Awful Evil Enchanters, oh my


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Nonsense. Orphans are Young templated Commoner 1s. Even the weedy wizard isn't going to have an issue stabbing those all day.

Ah, but you are forgetting that a paladin can make more attacks per round, and thus murder even more orphans!

(Or create orphans to murder by killing parents.)

Also, you can use "mundane mind control" (diplomacy, bluff, intimidate) to a lesser effect all day, too, but those people get called "charming rogue", not "mind slaver", so less efficient evil obviously isn't as evil.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Also the 6 Fingered Man took out Inigo's father in a surprise round. Dad clearly didn't invest in either Perception or Sense Motive and was also something extremely low level to die in one attack (albeit likely a crit since it was said it got him in the heart but rapiers are only x2 weapons so...)

Now imagine that'd have been nonlethal damage. The father would be out cold and the six fingered man could have tied him up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
"Slavery is only bad when it's bad people owning slaves; a good person can use slavery as a force for good, by making sure their slaves only do good and productive things rather than letting them do whatever they want."
Isn't this the idea around prisons? That's it's cool to take away someone's freedom as long as they are 'bad'? It's totally cool to make prisoners do "good and productive things" like collect garbage along the highway: I see it done all the time... it's a matter of perspective.

I mean, that the prison system is a form of legalized slavery is one of the main arguments against the prison system, so I don't really see the contradiction.

If we're to do a real world moral analysis of enchantment magic, the problem with it is that enchantment spells remove or cripple a person's ability to refuse consent. That's probably about the closest any school comes to being outright evil. You can cast fireball without exploding someone, but you can't cast Charm Person without targetting a person, and for the duration of your spell, anything they consent to is being heavily influenced by the spell. That would be morally tricky even if they'd agreed to have the spell cast on them in the first place, unless you'd laid out specific things that the caster was allowed to ask of the charmed person.

But we're dealing with fantasy worlds where clearly labelled Bad People will jump out and attack you on a daily basis, so that's a bit different. At that point it's entirely situational, but for my money I would categorically deny my trust to enchanters.


Saffron Marvelous wrote:
graystone wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
"Slavery is only bad when it's bad people owning slaves; a good person can use slavery as a force for good, by making sure their slaves only do good and productive things rather than letting them do whatever they want."
Isn't this the idea around prisons? That's it's cool to take away someone's freedom as long as they are 'bad'? It's totally cool to make prisoners do "good and productive things" like collect garbage along the highway: I see it done all the time... it's a matter of perspective.

I mean, that the prison system is a form of legalized slavery is one of the main arguments against the prison system, so I don't really see the contradiction.

If we're to do a real world moral analysis of enchantment magic, the problem with it is that enchantment spells remove or cripple a person's ability to refuse consent. That's probably about the closest any school comes to being outright evil. You can cast fireball without exploding someone, but you can't cast Charm Person without targetting a person, and for the duration of your spell, anything they consent to is being heavily influenced by the spell. That would be morally tricky even if they'd agreed to have the spell cast on them in the first place, unless you'd laid out specific things that the caster was allowed to ask of the charmed person.

But we're dealing with fantasy worlds where clearly labelled Bad People will jump out and attack you on a daily basis, so that's a bit different. At that point it's entirely situational, but for my money I would categorically deny my trust to enchanters.

Hypnosis is basically charm magic, and it is almost never done like that. Yet nobody says they are evil. In fact, the fact that they help bad people not be bad anymore, via changing their mentality, is actually seen as a good thing. Again, enchantment magic is not evil.


Saffron Marvelous wrote:
If we're to do a real world moral analysis of enchantment magic

I thought that was the whole point of this thread...

Saffron Marvelous wrote:
You can cast fireball without exploding someone, but you can't cast Charm Person without targetting a person, and for the duration of your spell, anything they consent to is being heavily influenced by the spell.
How about explode head? Please name a 'good' reason to cast it. How about Inflict Pain [wrack the target’s mind and body with agonizing pain]. the whole 'but fireball doesn't HAVE to hurt people' is just a smokescreen. There are plenty of those kind of spells that MUST target someone.t for my money I would categorically deny my trust to enchanters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Hypnosis is basically charm magic, and it is almost never done like that. Yet nobody says they are evil. In fact, the fact that they help bad people not be bad anymore, via changing their mentality, is actually seen as a good thing. Again, enchantment magic is not evil.

If I went around hypnotising people without their consent, some people would probably call that evil.


graystone wrote:


Saffron Marvelous wrote:
You can cast fireball without exploding someone, but you can't cast Charm Person without targetting a person, and for the duration of your spell, anything they consent to is being heavily influenced by the spell.
How about explode head? Please name a 'good' reason to cast it. How about Inflict Pain [wrack the target’s mind and body with agonizing pain]. the whole 'but fireball doesn't HAVE to hurt people' is just a smokescreen. There are plenty of those kind of spells that MUST target someone.t for my money I would categorically deny my trust to enchanters.

Short version: Never trust wizards/magic users in general.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, enchantment magic (and diplomacy, intimidation etc) is a tool. By definition, tools are not aligned. What you use it for (not who uses it) is what determines the morality of the action. There are a huge number of possible situations where enchantment magic comes with the best possible results.

Let's say a drunk is about to start a fight with someone fragile. He is big and strong. You CAN stop him before his target is seriously hurt... but only if you kill him. If you respect his autonomy, that is. By not doing so, you can dominate him to make him sit down and not move until he can be restrained. Is this an evil act? Is it somehow less evil to murder him? Which would you prefer for yourself? Being forced to sit down and be restrained, or murdered?

For a callous, brutal person willing to murder people, the answer may well be that in any situation where enchantment magic can get good results, it is better to kill. I have just never been able to stomach the devaluation of life this brings.

The classic liberal thought is that someone's will is sacrosanct, and I respect that. However, according to the same school of thought, the only acceptable restriction on people's will is that what they want to do is hurt someone else. When faced with someone who will hurt others unless stopped, I would say it is not only not evil, but deeply good to take that choice from them. You are after all giving them a chance to do better.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Hypnosis is basically charm magic, and it is almost never done like that. Yet nobody says they are evil. In fact, the fact that they help bad people not be bad anymore, via changing their mentality, is actually seen as a good thing. Again, enchantment magic is not evil.
If I went around hypnotising people without their consent, some people would probably call that evil.

Well that depends... If they found out that they no longer need to smoke or compulsively clean, they might not mind or even approve. If I walk up and heal you 'without consent', you don't hear a chorus of complaints. Intent and results matter MUCH more than consent.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
No, enchantment magic (and diplomacy, intimidation etc) is a tool. By definition, tools are not aligned.

Torture is a tool. By definition, tools are not aligned.

Sorry, but you're totally and obviously wrong when you say that tools are not aligned by definition. Some are thought to be by a great many people.

At least in PFS, torture IS evil.

And, in the real world, a great many people would agree with that statement. A great many would disagree, admittedly.

Note : I am NOT equating Mind Control and Torture. I am just pointing out that your argument that tools, by definition, are not aligned is false.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
No, enchantment magic (and diplomacy, intimidation etc) is a tool. By definition, tools are not aligned.

Torture is a tool. By definition, tools are not aligned.

Sorry, but you're totally and obviously wrong when you say that tools are not aligned by definition. Some are thought to be by a great many people.

At least in PFS, torture IS evil.

And, in the real world, a great many people would agree with that statement. A great many would disagree, admittedly.

Note : I am NOT equating Mind Control and Torture. I am just pointing out that your argument that tools, by definition, are not aligned is false.

Torture is an activity. Pliers (which can be used for torture) are a tool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Hypnosis is basically charm magic, and it is almost never done like that. Yet nobody says they are evil. In fact, the fact that they help bad people not be bad anymore, via changing their mentality, is actually seen as a good thing. Again, enchantment magic is not evil.
If I went around hypnotising people without their consent, some people would probably call that evil.
Well that depends... If they found out that they no longer need to smoke or compulsively clean, they might not mind or even approve. If I walk up and heal you 'without consent', you don't hear a chorus of complaints. Intent and results matter MUCH more than consent.

As part of my first aid training, it is a requirement that I receive the patient's consent (or have them unconscious) before I begin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’m pretty excited about this idea that Dominate Person is a less moral way to resolve a hostage situation than Disintegrate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The difference between Charm magic and real world hypnosis is that one is literal supernatural influence forcing you to respond as positively as you can to (almost) anything I do or ask. Hypnosis doesn't work that way, and we KNOW hypnosis doesn't work that way because more than a couple of governments put considerable resources into trying to get it to. Also with real world hypnosis, in any situation where it's considered acceptable, what the hypnotist will be doing is either extremely implicit, or carefully laid out from the outset. Informed consent is actually a thing, and stage hypnosis is basically 100% showmanship. People who've tried to use hypnotism for sex have wound up in jail.

As far as Explode Head goes, I can see the argument that it's "as bad." I'd offer a minor quibble based on the fact that I can use Explode Head on an ant where Charm Person again, only works on people. But yeah sure, you don't memorize Explode Head for anything but killing. In fact I'll say it probably qualifies as being evil in particular just because it's not that... effective. Like if you want to kill a "bad guy," there's a million better options you have access to at that point that don't cause collateral damage, so having it memorized would suggest that you're probably at LEAST the kind of low-key sadistic person who burns ants with a magnifying glass. However, Explode Head is one high level spell, so it's less of a strike against the school it's from because it's rare.

That said, I have to say that Hellfire Ray proooobably pins the title of "most evil school" on evocation. Damning souls to eternal suffering will do that. Although again, it's not something any jerk who graduated wizard school can pick up within a couple levels. It's still inherently reprehensible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
As part of my first aid training, it is a requirement that I receive the patient's consent (or have them unconscious) before I begin.

That's not a moral matter but one of indemnification against legal responsibility for your actions. Lawful and good are two different concepts, especially in D&D/pathfinder.


Well then question is are we analyzing this in terms of D&D alignments or real world moral responsibility. If it's alignment, I would argue that "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" writes supernatural mental influence off from the outset, pushing enchantment into neutral at best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saffron Marvelous wrote:
Well then question is are we analyzing this in terms of D&D alignments or real world moral responsibility. If it's alignment, I would argue that "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" writes supernatural mental influence off from the outset, pushing enchantment into neutral at best.

I think the issue is that people are using a "real world moral" outlook on a starkly different D&D alignment outlook. IMO "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" would insist that you use the least harmful method to resolve a conflict. A "supernatural mental influence" that leaves both parties unharmed is infinity better than harmful means. It's hard to claim setting someone on fire affirms someone's "right to be valued and respected"...

It's hard to have 'life, liberty and happiness' if you're dead...'

PS: I JUST thought of the most evil character possible... The BARD!!! A whole class built around altering your mind to making you feel emotions you don't have!!! 'Burn them at the stake, he tried to inspire us!!!'


graystone wrote:


PS: I JUST thought of the most evil character possible... The BARD!!! A whole class built around altering your mind to making you feel emotions you don't have!!! 'Burn them at the stake, he tried to inspire us!!!'

That would make a fascinating element to build a setting around.


Hmmm. Who values freedom more than life? Who values life more than freedom?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dastis wrote:
Hmmm. Who values freedom more than life? Who values life more than freedom?

If you die, you lose everything by default, INCLUDING YOUR FREEDOM. This makes valuing life over freedom as the CLEAR correct choice.


graystone wrote:
Saffron Marvelous wrote:
Well then question is are we analyzing this in terms of D&D alignments or real world moral responsibility. If it's alignment, I would argue that "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" writes supernatural mental influence off from the outset, pushing enchantment into neutral at best.
I think the issue is that people are using a "real world moral" outlook on a starkly different D&D alignment outlook. IMO "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" would insist that you use the least harmful method to resolve a conflict. A "supernatural mental influence" that leaves both parties unharmed is infinity better than harmful means.

What are you actually using that mind control for? You suppose a situation that leaves everyone unharmed, but if we've reached the point of differences so irreconcilable that the options are mind control or fighting to the death, is that really going to be the case? You're just supposing that this use of mind control happens in a vacuum and that the other party faces no consequences for betraying their own motives. Furthermore, you suppose that death is the only possible outcome from other forms of magic, but force can play a social role as well. A charmed enemy is almost guaranteed to reverse their position the moment the spell ends, possibly becoming even more violent. They'll certainly never trust you. An enemy that knows you can kill them will be more cautious and ends up more open to negotiation because they don't want to die. So long term, measured violence will beat mind control as a negotiating tool, because negotiating with someone who has proven that they can and will mindgank you makes no sense. You can't even trust your own motives when dealing with them, so this idea that charm person ends any meaningful conflict without causing harm is false. If you can end a conflict with charm with no consequences, you almost certainly could have just walked away from it to begin with.


Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Dastis wrote:
Hmmm. Who values freedom more than life? Who values life more than freedom?
If you die, you lose everything by default, INCLUDING YOUR FREEDOM. This makes valuing life over freedom as the CLEAR correct choice.

Not necessarily. This assumes there is no freedom in the afterlife.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Dastis wrote:
Hmmm. Who values freedom more than life? Who values life more than freedom?
If you die, you lose everything by default, INCLUDING YOUR FREEDOM. This makes valuing life over freedom as the CLEAR correct choice.

There's plenty of people who have made the decision that dying free is better than living a slave.


The Sideromancer wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Dastis wrote:
Hmmm. Who values freedom more than life? Who values life more than freedom?
If you die, you lose everything by default, INCLUDING YOUR FREEDOM. This makes valuing life over freedom as the CLEAR correct choice.
Not necessarily. This assumes there is no freedom in the afterlife.

Well I don’t mean to nitpick, but the most popular religion, Christianity, explicitly states you lose your free will in heaven, so take from that what you will.


The Sideromancer wrote:
Not necessarily. This assumes there is no freedom in the afterlife.

There seems to be relatively little in the Pathfinder universe afterlife, considering how much of an exceptional thing it is for outsiders to change alignment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saffron Marvelous wrote:
What are you actually using that mind control for? You suppose a situation that leaves everyone unharmed, but if we've reached the point of differences so irreconcilable that the options are mind control or fighting to the death, is that really going to be the case?

It isn't that rare. You TRY to sneak by a guard but it notices you. You could charm him, try to knock him out or kill him. Not knowing his level any spell/weapon use to inflict non-lethal damage might kill him while the charm just gets him to check the other side of the building for a while...

Saffron Marvelous wrote:
You're just supposing that this use of mind control happens in a vacuum and that the other party faces no consequences for betraying their own motives.

And you're taking it in the worst possible light in a vacuum. If your motives are to do the least amount of harm, mind control IS being true to your motives.

Saffron Marvelous wrote:
Furthermore, you suppose that death is the only possible outcome from other forms of magic, but force can play a social role as well.

So physical coercion is superior to mental coercion?

Saffron Marvelous wrote:
A charmed enemy is almost guaranteed to reverse their position the moment the spell ends, possibly becoming even more violent. They'll certainly never trust you. An enemy that knows you can kill them will be more cautious and ends up more open to negotiation because they don't want to die.

And a foe that can take over your mind doesn't make you more cautious? And since they KNOW you can mind control them and you aren't, they can be open to negotiations because they know they can just scramble your brains if you don't try to work it out.

Saffron Marvelous wrote:
So long term, measured violence will beat mind control as a negotiating tool, because negotiating with someone who has proven that they can and will mindgank you makes no sense.

How so? It has as much intimidation as physical damage but doesn't involve a threat of death. For instance, is swordganking someones pal more intimidating than if you get someone's pal to sheath his sword and let you through?

Saffron Marvelous wrote:
You can't even trust your own motives when dealing with them, so this idea that charm person ends any meaningful conflict without causing harm is false. If you can end a conflict with charm with no consequences, you almost certainly could have just walked away from it to begin with.

If this was true then no PC/NPC could EVER trust that anything was real. Mind control, illusions, ect... For me the 'solve negotiations with a fireball and a pickaxe' is more of a falsehood. You somehow hold the dissonant view that someone that will hold a lifetime grudge for a mental assault are perfectly fine and open to those that perpetuate a PHYSICAL assault.

Liberty's Edge

There are times when removing someone else's agency to act is the correct thing to do, there are times when it is not.


I am certainly not saying mind control is GOOD. Nor am I saying it isn't a dangerous tool. It is a tool, useful for good and bad things. The comparison with torture is a dead end: Torture is bad because it inflicts pain and because it doesn't work. In fact, mind control is a tool that pretty much makes torture obsolete.

Murdering and torturing people is a far worse prospect than mind control, and they are often the alternative.

Yes, people have died for freedom. The existence of mind control has very little bearing on this, though. If someone is killed, they lose everything including their freedom.


The Sideromancer wrote:
graystone wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Hypnosis is basically charm magic, and it is almost never done like that. Yet nobody says they are evil. In fact, the fact that they help bad people not be bad anymore, via changing their mentality, is actually seen as a good thing. Again, enchantment magic is not evil.
If I went around hypnotising people without their consent, some people would probably call that evil.
Well that depends... If they found out that they no longer need to smoke or compulsively clean, they might not mind or even approve. If I walk up and heal you 'without consent', you don't hear a chorus of complaints. Intent and results matter MUCH more than consent.
As part of my first aid training, it is a requirement that I receive the patient's consent (or have them unconscious) before I begin.

. . . And suddenly, I am reminded of Get Out.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Dastis wrote:
Hmmm. Who values freedom more than life? Who values life more than freedom?
If you die, you lose everything by default, INCLUDING YOUR FREEDOM. This makes valuing life over freedom as the CLEAR correct choice.
There's plenty of people who have made the decision that dying free is better than living a slave.

If you die, your freedom goes to zero. If you are mind-controlled, your freedom could go well below zero, and end the freedom of others.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

It is curious that a very well known "enchanter" (as it were) has not been brought up. Professor X from X-Men. Though a more child oriented example, it is still pointed. This character universally regarded as Good uses mind control (body control) from time to time. Is Professor X evil?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Over the years I've become very anti-alignment system in general but even when I was on board with alignments I never liked the decision to make spells possess intrinsic alignment qualities e.g. Animate Dead having the [evil] descriptor. Now why should Animate Dead be [evil] and not Dominate Person? The former simply animates a dead body (there's nothing in the spell description to suggest this does anything to the soul that once inhabited the body) and the other enslaves a mind. If all other things being equal I would consider mental enslavement more evil than animating some old bones; thus I was of the position that both or neither spells should have an alignment descriptor.

A number of years back a friend of mine was playing a rogue/wizard with levels in the beguiler PrC. The beguiler was supposed to evil only but this was rightly ignored as it unnecessarily restricted RP and the player in question wanted to use the abilities of the beguiler to good (or at least not evil) ends. There were a couple noteworthy instances where he used the supposedly 'evil' abilities of the beguiler for more or less good. In one instance involved a prisoner volunteering and signing a consent form to be mentally dominated for a time and when this time was up they would be released (they were to help the party save a town). The second instance involved the party trying to convince an overconfident captain of the town militia not to fight an monstrous enemy army in the field, the party fighter challenged him to a duel ('if I can beat you then to don't stand a chance against that army') and got thrashed; the beguiler simply clicked his fingers, dominated the captain, made him do some embarrassing things, released him and explained that the enemy had far more powerful magic which successfully convinced the captain to stay behind the walls thus saving many lives.

A couple of years back I played a wizard who regarded the enchantment school with contempt. There were two reasons for this with the first being that as an apprentice he was subjected to charm spells causing him to end up in a scandalous situation and left him feeling violated. The second was that he was strongly anti-slavery and viewed the charm and compulsion spells of the enchantment schools as essentially being a form of enslavement.

Broadly speaking GMs should try to remain neutral on the subject and base any judgements of good or evil on PC motivations and actions. To declare X as always evil and Y as always good just places unnecessary restrictions on players.


graystone wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Hypnosis is basically charm magic, and it is almost never done like that. Yet nobody says they are evil. In fact, the fact that they help bad people not be bad anymore, via changing their mentality, is actually seen as a good thing. Again, enchantment magic is not evil.
If I went around hypnotising people without their consent, some people would probably call that evil.
Well that depends... If they found out that they no longer need to smoke or compulsively clean, they might not mind or even approve. If I walk up and heal you 'without consent', you don't hear a chorus of complaints. Intent and results matter MUCH more than consent.

There are people who refuse medical treatment for religious reasons, and they're going to complain if you give them a life-saving blood transfusion without their consent. It's a serious medical ethics issue that's open to debate.

And the thought of a super powerful hypnotist going around stopping people smoking on a whim is rather unsettling. What does it end? "I know you disagreed, but I've decided that you shouldn't smoke any more, so you won't. You're welcome. Alcohol isn't good for you either, so you no longer like alcohol. It's for your own good. And you're going to be getting a lot more exercise. Oh, and you're a vegan now. You'll thank me later. And I thought you were in an unhealthy relationship, so I made you end it. Because my good intent matters more than your consent."


"Nobody should smoke. Nobody should drink alcohol. Everyone must exercise at least an hour every day. Everyone has to be vegan. Relationships have to be healthy, as judged by us, or they must be ended.

If any of the above rules are broken from now on, the rule breaker will be executed through torture, so that the others take warning.

The rules are necessary because our society and its glory require it."

Ergo, laws and lawmaking societies are evil.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

'He who trades freedom for safety deserves neither' -Ben Franklin
'Give me liberty or give me death' -Patrick Henry

This idea that it is better to die than lose freedom is an old one.

Liberty >> non-existence >> Slavery


By that token, killing people is much better than putting them in prison.

Grand Lodge

@Sissyl

Which is not unlikely to be a cause of lots of suicides in prison.

In Germany it is even legal to try and break out of prison. The act of breaking out is not forbidden, though if you happen to break other laws on your way out you will get sentenced for them. (robbery, assault, whatever)

The reasoning is, that the desire for freedom is a basic human instinct and one that should not be punished or repressed, I believe.


Logically yes. Death is worse than freedom. Yet wars are fought for freedom. Our values do not necessarily match logic. For more examples look at modern political issues. Gun control, surveillance, drug use, etc. all involve a debate about how much individual freedom we are willing to give up to try to improve safety


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nobody should be allowed to keep smoking just because they don’t consent to being altered so they won’t smoke anymore. Second hand smoke literally kills bystanders, meaning if you smoke, you are literally slowly, but surely, murdering people. If you don’t consent to having your cigarette addiction removed, you are thus commiting an evil act, and your values have no value at that point.


Decimus Drake wrote:
Broadly speaking GMs should try to remain neutral on the subject and base any judgements of good or evil on PC motivations and actions. To declare X as always evil and Y as always good just places unnecessary restrictions on players.

That position bemuses me, because to my mind the entire essence of RPGs boils down to "how can you attain goal A with constraints X, Y and Z". X being a horde of orcs standing between you and A, Y being "we are working for a Good commander and if we do Evil things we will be held accountable for them", and Z being "we don't use spiders in order to be considerate of a player's phobia" are just different kinds of constraint. Constraints prompt creativity, and deciding what sorts are appropriate for your set of players is yet another matter for session 0.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Dastis wrote:
Hmmm. Who values freedom more than life? Who values life more than freedom?
If you die, you lose everything by default, INCLUDING YOUR FREEDOM. This makes valuing life over freedom as the CLEAR correct choice.
Not necessarily. This assumes there is no freedom in the afterlife.
Well I don’t mean to nitpick, but the most popular religion, Christianity, explicitly states you lose your free will in heaven, so take from that what you will.

out of curiosity can you cite that particular passage ? :)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

i should point out there is a difference between losing control for a few minutes or hours and being enslaved for the rest of your days,


jimthegray wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Dastis wrote:
Hmmm. Who values freedom more than life? Who values life more than freedom?
If you die, you lose everything by default, INCLUDING YOUR FREEDOM. This makes valuing life over freedom as the CLEAR correct choice.
Not necessarily. This assumes there is no freedom in the afterlife.
Well I don’t mean to nitpick, but the most popular religion, Christianity, explicitly states you lose your free will in heaven, so take from that what you will.
out of curiosity can you cite that particular passage ? :)

How do we know we cannot sin in heaven?

Read that, please.


The Enchantment School itself is not inherently Evil, but it has (to an extreme) the ripest potential for abuse, especially insidious abuse.


As I said, someone who doesn't value life can concievably claim that mind control is worse than dying.


I think its one of those tools things. If you permanently MC someon and use them for selfish reasons it probably evil. if you MC someone to not kill someone or do some sort of good then its not so evil.

I need to stop sticking my nose in morality threads... *waits for the counter post with some unlikely extreme example*


Zhangar wrote:

Like the various enemies who had vital strike + spring attack (which never worked with how spring attack was written) as part of their tactics, that's a long running editing issue, not the rules team suddenly changing how something actually worked.

Also, keep in mind that the rules team is separate from the editing team and the adventures team.

Heh. If anything, the UI call-outs/revisions may be a result of the rules team trying to get everyone else synced up again after revisiting those rules; "getting their house in order" as it were.

Edit: The rules are also kind of badly organized, so it's very easy for writers to be unaware of stuff that's actually kind of important. Like how scrying spells create sensors that only DC 20 + spell level to perceive if you don't beat invisibility, and are just blatantly there if you do. Like, you cannot scry a dragon without immediately tipping it off, because your sensor is not getting past blindsense.

Now, a critical thing with Charm, is that if it works, it slams your victim's attitude towards you to Friendly.

Which means your victim can be perfectly aware that you just cast charm monster or person on him or her, and simply not care because he or she is Charmed.

People on the rules team also write adventures, and these guys play together. It's not like one was oblivious to what the other was doing.

It was a rule change, not a situation where you had a large company with two departments who never spoke to each other.

51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Awful Evil Enchanters, oh my All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.