Oooh, so you got Suishen, Mikaze?It's been a fun relationship. We click on basic morality and butt heads/try to understand ou cultural differences. We make a pretty good team so far. :D
It's just that we're just as bad at pulling punches as I was when I still using an earthbreaker. :O
Well, I'm still holding out hope for the campaign journal, to see the details. :p
I just wanted to thank those who have been posting not-full-detail 'previews' of the book's content. After being burned on my last two purchases not having the material I reasonably expected them to have, being able to see up front that Champions of Purity DOES have what I was after is very nice.
It was enough to get me to make a purchase last night, and so far I am quite pleased with it!
For some reason this comment made it click in my head that my avatar image is oddly appropriate for posting spoiler info. After all black dragons do inherently spoil things yes?
It appears that David Bowie moonlights as Damiel, the Alchemist Iconic ;) (pg 24)That's only when David Bowie isn't playing a rogue (NPC Codex 149). ;)
We need stats for the Goblin King.
...or at least his pants!
|
So what is the official "release" date for Champions of Purity? As in, when is it expected to be in stores, or is it already? I ask because I downloaded my copy 04/12 and I usually get the download email almost 2 weeks before they're available in stores which would make the general release date around today/tomorrow. Just wondering...
Retail release date was April 24th (yesterday).
It appears that David Bowie moonlights as Damiel, the Alchemist Iconic ;) (pg 24)That's only when David Bowie isn't playing a rogue (NPC Codex 149). ;)We need stats for the Goblin King.
...or at least his pants!
Or at least his codpiece.
If nothing else, you're letting an evil creature see what's going on in the vicinity, and therefore providing some tiny measure of information to the bad guys. You never know what might set dominoes in motion.
I'd say that bringing something evil into the world adds a little evil to it. Even if your demon spends only a few moments in this plane, that's just a little more weight in the evil pan of the cosmic balance. And you're also showing approval of the methods an evil summon would use to fight your enemies. For good, especially lawful good, the ends usually do not justify the means.
I don't know, all that stuff sounds definitely spurious to me. If there were mechanical consequences, it would make more sense. Hell, if I use Summon Minor Monster to call up some abyssal rabbits, it is just as much an evil act as if I call up a Nalfashnee with Summon Monster IX. Although both can't actually do anything evil unless I command them to.
|
And I did remember one of my little criticisms:
The book says that casting spells with the "Evil" descriptor should count as an act of minor evil. While I get that for stuff like Death Knell, I've always found that assumption somewhat odd for the Summon Monster spells. If you are calling up some fiend from the Abyss to beat up Ogres, why is that exactly evil? The demon is staying only for a few seconds, is completely under your control and presumably is only going to do good stuff ( i.e. fighting evil ). It doesn't get any hold of your soul for using the summon spell, just as much as summoning a good outsider isn't turning you into a paragon of virtue.
For the exact same reason that Good gods do not allow their Clerics to do it.
And for that matter, if I cast a bunch of "Good" descriptor spells, that doesn't work in the same way, which seems a bit discriminatory. Casting "Evil" spells makes you a bit evil-er, but casting "Good" spells makes you... the same as always? Eh. I really wish the authors would have addressed that a bit.
Agreed on the principle that Evil gods too do not allow their Clerics to cast "Good" descriptor spells (including summonings).
In some way, summoning creatures of an alignment opposed to the god weakens what the god stands for (or strengthen its opposites, which amounts to the same). Which is a VERY good reason for the god to forbid his Clerics from doing it.
|
|
And for that matter, if I cast a bunch of "Good" descriptor spells, that doesn't work in the same way, which seems a bit discriminatory. Casting "Evil" spells makes you a bit evil-er, but casting "Good" spells makes you... the same as always? Eh. I really wish the authors would have addressed that a bit.
Um, didn't they? Page 19, under the Penances list: "Casting a spell with the good descriptor." The implications are pretty straightforward, I think.
For the exact same reason that Good gods do not allow their Clerics to do it.
Well, that is not really my point of criticism. Of course you should not cast spells with an evil descriptor as a good character. My point of contention was that casting a summoning spell and conjuring up an evil creature is seen as a "minor act of evil".
Why, though? You control the creature, let it fight other evil, it has no hold over you ( as far as RAW mechanics and fluff go ) and it returns to its homeplane unharmed. And also, as I laid out above, calling up good creatures doesn't mean that you are doing an inherent act of good.
Um, didn't they? Page 19, under the Penances list: "Casting a spell with the good descriptor." The implications are pretty straightforward, I think.
My reading of that was "You are doing something contrary to your alignment", rather than "casting a good spell makes you inherently more good".
Does anybody know if there is a feat that can add a good descriptor to an arcane spell? Like Consecrate Spell of something?
My point of contention was that casting a summoning spell and conjuring up an evil creature is seen as a "minor act of evil".
Why, though?
Evil outsiders are pure evil. Allowing embodied evil into the world, however briefly, inspires evil in the world. And it allows the evil powers, normally barred from our world, to spy upon it.
Conjuring evil for goods ends is the same as doing evil for good ends. You have to ask yourself: Do the ends justify the means?
Evil outsiders are pure evil. Allowing embodied evil into the world, however briefly, inspires evil in the world. And it allows the evil powers, normally barred from our world, to spy upon it.
Conjuring evil for goods ends is the same as doing evil for good ends. You have to ask yourself: Do the ends justify the means?
That's a very nice houserule, but it is not substantiated by RAW. Also, even going by what you said, conjuring up good creatures apparently doesn't make the world more good and so doesn't means you are now more good than before. Why is good more impotent than evil?
Casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act simple because it has the [Evil] descriptor. And it´s by design. It´s arbitrary ? Yes, but all the game rules are arbitrary.
Some rules are more arbitrary than others, though. Most of them can be explained with some correlation to how it works in the real world. This particular mechanic, however, has no real-world equivalent and should have been explained better. And it still doesn't explain anything why casting a good summon monster spell doesn't make your alignment more good.
That's a very nice houserule, but it is not substantiated by RAW.Evil outsiders are pure evil. Allowing embodied evil into the world, however briefly, inspires evil in the world. And it allows the evil powers, normally barred from our world, to spy upon it.
Conjuring evil for goods ends is the same as doing evil for good ends. You have to ask yourself: Do the ends justify the means?
It's supported by the fact that summoning an evil creature is [evil]. :-)
Also, even going by what you said, conjuring up good creatures apparently doesn't make the world more good and so doesn't means you are now more good than before. Why is good more impotent than evil?
What I said applies to any flavor of outsider. Summoning a good outsider is a good act that inspires goodness. (Unless of course you use it for evil, in which case you've created another moral quandary.)
Well, if that interpretation would be applied across the board and officially substantiated by the developers, I would be totally on your side.
|
Some rules are more arbitrary than others, though. Most of them can be explained with some correlation to how it works in the real world. This particular mechanic, however, has no real-world equivalent and should have been explained better. And it still doesn't explain anything why casting a good summon monster spell doesn't make your alignment more good.
I would guess that calling a butterfly created by Satan or casting a spell devised by Lucifer would be considered evil in real life even if magic doesn´t work. Maybe these spells are evil only because it where created by evil itself ?
Still begs the question if casting a Summon Monster with the good descriptor will then inherently turn the caster towards goodness... which so far I have seen zero official support for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would guess that calling a butterfly created by Satan or casting a spell devised by Lucifer would be considered evil in real life even if magic doesn´t work. Maybe these spells are evil only because it where created by evil itself ?
Still begs the question if casting a Summon Monster with the good descriptor will then inherently turn the caster towards goodness... which so far I have seen zero official support for.
Many good people worry about being tempted by evil. Are there any evil people who are worried about being tempted by good?
|
I see it more as loosing their conviction to go further or do more, risking realizing that they are and have been wrong, or just can't handle the weight of all their murders, than "tempted" to start loving puppies and little babies or whatever.
They probably think that it is a form of weakness, and they must remain strong (evil), not realizing that it's very often the other way around.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still begs the question if casting a Summon Monster with the good descriptor will then inherently turn the caster towards goodness... which so far I have seen zero official support for.
Except the same book we are talking about specifically says in the Redemption portion of the book that casting a spell with the "Good" descriptor counts as a good action for penance. So YES casting a spell with the "Good" descriptor, like summoning a good monster would move you toward goodness.
I just picked up Champions of Purity and am rather impressed by it.
For those of you playing characters who are neither good nor evil -- there is stuff you can use as well, for when you are in an altruistic mood. Not everything in this book requires you to be a full time good guy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, let's not forget that Good is a steep climb while Evil is a slippery slope.
Now you see that good will always triumph over evil, because evil is dumb.
Still begs the question if casting a Summon Monster with the good descriptor will then inherently turn the caster towards goodness... which so far I have seen zero official support for.Except the same book we are talking about specifically says in the Redemption portion of the book that casting a spell with the "Good" descriptor counts as a good action for penance. So YES casting a spell with the "Good" descriptor, like summoning a good monster would move you toward goodness.
And I maintain that this is only appropiate for evil characters who cast this good spell, as you said, as a form of penance. Which is something a lot of evil casters would be averse to in case of spells which involve acts of goodness.
Summoning creatures has little to do with evil or good deeds. I'm still not hearing anything official on why summoning a Dretch would be a little evil, even if it is only there to fight other evil, returns unharmed to its homeplane and doesn't have the possibility to do things you don't want it to do.
|
|
Summoning creatures has little to do with evil or good deeds. I'm still not hearing anything official on why summoning a Dretch would be a little evil, even if it is only there to fight other evil, returns unharmed to its homeplane and doesn't have the possibility to do things you don't want it to do.
Because the spell was created to steathly corrupt the user by evil ?
|
|
Still begs the question if casting a Summon Monster with the good descriptor will then inherently turn the caster towards goodness... which so far I have seen zero official support for.Except the same book we are talking about specifically says in the Redemption portion of the book that casting a spell with the "Good" descriptor counts as a good action for penance. So YES casting a spell with the "Good" descriptor, like summoning a good monster would move you toward goodness.And I maintain that this is only appropiate for evil characters who cast this good spell, as you said, as a form of penance. Which is something a lot of evil casters would be averse to in case of spells which involve acts of goodness.
Summoning creatures has little to do with evil or good deeds. I'm still not hearing anything official on why summoning a Dretch would be a little evil, even if it is only there to fight other evil, returns unharmed to its homeplane and doesn't have the possibility to do things you don't want it to do.
One thing you could consider is that the Abyss, in its' twisted sentience, continues to spawn Dretches because there's a continuing demand for them. And you're generating that demand.
Because the spell was created to steathly corrupt the user by evil ?
Um, Summon Monster? Seriously?
One thing you could consider is that the Abyss, in its' twisted sentience, continues to spawn Dretches because there's a continuing demand for them. And you're generating that demand.
That's an interesting interpretation, but still nothing which would really which has any official veracity.
Developer
|
Summoning creatures has little to do with evil or good deeds. I'm still not hearing anything official on why summoning a Dretch would be a little evil, even if it is only there to fight other evil, returns unharmed to its homeplane and doesn't have the possibility to do things you don't want it to do.
The summon monster spell has this to say regarding alignment and summons:
When you use a summoning spell to summon a creature with an alignment or elemental subtype, it is a spell of that type. Creatures on Table 10–1 marked with an “*” are summoned with the celestial template, if you are good, and the fiendish template, if you are evil. If you are neutral, you may choose which template to apply to the creature. Creatures marked with an “*” always have an alignment that matches yours, regardless of their usual alignment. Summoning these creatures makes the summoning spell's type match your alignment.
Yes, the spell has the good or evil subtype when cast, I think everybody understands this, thank you. The question remains: Why?
I get that it may be construed as a minor act of evil to call a demon/devil up, although you need to really twist and turn to give any actual reason as to why that is, given the official rule and lore parameters the spell has.
But, conversely, the spell doesn't make you more good when you cast it and call up a celestial being. And, no, I disagree that the redemption setting of the book outright states so, my reading of it is more in the direction of "casting a good spell as an evil creature is an active show that you are fighting against your nature ( or nurture )."
|
|
Yes, the spell has the good or evil subtype when cast, I think everybody understands this, thank you. The question remains: Why?
I get that it may be construed as a minor act of evil to call a demon/devil up, although you need to really twist and turn to give any actual reason as to why that is, given the official rule and lore parameters the spell has.
But, conversely, the spell doesn't make you more good when you cast it and call up a celestial being. And, no, I disagree that the redemption setting of the book outright states so, my reading of it is more in the direction of "casting a good spell as an evil creature is an active show that you are fighting against your nature ( or nurture )."
]
You want The Real Reason why summoning evil monsters is [evil] in D&D? Here it is: back in the 80s, during the anti-D&D craze one of the major arguments for considering the game as work of Devil was, among half-orcs and assassins, existence of spells that allow you to conjure devils and demons. As part of making sure nobody gets this kind of argument out again, WotC slapped the [evil] label on summoning spells so that every instance of summoning bad things is bad. And here we are.
Also, why ask for official explanations when you're going to disagree with them anyway? :)
Well, aside from me not disagreeing with official explanations all that much ( rather more with the frequency we actually get them ^^ ), we haven't gotten one yet. Pointing out that it has the evil descriptor comes just to the level of "Because I said so", not any real type of logical explanation.
If someone official said "casting evil spells is a little bit of an evil act and casting good spells is a little bit of a good act" would that be enough?
I don't really understand how there can be an answer to "why?" that isn't just "because we said so". After all, there's no such thing as alignment in reality so common sense doesn't apply.
|
|
You're summoning a creature to do a job for you, but that creature still has free will and as much autonomy as you allow it to have. That means an evil summon will do the job in as evil a way as possible, and a good summon will do it in as good a way as possible (if that makes sense). Example: You need to defeat a goblin, so you summon a monster to do it for you. If you summon a Cacodaemon, it will take pleasure in biting that goblin until it is unconscious, rip out its throat, and then eat its soul, condemning it to Abaddon regardless of actual deeds. If you summon a Lantern Archon, it will lead the goblin away from other people it might hurt and knock it out with beams of holy light.
Sesharan, that comes as close to a good explanation as I've heard. Thanks!
Steve, the point I was trying to make was that most spells with the Evil descriptor normally have very unpleasant effects and thus are easily to accept as having said descriptor. Summon spells did not have that visceral effect, but what Sesharan said resonated pretty well with me. I'll consider my complaint rescinded. ^^
Better picture: Imrijka and the Mite, or Hayato and the Goblin babies?
I'm a bit late in getting around to this (wasn't keeping up with the thread over the weekend), but thanks to those who answered my questions about the Witch patrons. :)
|
|
From Champions of Purity, page 29
School evocation [good, light]; Level cleric 2, druid 2, sorcerer/
wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (a piece of flint and a pinch of silver dust)
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area 10-ft.-radius burst
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex partial; Spell Resistance yes
This spell fills the area with a brilliant flash of shimmering light.
Creatures in the area are blinded for 1d4 rounds, or dazzled for 1d4 rounds if they succeed at a Reflex save. Evil creatures in the area of the burst take 1d4 points of damage per caster level (max 5d4), whether they succeed at the Reflex save or not.
overstimulation of the eyes. A dazzled creature takes a –1 penalty on attack rolls and sight-based Perception checks.
We where having a discussion in our game if this spell is too powerful for it's level. Specifically if it is too powerful at it's level for a Cleric/Oracle, but in general. So I figured I would ask what others think.
In my opinion, it's good, but not overly broken. It seems flavor wise to be a perfect fit for a divine spell fit for a Cleric type. I do feel that the Long Range should probably drop to Close, if not originating at the Caster, but what is your opinion.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
We where having a discussion in our game if this spell is too powerful for it's level. Specifically if it is too powerful at it's level for a Cleric/Oracle, but in general. So I figured I would ask what others think.
In my opinion, it's good, but not overly broken. It seems flavor wise to be a perfect fit for a divine spell fit for a Cleric type. I do feel that the Long Range should probably drop to Close, if not originating at the Caster, but what is your opinion.
I was just about to post about this spell when you beat me to it!
I don't think it's OVERLY powerful, personally, but it definitely IS powerful. It's also one of the few damage-dealing [good]-descriptor spells that Sorcerers get access to, which makes it the IDEAL spell for an Aasimar Sorcerer. Why, you may ask?
First, Aasimar can take the Heavenborn racial option, which treats them as +1 caster level for [good] and [light] descriptor spells (which this spell is both). On top of that, the Aasimar Sorcerer favored class bonus gives you +1/4 to your caster level for [good] descriptor spells. This means that at 4th level, when you gain access to this spell, you can already be doing 6d4 damage and dazzled with no save and possibly blinded to all evil creatures nearby, as long as you picked up a lesser Rod of Intensify.
I'm definitely going to be building myself a new Aasimar Sorcerer for PFS now! :-D
|
Got a question regarding the alignment changes, atonement, and penances. I see that it's double your HD to go from evil to neutral to good. So for a 7 HD creature, that's 28 penances. Possibly more if you level up on a fairly regular basis.
My question is, what about those alignments that shift the other axis. Like Lawful/Chaotic/Neutral. A monk has been fairly blah about things lately, and almost getting a bit lazy on the whole law aspect. He's LN, but he's been too neutral about something. Or maybe something snapped and he went chaotic for whatever reason. How many penances do you do then? Equal to your HD? I would have liked to have seen a small write up about that somewhere. I mean, I've got a friend who was playing a LG paladin, and because of his attitude towards certain things that didn't really interest him as a player, the GM made him NG instead, and a fallen paladin. So what do you do other than an atonement for gold? He should be allowed penance. However, there's no rulings in here for that.
Might have to bring this to James and his question thread, see if he's got an answer.