could just load up a construct with wands to use as your blank state. This also allows for the effects to be documented while still only requiring one person interested in doing so.That's just the thing, they wouldn't know how much aligned magic it takes. Knowing how many rounds it lasts is vastly different than how much it would affect your Alignemnt due to all the factors at play.Determining that experimentally seems like something a wizard's guild would be into. Would also help inform lawmaking bodies of whether access to it should be controlled.Soemthing that someone would try somewhere? Maybe? But it would, if not fail, produce no useful results other than "hey, this s#!@ is evil and doing this would make us eviler."
With each person's mindset, and circumstances, and their alignment, it would be borderline impossible to accurately measure "how much" it takes from spells to shift your personality to a specified amount. In game I would view the personality change as gradual anyway rather than 1-2-3-Ding! anyway.
That and finding people who would agree to do this in the first place would be a thing in and of itself.
Don't most constructs have no alignments due to their low or lack of intelligence? And in the case of golems specifically that's not really viable either due to the elemental spirit powering them.