|
Its not an evil act to cast an evil spell for its normal effect, so casting one to counterspell should not be either.
We just went over this :(
Casting an evil spell is an evil act
Yeah, wasn't debating that. Just wondering if casting to counterspell is treated the same as casting to cast. Seems different enough to warrant the question being posed.
|
You cast an appropriate spell and use the spell's energy. It would appear you're using evil energy.
You already learned and may have prepared an evil spell, which I would think is worse for your alignment.
If you use the opposite spell as a counter, that's most likely a good act. Someone could look into how many evil spells present such an option.
|
|
Do you actually cast a spell to counterspell? Or are you merely expending the spell/spell slot?
If the former, yes. If the latter, I would rule, no.
Kinda. As far as I know, you don't need to burn the material costs to counterspell, but I've been rather unclear on that point too. You are definitely expending the spell/spell slot.
Regarding whether it counts as casting or not, the main thing is that a successful casting merely counters the opponent's spell. It doesn't actually create an effect.
For example, if a NG Hallowed Necromancer encounters an Evil Necromancer, they could attempt to counterspell Animate Dead, by casting Animate Dead themselves (via readying an action to counterspell). The Hallowed Necromancer is forbidden from creating undead, but they may know the spell for the purpose of countering it. However, if this is considered an Evil act because the spell is an evil descriptor spell, then it will be tough for even the NG Hallowed Necromancer to justify countering this spell.
|
|
If you use the opposite spell as a counter, that's most likely a good act. Someone could look into how many evil spells present such an option.
Some do. There's also either a feat or a prestige class (or both) to allow you to use any opposition spells to counterspell.
As for using an opposite spell to counterspell an evil spell being a good act, I'm also on the fence there, since you are not actually creating the spell's effect, it is merely denying another spell.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's honestly irrelevant whether or not it is in the context of PFS. Evil acts are treated as potential "alignment infractions" in PFS and their handlings are subject to table variation. As a reminder on how that is all handled in PFS, I've included the section from the guide in a spoiler below. Relevant sections bolded.
At my table, using an evil spell to counterspell another evil spell may be an "evil act" but would likely not constitute an alignment infraction.
Players are responsible for their characters’ actions. “That’s just what my character would do” is not a defense for behaving like a jerk.
Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Killing an innocent, wanton destruction, and other acts that can be construed as evil might be considered alignment infractions. Ultimately, you are the final authority at the table, but you must warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment. This warning must be clear, and you must make sure that the player understands the warning and the actions that initiated the warning. The PC should be given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences. We believe a deity would forgive a one-time bad choice as long as the action wasn’t too egregious (such as burning down an orphanage full of children, killing a peasant for no good reason but sport, etc.). Hence, you can issue a warning to the player through a “feeling” he receives from his deity, a vision he is given, his conscience talking to him, or some other similar roleplaying event.
If infractions continue in the course of the scenario or sanctioned module or Adventure Path, an alignment change might be in order. If you deem these continued actions warrant an alignment change, you should note it on the character’s Chronicle sheet at the end of the session in the notes section The character can remove this gained condition through an atonement spell. If the condition is removed, you should also note it on the Chronicle sheet.
Characters who become wantonly evil by performing vile actions deliberately and without motive or provocation are retired from the campaign. This measure is a last resort; there is more than one way to play a given alignment.
If a character has become wantonly evil as defined above, you should escalate the report to the event coordinator, or the local Venture-Captain or Venture Lieutenant. If they agree with you, then the character is deemed wantonly evil and considered removed from the campaign. Again, these measures should be taken as a very last resort.
In the event of a wantonly evil character, record the character as “dead,” and the person who enters the tracking sheet should check that box as well. If the event coordinator, Venture-Captain, or Venture-Lieutenant decides the character fits the criteria for being wantonly evil, she will then email the campaign coordinator to advise him of the situation, including the player’s name, Pathfinder Society Number, character number, and email address. She will advise the player of these actions and offer the player the campaign coordinator’s email address so the player may present his case.
|
|
It's honestly irrelevant whether or not it is in the context of PFS. Evil acts are treated as potential "alignment infractions" in PFS and their handlings are subject to table variation. As a reminder on how that is all handled in PFS, I've included the section from the guide in a spoiler below. Relevant sections bolded.
At my table, using an evil spell to counterspell another evil spell may be an "evil act" but would likely not constitute an alignment infraction.
You'd really consider counterspelling an evil spell to be an evil action? Doesn't exactly sound evil to me. If anything, you are preventing evil from being manifested.
So, sake of argument, if a NG Wizard has readied to counterspell against an evil wizard and, after Identifying the enemy spell as Animate Dead, has the option to stop the dead from rising - you think the Good Character should purposely allow the Dead to be animated? How is allowing evil magic to be cast a MORE good option for the wizard than counterspelling?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... why would the NG wizard in PFS go around with Create Undead memorized if they don't want Undead to be created???
If they're in a position to stop someone from casting Create Undead, uh, Fireball? Phantasmal Killer? This truly is for the sake of arguing something just to argue.
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
My favorite topic.
I'd like to point you all towards this Organized play FAQ.
In case people do not want to click the link:
Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, though it may violate a character's code or tenets of faith. Commiting an evil act outside of casting a spell, such as using an evil spell to torment an innocent NPC, is an alignment infraction.
|
|
... why would the NG wizard in PFS go around with Create Undead memorized if they don't want Undead to be created???
If they're in a position to stop someone from casting Create Undead, uh, Fireball? Phantasmal Killer? This truly is for the sake of arguing something just to argue.
Sounds like you haven't read the counterspelling rules.
First, you can only counterspell spells that have a casting time of a standard action, so I've been using Animate Dead as the example spell because it can be countered. Create Undead, with it's hour casting time, cannot be counterspelled. This is because counterspelling requires a readied action that can only be a standard action.
So, to counterspell, my wizard elects to attempt to counterspell on their turn. This is a Readied action. Then, on the opponent's turn, if they cast a spell, I attempt spellcraft to ID it. If I can ID it, I can attempt to counterspell it by casting a prepared spell of the same name. If I manage to cast it, both spells AUTOMATICALLY NEGATE EACHOTHER WITH NO OTHER RESULTS.
The neat thing with counterspelling like this, is that there is no caster level check like with dispel magic. Doesn't even matter if their spell is modified by metamagic feats, it's just shut down (though Quicken Spell might deny counterspelling). So as a lowly pathfinder, I can stop the boss Necromancer's spell in this manner, despite him being a few levels higher than I.
A NG Hallowed Necromancer was the example. Sort of an anti-undead necromancer archetype. Sounds like a great character to prepare Animate Dead exclusively for counterspelling.
As for arguing for the sake of arguing, honestly, I'm always surprised by the twisted morality on this site. I thought for sure you'd agree, that denying evil spells via counterspelling would be an exception to "casting evil spells is an evil act" business. I did not expect to need to debate this one at all.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like you haven't read the counterspelling rules.... why would the NG wizard in PFS go around with Create Undead memorized if they don't want Undead to be created???
If they're in a position to stop someone from casting Create Undead, uh, Fireball? Phantasmal Killer? This truly is for the sake of arguing something just to argue.
Pretty sure they were going for "if someone is casting create undead in combat, why not just shoot them with your prepared fireball or phantasmal killer, which can disrupt the casting of anything if readied as a response, as opposed to prepping an evil undead-creation spell on the off chance I run into an evil undead creator and might get to counter their spell".
|
|
My favorite topic.
I'd like to point you all towards this Organized play FAQ.
In case people do not want to click the link:
Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, though it may violate a character's code or tenets of faith. Commiting an evil act outside of casting a spell, such as using an evil spell to torment an innocent NPC, is an alignment infraction.
We're ignoring you because it isn't related. An Alignment Infraction isn't the same thing as an Evil Act. There was another thread, recently, that proved this point. We don't really want to get that debate going again.
|
|
Pretty sure they were going for "if someone is casting create undead in combat, why not just shoot them with your prepared fireball or phantasmal killer, which can disrupt the casting of anything if readied as a response, as opposed to prepping an evil undead-creation spell on the off chance I run into an evil undead creator and might get to counter their spell".Sounds like you haven't read the counterspelling rules.... why would the NG wizard in PFS go around with Create Undead memorized if they don't want Undead to be created???
If they're in a position to stop someone from casting Create Undead, uh, Fireball? Phantasmal Killer? This truly is for the sake of arguing something just to argue.
*nods*
If someone is casting a spell that takes that long I'll just blast em rather than try to match them spell for spell and wait an hour.
Or shoot them.
Or just walk up and shank em a couple of times.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're ignoring you because it isn't related. An Alignment Infraction isn't the same thing as an Evil Act. There was another thread, recently, that proved this point. We don't really want to get that debate going again.My favorite topic.
I'd like to point you all towards this Organized play FAQ.
In case people do not want to click the link:
Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, though it may violate a character's code or tenets of faith. Commiting an evil act outside of casting a spell, such as using an evil spell to torment an innocent NPC, is an alignment infraction.
It is. It's not an "alignment infraction", but it's still an Evil Act, we have been over this in other threads.
|
|
Create Undead, with it's hour casting time, cannot be counterspelled.
Murdock. Create Undead has a one hour casting time.This sort of thing makes me wonder if you read what I post, or just skim.
Pretty sure they were going for "if someone is casting create undead in combat, why not just shoot them with your prepared fireball or phantasmal killer, which can disrupt the casting of anything if readied as a response, as opposed to prepping an evil undead-creation spell on the off chance I run into an evil undead creator and might get to counter their spell".Sounds like you haven't read the counterspelling rules.... why would the NG wizard in PFS go around with Create Undead memorized if they don't want Undead to be created???
If they're in a position to stop someone from casting Create Undead, uh, Fireball? Phantasmal Killer? This truly is for the sake of arguing something just to argue.
Again, animate dead, not create undead. But the question still works.
I guess it would be a philosophy thing. Do you destroy undead because you enjoy combating corpses, or are you dispelling animate dead because you think it's wrong to animate the dead?
Counterspelling denies the spell from ever distrupting the natural flow, while Fireball is more of an "after the fact" solution. Morally, denying the undead to rise in the first place, does seem like the better option, especially for the sake of the deceased.
|
|
Okay, first off, my apologies for conflating Create with Animate.
Back to the main thing it still applies since you have to ready an action to counterspell, Fireball is not an after the fact solution since you can ready an action to cast it instead and have a better chance of disrupting the spell than through counterspelling means.
There's no justification for someone who doesn't want to create undead to know an undead-creating spell in the off chance that they want to stop said spell being cast by others when there are more easier and effective ways of "counterspelling".
I can ready an Action to prime this one specific spell in the off chance that the other person is casting the exact same spell and hope to cancel it out
OR
I ready an action to cast Magic Missile when the other person casts a spell.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What good aligned necromancer is going to use a valuable spell slot to prepare an evil spell for counterspell purposes when they could prepare Dispel Magic instead? Or learn the Improved Counterspell feat so they can use any higher level necromancy spell to counter Animate Dead? Or use any of a range of creative tactics to thwart their evil aligned necromancer foe?
Also, using evil against evil is still evil.
|
|
The obvious situation for this is one where you suspect there is a necromancer about, but you aren't sure who it is. And in some investigative situations, combat may not be an option. Or you need to take capture them alive or unharmed.
I haven't seen counterspelling come up in PFS, but it has come up occasionally in home games where there are political considerations around the PCs situation.
My gut feel is that counterspelling with an evil spell isn't actually drawing evil from the outer planes (and is, in fact, interfering with that link), and so wouldn't be an evil act, but I may be letting the metaphysics of other systems contaminate my thinking on the matter, so I wouldn't disagree with anyone else's interpretation.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's honestly irrelevant whether or not it is in the context of PFS. Evil acts are treated as potential "alignment infractions" in PFS and their handlings are subject to table variation. As a reminder on how that is all handled in PFS, I've included the section from the guide in a spoiler below. Relevant sections bolded.
At my table, using an evil spell to counterspell another evil spell may be an "evil act" but would likely not constitute an alignment infraction.
You'd really consider counterspelling an evil spell to be an evil action? Doesn't exactly sound evil to me. If anything, you are preventing evil from being manifested.
So, sake of argument, if a NG Wizard has readied to counterspell against an evil wizard and, after Identifying the enemy spell as Animate Dead, has the option to stop the dead from rising - you think the Good Character should purposely allow the Dead to be animated? How is allowing evil magic to be cast a MORE good option for the wizard than counterspelling?
I'll just requote myself here.
It's honestly irrelevant whether or not it is in the context of PFS. Evil acts are treated as potential "alignment infractions" in PFS and their handlings are subject to table variation.It doesn't matter if they are evil acts or if they aren't--the don't necessarily constitute an alignment infraction. Ask your table GM if you are concerned before a game.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason evil spells are an issue in PFS is because we have separated them from the CRB rules. According to the CRB (and confirmed by Paizo developers) casting an evil spell IS an evil act, period. No where does it say its an evil act "unless" [enter special condition here] including counterspelling. So sorry, casting an evil spell regardless of conditions is an evil act even if used to counterspell.
Now, that being said, who cares? We have stated that casting evil spells, in and of themselves, does not constitute an alignment violation in PFS. Therefore, there are no ramifications from casting said spells except for the very limited list of character with extremely specific tenets like paladins, which AFAIK are not able to select animate undead anyway. The same is likely said of other good-aligned divine characters. Since they are not permitted to cast spells with the evil descriptor, there is no chance they will need to cast one as a counterspell and be concerned that the GM will call their alignment into question.
So, the question is, why does this "argument" even matter? If you are a good aligned necromancer who uses animate dead to counterspell an evil necromancer, there is exactly zero impact on your character.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, the question is, why does this "argument" even matter? If you are a good aligned necromancer who uses animate dead to counterspell an evil necromancer, there is exactly zero impact on your character.
I suppose for a paladin with unsanctioned knowledge Animate Dead it could matter...
Taking a look at counterspells...
To complete the action, you must then cast an appropriate spell.
Looks like you must cast the spell, which if it has the evil descriptor, is an evil act. One that matters for very few characters.
|
|
Ugh. Had a nice long response with quotes and links, but it didn't go through...trying again, but with less effort..
First, the main advantage of counterspelling with the actual spell is the lack of opposed caster level check requirement. Dispel magic is more versatile, but is a much worse option against higher level casters.
Okay, related side question. Since you are counting the casting of animate dead to counterspell as being cast, despite it being "negated with no other results." Does the Spell count as being cast for other effects that depend on certain spells being cast?
For example, if the enemy caster is an NE Divine Scion with the Death Domain for her Divine Specialization (Su). In this case, she'd heal 2x the spell level each time she cast a domain spell. Animate Dead is a 3rd level Domain Spell for the Death Domain. Does she heal 6hp when her Animate Dead is successfully counterspelled by the PFS adventurer using Animate Dead to counterspell?
|
|
Hmm, interesting case with those "whenever you cast..." abilities.
In this case I would say that they would get healed, since the spell was successfully cast, it just got counterspelled. If it wouldn't have been successful, there wouldn't have been a need for a counterspell (such as the case for someone readying an action to interrupt them).
|
|
Hmm, interesting case with those "whenever you cast..." abilities.
In this case I would say that they would get healed, since the spell was successfully cast, it just got counterspelled. If it wouldn't have been successful, there wouldn't have been a need for a counterspell (such as the case for someone readying an action to interrupt them).
The act of counterspelling IS a Readied Action to interrupt their casting....
Denying their spell, as they attempt cast it, is the entire point of counterspelling. And it is used as a readied action, exclusively. Success in counterspelling means that their spell is negated with no additional effects AS PART OF YOUR READIED ACTION.
Perhaps you are thinking of Dispelling their spell AFTER it has been cast? That's part of Dispel Magic's text, but is not part of counterspelling.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No they're not. Why do you read it that way?
Rysky said that the spell is not successfully cast when it is interrupted by damage, and that you would not receive healing in that case. This was in contrast to the case where a spell is successfully cast, but is subsequently counterspelled. The effect is negated, but you would receive the healing.
|
|
I can ready an Action to prime this one specific spell in the off chance that the other person is casting the exact same spell and hope to cancel it out
Oh, here's another one regarding misconceptions of counterspelling.
So with counterspelling, I don't need to ready a specific spell to counterspell. I merely ready to counterspell. Then, if I successfully use spellcraft to ID a spell that is cast while I'm waiting to counterspell, I can choose to attempt the counterspell against that spell. At this stage, I check from the spells I have prepared (or known) and see if I can counterspell the spell they use by casting the same spell (or a specifically mention counter, like enlarge person vs reduce person).
For example, if I have Animate Dead AND Dispel Magic Prepared, after a successful spellcraft check to ID their use of Animate Dead, I could choose which spell to use for my counterspelling. As mentioned, dispel magic is the worse option, since it relys on a caster level check. Plus, dispel magic can be used after the fact, in the off chance that I fail to counterspell, so saving dispel magic is wise if I actually have the spell prepared that needs counterspelling.
And I don't have to counterspell when I ID a spell being cast, I get to choose then, to counterspell, or to wait for another spell to be cast and IDed. So, the opponent could include multiple spellcasters, and I could ready to counterspell, waiting for that one dangerous spell so I can shut that down. A bit of a gamble, since they might not actually have a bigger spell, but that's not really a problem either...
|
|
Interesting. I would probably rule that in order for a "whenever you cast" ability to trigger you have to "successfully" cast the related spell. So the original caster would not get the benefit since their spell was countered or interrupted by the counter-spelling action. Treat it similarly to a failed defensive casting attempt.
That leads to the question what about the character doing the countering. Was their spell successfully cast? Or is it considered a "failure" because it did not manifest as intended? It seems off to me to let the counterspelling character gain the benefits of a "whenever you cast" effect, but deny it to the original caster, so I would rule conservatively on neither getting it.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without Improved Counterspell, you are still limited in what spells you can counter by the spells you have prepared and you can only counterspell against a single enemy. Rysky may not have been clear about the particulars, but their point still stands. If you are going to ready an action to disrupt a spellcaster, you are much better off readying magic missile for when any enemy casts than readying to counterspell against that single spellcaster.
I suggest you drop this line of discussion, Murdock. It is pointless and frustrating.
|
|
No they're not. Why do you read it that way?
Rysky said that the spell is not successfully cast when it is interrupted by damage, and that you would not receive healing in that case. This was in contrast to the case where a spell is successfully cast, but is subsequently counterspelled. The effect is negated, but you would receive the healing.
How are you reaching the conclusion that the Negated spell is successfully cast? It's negated as part of a readied action (to counterspell). Not seeing that "successful" bit anywhere in the counterspelling text.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you cast it, creating a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.
You cast a spell, they cast a spell, they negate each other. In order to negate each other, both spells need to be cast successfully. Otherwise, nobody did anything.
|
|
If you are trying to find a loophole in order to be "the evilist i can be" you have already failed at being a paladin. Pick something else.
This is not a paladin discussion, if that's what you think. I'm talking about counterspelling. There's no loophole I'm seeking. Honestly, I think the responses on this board are rather bizarre.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a paladin discussion, if that's what you think. I'm talking about counterspelling. There's no loophole I'm seeking. Honestly, I think the responses on this board are rather bizarre.If you are trying to find a loophole in order to be "the evilist i can be" you have already failed at being a paladin. Pick something else.
If it isn't for a paladin, it doesn't make a difference either way. Why do you bring up pointless rules minutiae?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
both spells need to be cast successfully
I think this is interpretive. A spell is designed to create a specific result. So if the spell fails to create that effect, is it still "successful." I think that is the crux of this sub-discussion. While it is certainly reasonable to say counterspelling would be considered a successful use of a spell, I would not call that a successful casting with respect to what the spell is intended to accomplish. Therefore, any ancillary effects such as "whenever you cast" abilities would not trigger. Counterspelling is specifically a way to prevent a spell from being successfully cast.
|
|
you cast it, creating a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.You cast a spell, they cast a spell, they negate each other. In order to negate each other, both spells need to be cast successfully. Otherwise, nobody did anything.
I guess I'm lost on the concept of "successful" and "negate." I'd hardly consider a spell successful, if it was negated. The counterspell was successful, but the original spell is hardly successful if has no effect, right?
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
both spells need to be cast successfullyI think this is interpretive. A spell is designed to create a specific result. So if the spell fails to create that effect, is it still "successful." I think that is the crux of this sub-discussion. While it is certainly reasonable to say counterspelling would be considered a successful use of a spell, I would not call that a successful casting with respect to what the spell is intended to accomplish. Therefore, any ancillary effects such as "whenever you cast" abilities would not trigger. Counterspelling is specifically a way to prevent a spell from being successfully cast.
I do agree it is a matter of interpretation. In my mind "success" == "complete", whether the effect occurs is beside the point of those abilities. (You'd still get effects if people made their saves, or your spell failed against Spell Resistance).
To me, counterspelling works through destructive wave interference. Your beads of fireball and scorching rays meet in mid-air, cancelling each other out. With that narrative, both spells need to be cast.
|
|
both spells need to be cast successfullyI think this is interpretive. A spell is designed to create a specific result. So if the spell fails to create that effect, is it still "successful." I think that is the crux of this sub-discussion. While it is certainly reasonable to say counterspelling would be considered a successful use of a spell, I would not call that a successful casting with respect to what the spell is intended to accomplish. Therefore, any ancillary effects such as "whenever you cast" abilities would not trigger. Counterspelling is specifically a way to prevent a spell from being successfully cast.
This is how I read it too.
So, to my original question. If the quote is correct, does counterspelling an evil spell with the same evil spell constitute an evil act in PFS?
And for those confused by the use of "evil," Same question, but switch the uses of "evil" with that of another alignment.