Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

Evil Spells But For Good?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

I was prompted to start this thread because I couldn't find the answer anywhere else.

Normally casting spells with the "evil" effect is considered evil and will eventually require atonement. But what if they are used for good.

Specifically in my case. I am playing a LG Dhampir Inquisitor (Kinslayer), and I need negative energy to heal me. Positive energy would actually hurt me.

So my question than because is it ok to cast to Inflict Lights Wounds etc. on myself without it being evil? What is the RAW? Obviously in homebrew its whatever but I am still curious about the official rules.


RAW, it's an evil act. Period.

Your GM may be more lenient.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

inflict light wounds does not have the evil descriptor, so it is not an evil spell and casting it is not an evil act. By RAW, if it does have the evil descriptor, then casting it is an evil act (regardless of the motivation or intention behind casting it). In PFS, casting spells with the evil descriptor is not inherently an evil act.


As said, inflict light wounds is not evil. Negative energy itself is not evil.
If you summoned a devil or created undead that would be an evil act and a reason for falling, but only with the spells that have an evil descriptor.
Not all spells that deal with negative energy or necromancy spells are evil.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

As a LG Inquisitor, you are actually unable to cast a Chaotic or Evil spell. Fortunately, the Inflict Wounds spells are not evil.

Scarab Sages

People are not only saying casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor is an Evil act alignment-wise, but they are saying it is "by RAW." I don't buy it. Where does the RAW say that?

Saying a spell with an alignment descriptor shifts you toward that alignment just for casting it is like saying that casting a spell with the [Acid] descriptor shifts your pH balance.


Inquisitor? I'm so used to this kind of questions asked by paladins that I completely misread it. Not that it changes anything.

Grand Lodge

I think Horror Adventures flat out says spells with alignment descriptors is an act of that alignment. I'm pretty sure there's another book somewhere that does as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

neither negative nore positive energy are good or evil so your fine

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Casting an Evil spell is an Evil action. Using it for a Good purpose is a Good action. This is possible because these are two different actions

Much like AoOs I guess :-)

The end result alignment-wise is something only the GM can decide, as in all things that pertain to alignment


Unless I was GMing a very focused on alignment campaign I wouldn't make that a single evil act would make a character change alignment unless it's something very significative. Being redeemed just because you cast protection from evil on yourself is ridiculous.
A single evil act can make a follower of a good deity fall, but it doesn't necessarily shift the alignment.
I see it more interesting like that: summoning a single fiend for a fight might not change your alignment but you could be tmepted to do it more often for that reason. And how much is too much? If you rely too much on dark powers to do the job your alignment will eventually change.
I think stories are often more interesting with alignment shift being something you have to work in rather than something spontaneous.
Of course, depending on how radical is your act, you might have an instant alignment change.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Te open post asked about Atonement, not alignment shifting. As already said, inflict spells aren't evil, so there is no problem with them, but as a general rule:

PRD wrote:
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: An inquisitor can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.

As I see it, that is a general restriction, not only to spells gained through the inquisitor list. An LG inquisitor that find a scroll of Magic circle against good can't treat it as if the spell was on his list and if he cast it using UMD he will do an act against his code of conduct.

doing that repeatedly will make him lose his inquisitor class abilities.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

People are not only saying casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor is an Evil act alignment-wise, but they are saying it is "by RAW." I don't buy it. Where does the RAW say that?

Saying a spell with an alignment descriptor shifts you toward that alignment just for casting it is like saying that casting a spell with the [Acid] descriptor shifts your pH balance.

Ultimate Horror wrote:


Evil Spells:

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.

There you go! :)


I've never used this exact rules to avoid exploits from players who could expect to kill a whole town, raise them as undead and then cast protection from evil repeatedly. They won't be getting any gooder by doing that.
But as an aproximation it is a good rule for orientation when players are playing fair.


"OK, after casting Protection From Evil a thousand times you are now 'good'. As a good person, you are overwhelmed with guilt over the terrible things you've done. You feel compelled to lay your undead minions to rest, then turn yourself in to the authorities and make a full confession."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That would be another way of dealing with it, indeed.
I remember some similar cases when storytelling V:tM years ago. Players would make atrocities, then make Conscience rolls and avoid losing Humanity. Then I'd explain that if they made their rolls it meant that their characters were feeling guilty for what they had done, but some players refused to roleplay it or admit that their characters felt anything but proud of their deeds.
Then I'd make them lose the Humanity point anyway. If they refused feeling guilt, I'd take it as they had failed their roll on purpose.


Kileanna wrote:

That would be another way of dealing with it, indeed.

I remember some similar cases when storytelling V:tM years ago. Players would make atrocities, then make Conscience rolls and avoid losing Humanity. Then I'd explain that if they made their rolls it meant that their characters were feeling guilty for what they had done, but some players refused to roleplay it or admit that their characters felt anything but proud of their deeds.
Then I'd make them lose the Humanity point anyway. If they refused feeling guilt, I'd take it as they had failed their roll on purpose.

That is the correct way of doing it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Kileanna wrote:

That would be another way of dealing with it, indeed.

I remember some similar cases when storytelling V:tM years ago. Players would make atrocities, then make Conscience rolls and avoid losing Humanity. Then I'd explain that if they made their rolls it meant that their characters were feeling guilty for what they had done, but some players refused to roleplay it or admit that their characters felt anything but proud of their deeds.
Then I'd make them lose the Humanity point anyway. If they refused feeling guilt, I'd take it as they had failed their roll on purpose.
That is the correct way of doing it.

You pretty much have to, when you get really weird players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a weirdness magnet!
But I can reverse the polarity. Sometimes I seem to attract them, sometimes I scare them away!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arcaian wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

People are not only saying casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor is an Evil act alignment-wise, but they are saying it is "by RAW." I don't buy it. Where does the RAW say that?

Saying a spell with an alignment descriptor shifts you toward that alignment just for casting it is like saying that casting a spell with the [Acid] descriptor shifts your pH balance.

Ultimate Horror wrote:


Evil Spells:

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.

There you go! :)

I'm glad this was finally put in writing.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

*nods*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
like saying that casting a spell with the [Acid] descriptor shifts your pH balance.

I actually quite like this idea. A caster who casts [Fire] spells all the time might develop bright red eyes and hair and an unnaturally warm body temperature. An acidic caster would taste sour if you kissed them. And so on.

Sovereign Court

Note that there is an inquisitor archetype that specifically can cast spells with forbidden alignments: infiltrator.

Normally inquisitors can't cast spells with opposed alignments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
like saying that casting a spell with the [Acid] descriptor shifts your pH balance.
I actually quite like this idea. A caster who casts [Fire] spells all the time might develop bright red eyes and hair and an unnaturally warm body temperature. An acidic caster would taste sour if you kissed them. And so on.

I'd avoid using acid spells then. Few things are more delicate than pH balance in our body. If you are planning to use acid spells you'd rather carry some bicarbonate to avoid dying from severe pH imbalance ;-D


No, that could kill you! Similarly, a [Cold] specialist's ideal healthy body temperature would be low enough to endanger the life of the average human, and a [Sonic] specialist would have to listen to a lot of very loud music.


I feel like there was something like this as an optional rule in 3.5 but it was divided by schools of magic not elements.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, casting [Fire] spells does bring more fire into the world, similarly with [Acid] or [Cold]. So you are making the world a hotter (or more acidic, or colder) place with each casting. If for some reason the caster was actively aligned with the forces of elemental fire, those forces might look askance if the casters kept using [Cold] spells as it would run contrary to their interests.

I once played a caster who aligned with some ice elementals, and he refused to ever use fire spells because it would offend his friends. Seems like a similar situation with a supposedly "good" character who likes to use [Evil] spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We need some [Basic] spells to balance the [Acid] ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What? Surely everyone knows that - scientifically speaking - the opposite of fire is cold, and the opposite of acid is electricity.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Arcaian wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

People are not only saying casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor is an Evil act alignment-wise, but they are saying it is "by RAW." I don't buy it. Where does the RAW say that?

Saying a spell with an alignment descriptor shifts you toward that alignment just for casting it is like saying that casting a spell with the [Acid] descriptor shifts your pH balance.

Ultimate Horror wrote:


Evil Spells:

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.

There you go! :)
I'm glad this was finally put in writing.

I'm not entirely sure if this was actually "RAW;" in the context it was placed (in an inset apart from any further rules about magic), it seemed a bit more like an editorial. Also, the fact that it's in Horror Adventures suggests it may be meant for certain types of game rather than all.

If so, however, I HATE it, especially since there's been a lot of obvious bouncing around in the literature as to whether it was true or not (one writer making new material with one assumption in mind, and another introducing new material assuming the other stance), and it's not so easily all swept to one side, particularly not this stricter one.

The animate dead spell is a particularly irksome example. Part of it may be that I got into proper D&D by way of the Baldur's Gate computer games, which means I started out with 2nd Edition rules, and in 2nd Edition, the Necromancer's Handbook specifically stated that animating undead servitors was a form of "grey necromancy," neither Good nor Evil.

Also, it is indeed just like others have said: There's too many instances of spells with alignment descriptors that simply don't have to be inherently of that alignment. A handy way for a (for example) Good Wizard to help protect the Party Fighter from his own fireballs is to cast protection from Good on him - is he really supposed to shift toward Evil for that?!? What makes sense is how you use it, just like swinging a sword - simply casting the spell just shouldn't be enough, and it shouldn't be core, non-setting-specific RAW.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Evil spell descriptors are one of the silliest things in this game. Oh, you've desecrated that wolf's corpse by reanimating its bones, you're evil now. Launching a ball of fire at someone and burning them to death, or at the least leaving them horribly scarred and in tremendous lifelong pain. That's kosher.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't have a problem with the idea that some things are evil corrupting influences, like using Sauron's ring. Even if you're doing it for a good cause, it's taking a toll upon you.

What I don't like is how fast it works according to that rule.

Scenario: the party has triggered a fireball trap. Everyone's bleeding out except for the Wizard who wasn't caught in the blast.

Wizard: "Don't worry guys! I'll save you! I bought a Wand of Infernal Healing for situations like this! One charge for the barbarian... one for the rogue... boy, I'm feeling oddly neutral about all this... one for the monk... one for the druid... and finally one for his pet cat. Finished!"
Rogue: "Thanks, buddy."
Wizard: "Silence, puny fool! I am your master now! You owe me your life and you will serve me or perish! Wa ha ha ha!"


Matthew Downie wrote:
What? Surely everyone knows that - scientifically speaking - the opposite of fire is cold, and the opposite of acid is electricity.

Acid reactions are electron movements, so...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In general, questions of alignment and the implications of PC actions are up to the GM to interpret in the context of her campaign.

It's best if the GM makes this information available to her players either as a conversation point in "Session Zero" or in a players' guide that's handed out. Some GMs de-emphasize alignment or ignore it altogether. Others have very specific ideas of how it works. Players won't know unless they're told.

The way I interpret alignment descriptors on spells is that such magic taps into supernatural forces of that descriptor in some way, and the magic is infused with that power. So, in my campaigns, infernal healing creates a supernatural bond between the caster, the subject, and an actual devil somewhere in Hell, temporarily bestowing that devil's Fast Healing ability on the subject. That bond affects the subconscious of both cadter and subject, eroding some measure of their morality. Is it written that way in the rules? It is in my campaign's players' guide.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:

I don't have a problem with the idea that some things are evil corrupting influences, like using Sauron's ring. Even if you're doing it for a good cause, it's taking a toll upon you.

What I don't like is how fast it works according to that rule.

Scenario: the party has triggered a fireball trap. Everyone's bleeding out except for the Wizard who wasn't caught in the blast.

Wizard: "Don't worry guys! I'll save you! I bought a Wand of Infernal Healing for situations like this! One charge for the barbarian... one for the rogue... boy, I'm feeling oddly neutral about all this... one for the monk... one for the druid... and finally one for his pet cat. Finished!"
Rogue: "Thanks, buddy."
Wizard: "Silence, puny fool! I am your master now! You owe me your life and you will serve me or perish! Wa ha ha ha!"

At least neutral to evil says "3 or more" so that the GM has more wiggle room as to when to change over, but yeah, the speed is too fast for a general rule imo, especially for the reverse (evil casting spells with the good descriptor). The rule also implies that casting a [good] spell with Evil intentions is still a Good act, which I also personally disagree with. That said, this is the Rules forum, so I have the rules in my initial response, not how I feel about them.

Also (unrelated to Matthew's post), the book the above rule is found in is called Horror Adventures, not Ultimate Horror.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The one that irks me most is how an evil conjurer needs Magic Circle Against Evil to safely call and bind servitors.

I could go for [evil] descriptors being really evil, but the list of spells with the descriptor needs trimming. Also, the corrupting influence of the spell should probably be a bit more differentiated based on spell level. A level 9 [evil] spell should be scary for anyone, but it's weird to have using a level 1 [evil] spell corrupt a level 17 wizard.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

*nods*

Each and every Aligned spell would probably need its own "point" system, so to speak. But they realistically couldn't put that out in a book ("points" based on the level of the spell is much more viable).

The summoning thing has never bothered me since that's countered by the summoning itself being the opposite alignment of the protection spell, so they effectively cancel out.


The Sideromancer wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
What? Surely everyone knows that - scientifically speaking - the opposite of fire is cold, and the opposite of acid is electricity.
Acid reactions are electron movements, so...

Yeah, electricity as the opposite to acid makes no sense. A better reason for the absence of a [Basic] or [Alkaline] descriptor is that [Acid] covers all corrosive chemicals (so no pH imbalance).


According to Paizo's "brilliant" rules, casting a Evil spell is always a evil action, no matter the motivation, effect or consequences...

Truly a superbly designed and well-thought rule. XD


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

People are not only saying casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor is an Evil act alignment-wise, but they are saying it is "by RAW." I don't buy it. Where does the RAW say that?

Saying a spell with an alignment descriptor shifts you toward that alignment just for casting it is like saying that casting a spell with the [Acid] descriptor shifts your pH balance.

Spell Descriptors

Quote:
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

Casting a spell with an alignment descriptor ([Lawful], [Chaotic], [Good], [Evil])... is an aligned act of that type that will interact with creatures and forces sensible to alignment.

While in general terms, RAW ruling is MUCH softer than the Horror adventures ruling, it's still an aligned act. Casting Infernal Healing to heal a friend in need is not an horrendously evil act, but there's still the "small" issue of devil's blood or unholy water involved in the process, for example.

Your everyday party should not have many issues with it if playing with the default rules, but be wary of zealous characters around (including your party's pally, if any)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So... buffer solutions should grant acid resistence?
Are there buffer solutions for alignment conflicts?


There are also RAW that say different.
Champions of Purity says "Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil" - I think we all agree that five minor acts of evil don't make a good character evil.
The Core Rulebook says the following things:
"There’s no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls." - The "five evil spells" 'rule' is a direct voilation of this.
"(...) it’s generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment." - THis confirms what I said regarding the CoP quote.
"It’s best to let players play their characters as they want." - The "five evil spells" 'rule' voilates this hard.
And last, the very same text in Horror Adventures says "[Change to the casters alignment] 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." - Casting Infernal Healing on the entire party does definitely not fall under either.
You have to ask yourself if three times does indeed fall under "over and over again".

As you can see from the above CRB quotes, the text in HA is not a clarification but doing a 180.
They can not simply put game changing rules into some book seven years later. A non-optional rule that drastically alters the game can only be in the CRB because everything else is basically "use it if you want". Would such an alignment change still occur in a core-only game? Do I need to buy every single future book in case it changes basic rules?

But the real question you have to ask yourself is this: Do I trust a company who considers the "personification of horrible, exhilarating war" and "the excitement, battle-lust, and brutality of combat." to be neutral to define my alignment?

@Triune: Trapping a soul (Trap the Soul/Soul Bind) is not tagged as evil, yet creating undead supposely is because it traps the creature's soul. No further questions, your honor.

@Matthew Downie: If it's corruption, then it should tie to the corruption system in the very same book, rather then the alignment system which is explicitly not made to be used that way.

Rysky wrote:
Each and every Aligned spell would probably need its own "point" system, so to speak. But they realistically couldn't put that out in a book ("points" based on the level of the spell is much more viable).

Sure they could have done that, but then they would have to actually think about the while [evil] tag thing. Even a simple three-way classification would be ok - spells that are forbiddon for good clerics but don't affect alignment, spells that can shift your alignment if cast repeatedly, and spells that are always notable evil acts.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Derklord wrote:

There are also RAW that say different.

Champions of Purity says "Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil" - I think we all agree that five minor acts of evil don't make a good character evil.
The Core Rulebook says the following things:
"There’s no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls." - The "five evil spells" 'rule' is a direct voilation of this.
"(...) it’s generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment." - THis confirms what I said regarding the CoP quote.
"It’s best to let players play their characters as they want." - The "five evil spells" 'rule' voilates this hard.
And last, the very same text in Horror Adventures says "[Change to the casters alignment] 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." - Casting Infernal Healing on the entire party does definitely not fall under either.
You have to ask yourself if three times does indeed fall under "over and over again".

As you can see from the above CRB quotes, the text in HA is not a clarification but doing a 180.
They can not simply put game changing rules into some book seven years later. A non-optional rule that drastically alters the game can only be in the CRB because everything else is basically "use it if you want". Would such an alignment change still occur in a core-only game? Do I need to buy every single future book in case it changes basic rules?

But the real question you have to ask yourself is this: Do I trust a company who considers the "personification of horrible, exhilarating war" and "the excitement, battle-lust, and brutality of combat." to be neutral to define my alignment?

@Triune:...

CRB says "Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."

If you look at old posts by SKR on this topic, this passage was quoted as the RAW in the CRB for why alignment descriptors counted as acts of that alignment, and he stated the RAI of the dev team matches that. Horror Adventures is therefore an explicit clarification of both the RAW and RAI there, not a 180 of the rules.

Champions of Purity is a player companion, so does not define RAW. Horror Adventures is in the RPG line, and therefore does define RAW. That being said, Champions of Purity does agree with the overall ruling that casting evil spells is an evil act (I personally agree with you that there are "shades of evil," and casting an evil spell wouldn't turn you evil as fast as murdering people in cold blood or other more evil acts)

The numbers in Horror Adventures (three spells = you are teh evuls) are meant as GM guidelines, as all of those numbers are prefaced with the phrase "The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes." This is consistent with all of the other things you quoted in that there are no hard-set rules of when, but HA offers numbers as guidelines for GMs to use if they would like.


I'm inclined to think that aligned spells can change a caster's alignment. While a good spellcaster might slow this change with good intentions, I would raise an eyebrow if they made it a point to learn the spells to begin with.

That said, in my opinion, the magic circle/protection spells maybe shouldn't be aligned, and soul binding stuff definitely should be.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Okay, a pit fiend regularly fights demons and daemons and decides to cast protection from evil to give himself an edge. Devils regularly fight with other evil entities. After two castings, they are neutral and three more and they can take levels in paladin.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Tabernero wrote:

According to Paizo's "brilliant" rules, casting a Evil spell is always a evil action, no matter the motivation, effect or consequences...

Truly a superbly designed and well-thought rule. XD

Not just Paizo's rule, it's always been part of the system.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:

Okay, a pit fiend regularly fights demons and daemons and decides to cast protection from evil to give himself an edge. Devils regularly fight with other evil entities. After two castings, they are neutral and three more and they can take levels in paladin.

That's assuming Fiends literally made out of their alignment would do that, or would do it frequently enough (I.e. More than once) to truly affect their alignment.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Imbicatus wrote:

Okay, a pit fiend regularly fights demons and daemons and decides to cast protection from evil to give himself an edge. Devils regularly fight with other evil entities. After two castings, they are neutral and three more and they can take levels in paladin.

Outsiders can't change alignment in the same way that mortals can. The rules are PC-focused.


Rysky wrote:
Tabernero wrote:

According to Paizo's "brilliant" rules, casting a Evil spell is always a evil action, no matter the motivation, effect or consequences...

Truly a superbly designed and well-thought rule. XD

Not just Paizo's rule, it's always been part of the system.

Paizo is the only responsible for all the merits and faults of Pathfinder, though. They could've added or removed whatever they wanted. They are the ones I praise for the good decisions and the ones I criticize for the bad ones.

This particular rule was left pretty unclear and ambiguous for quite a long time too.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Tabernero wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tabernero wrote:

According to Paizo's "brilliant" rules, casting a Evil spell is always a evil action, no matter the motivation, effect or consequences...

Truly a superbly designed and well-thought rule. XD

Not just Paizo's rule, it's always been part of the system.

Paizo is the only responsible for all the merits and faults of Pathfinder, though. They could've added or removed whatever they wanted. They are the ones I praise for the good decisions and the ones I criticize for the bad ones.

This particular rule was left pretty unclear and ambiguous for quite a long time too.

The spells are literally described as evil. It's kind of silly the clarification was needed in the first place.

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Evil Spells But For Good? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.