"After long years of trafficking with demons, the sorcerer was finally overwhelmed with the evil forces he had unleashed, and descended into dark madness..."
Except, players run no risk of this whatsoever when using a spell with the Evil descriptor. Raising undead? Go for it! Summoning evil creatures? Absolutely, why not?!
Other than whatever impetus the DM places upon the character to roleplay out the action, and the restriction on divine casters from using spells of opposed alignments, there is absolutely no penalty whatsoever for a LG caster summoning a demon, no matter how many times he/she does it.
I would like to see a mechanic that instituted some real threat of using the powers of evil. I've toyed around with the idea a little bit for quite some time, but never wrote down anything firm. My ideas have, thus far, been based on a Three-Strikes-You're-Out system, where the character would make a Will save every time he cast a spell with an alignment descritpor that is opposed to his own alignment in some way. If he failed the saves, he would start to move a little closer to that alignment. So, an evil sorcerer couldn't go around summoning Archons or he would risk actually becoming good.
However, these questions then come to my mind: What should the save DC be? 15 + spell level? That seems to represent some real, but certainly not overcomeable, threat to the caster. Second, how many saves should they have to fail? My thoughts have ranged from making the save DC lower, but on even one failed save, you move a step closer to the alignment of the spell, to other thoughts of failing three saves or some such, and then getting a "mark", which resets your failed-save tally, and after X number of marks, you actually shift a step closer to the alignment of the spell. This model would have a much higher DC.
But that raises further questions. Should there be a time limit- if you fail a save and then wait a year before using another spell of that alignment, should you pick up with your "tallies" where you left off, or should your descression serve to annul your previous "slippage."
And for that matter, should all failed saves accumulate, rgardless of alignment of the spell? For example, if Ted the TN wizard cast a good spell and got a "mark", an evil spell and got a "mark", and a lawful spell and got a "mark," should Ted have to get three marks for each alignment to be at risk of shifting, or should all the mark accumulate, and he shifts to the last one used that triggered the change, that being lawful in this case?
That all sounds pretty complicated and rambly, but if you sort through it, the system is pretty simple. It's just I've only got a rough idea of each step, and some of them are variable, and I have several variables for each step along the model. So, please, discuss and let's come to some conclusion about what the exact process should be! And if anyone has a mechanic that is totally different than the nebulous example above, please throw it into the mix as well.
|
Except, players run no risk of this whatsoever when using a spell with the Evil descriptor. Raising undead? Go for it! Summoning evil creatures? Absolutely, why not?!
Other than whatever impetus the DM places upon the character to roleplay out the action, and the restriction on divine casters from using spells of opposed alignments, there is absolutely no penalty whatsoever for a LG caster summoning a demon, no matter how many times he/she does it.
I assume you are speaking of non-cleric spellcasters, in particular arcane ones. I agree. It seems that this is something that should have been addressed long ago, and no one ever got around to it.
My ideas have, thus far, been based on a Three-Strikes-You're-Out system, where the character would make a Will save every time he cast a spell with an alignment descriptor that is opposed to his own alignment in some way. If he failed the saves, he would start to move a little closer to that alignment. So, an evil sorcerer couldn't go around summoning Archons or he would risk actually becoming good.
It might be better to have a more gradual alignment shift. If you have a LG spellcaster who casts a bunch of spell with the 'evil' descriptor, have him shift to a more neutral alignment to start. Then, if the behavior continues, you can shift him into an evil alignment to match his actions.
Also, when it comes to summoning spells, it depends heavily on what the casters intentions are for. What if the evil sorcerer you mentioned was summoning Archons just so that he could then harvest some of their blood for use in a dark ritual?
However, these questions then come to my mind: What should the save DC be? 15 + spell level? That seems to represent some real, but certainly not overcomeable, threat to the caster. Second, how many saves should they have to fail? My thoughts have ranged from making the save DC lower, but on even one failed save, you move a step closer to the alignment of the spell, to other thoughts of failing three saves or some such, and then getting a "mark", which resets your failed-save tally, and after X number of marks, you actually shift a step closer to the alignment of the spell. This model would have a much higher DC.
I like your 15 + spell level for the save DC, but then I would do at least 3 failed saves before they shift to a neutral alignment. Once they have had an alignement shift, then lower the DC and make it 1 or 2 failed saves. That way you can represent the increasing pull of evil on their souls, that slippery slope they started on by their own choice.
But that raises further questions. Should there be a time limit- if you fail a save and then wait a year before using another spell of that alignment, should you pick up with your "tallies" where you...
I would say no to a time limit, but then offer the character a chance for redemption - some kind of mission they would undertake to atone for their sins.
What if the demon (or any 'evil' creature) were summoned and magically bound (i.e. Quest, Wish, etc) to perform a specific 'good' task, like destroying another demon, for example, then banished upon that task's completion...no harm done? Why would that be considered 'evil' and deserving of punishment as opposed to summoning a 'good' creature to do exactly the same thing? Might a chaotic good diety, for example, support an 'ends justify the means' type of activity? Just wondering.
It all depends on how much you're playing up the "demons are evil incarnate" thing. If demons are literally the metaphysical force of evil given form then you're bringing the very essence of evil onto the material plane and thus tainting it in some way. If not, then yeah there's bound to be a chaotic good deity with that philosophy.
P.S. I remember seeing something somewhere about summoning demons and casting evil spells being evil acts and thus changing your alignment just like slaughtering hapless civilians would.
Check out the Taint rules in Unearthed Arcana, or Heroes of Horror if you have either of those, Saern.
Though, in using the taint rules, I'd have the DC to resist taint for casting Evil spells be equal to DC 10 + Spell Level + Taint Score. That way, the more taint one gains the harder it is to resist that slippery slope.
For each failed save, grant one point of taint. Or, alternatively, 1 point for L0-3 spells, 1d3 for L4-6, and 1d4 for L7-9 spells.
I'd grant a +2 bonus to the save for Neutral Casters, just because they've less moral issues with using evil spells if there's a good reason.
I'd give a +4 bonus to the save for Good casters who are using a Conjuration (Calling) spell to whistle up a demon for the purpose of imprisoning them. This would be a fairly rare case, like if some demon were known to be manipulating events on the material world and locking them up would solve the problem.
Evil casters really shouldn't get a bonus, because they're perfectly willing to sacrifice something relatively unimportant in exchange for the power they wield. Plus, gaining Moderate or Severe taint actually gives them bonus feats which they can use for /anything/, not just feats that require a taint score.
Heroes of Horror has the expanded version of the taint rules though, and I like the book, so I obviously recommend it over UA. :)
Edit: Dummy me called it Tome of Horror at first. Bah.
Blue Rose also has guidelines for using sorcery-- evil magic. Of course, it goes beyond demon summoning to include mind control and other evil actions...
Hey Saern, it seems like I'm always telling you to get Mongoose's Conan RPG :)
It has rules for "Corruption" which is similar to taint in UA (which AFAIK is cribbed from the 3.0 Oriental Adventures), but with a more cthulhu-esque feel. A sorceror (or anyone) who traffics with demons and undead etc makes a fort save and if they fail they accrue Corruption points. Every point makes further saves difficult, and as you get them you slowly change. The changes give you benefits and hindrances, the benefits usually something like +1 CON or a natural weapon, the hindrance a penalty to CHA or DEX or a mental illness orsomething.
Corruption is only supernatural evil, so you don't slowly get fangs and red eyes for being a serial killer. Also since it's based on Fort it's easier for warriors to resist Corruption, and wizard and roguey types more easily fall prey to it. The Conan RPG doesn't have clerics, so unfortunately you'd have to tweak it so evil priests don't go through their whole lives ignoring the consequences of trafficing with devils. Or maybe their patron grants them a certain amount of protection in return for their soul...
I don't have Unearthed Arcana, and really must say I don't have much interest, either. Most of what I've heard I haven't liked. I'm also trying to cut back on spending on books. And I don't have Heroes of Horror. I'll give that a look next time I'm at the store. My area is pretty sparse when it comes to gaming supplies, however (I do my shopping at Waldenbooks and Borders, not an actual gaming store, and I've never seen them carry much in the way of other RPGs. I've never seen the Conan game you mentioned, but thanks for the heads up, again.
Also, I do consider demons to be evil incarnate. It's kinda of their whole "thing," ya know? The intent of the spell doesn't matter- the actual act of summoning a demon is the evil part, which forces the caster to expose himself to dark energies, and yes, corrupts a bit of the world just from the presence of the creature. So, deffinately an evil act.
I'll go with the following system, since I got some positive feedback on it: When casting an spell with an alignment descriptor, a caster must make a Will save (DC 15 + spell level). If the caster ever fails three such saves, he immediately shifts one step closer to the alignment of the last spell he failed the save for using. For example, a True Neutral wizard who summoned a demon (thus using a CE spell), an a devil (LE), and a slaad (CN), and failed the save on each, would immediately shift to True Neutral.
A caster does not have to make save when using a spell with an alignment descriptor that already matches some part of his own alignment, unless the spell has more than one descriptor, one or more of which is different from his own alignment (such as a LG spell caster using a summon spell to call a LE devil).
Upon shifting alignment, the caster must fail another three saves to shift alignment again. Every time a caster shifts towards a given alignment, spells of that descriptor gain a +1 cumulative bonus on the alignment save DCs every time the caster shifts towards that alignment due to spell usage. The DC bonus from opposed alignments (Good/Evil and Law/Chaos) cancel each other on a one-for-one basis.
That should cover it. It might mean a tiny bit more bookwork now and then, but I doubt it, as the threat of real consequences will probably keep most good roleplayers from using spells with alignments opposing their own, which in turn negates any extra bookwork. :)
You could make evil spells require taint, but I would incur some kind of benefit for them to balance that out. Otherwise, it's just not tempting to use evil spells. That's the point of evil - it's tempting, it gives people power, and the heroes of goodness define themselves by their rejection of the benefits of evil.
Consider the sacrifice rules in the Book of Vile Darkness. Anyone can gain the benefits, without investing a feat or gold to do it. The benefits are powerful, and actually encourage depraved acts. It's tempting to use, but the heroes are defined by whether or not they choose to use this.
It all depends on how much you're playing up the "demons are evil incarnate" thing. If demons are literally the metaphysical force of evil given form then you're bringing the very essence of evil onto the material plane and thus tainting it in some way. If not, then yeah there's bound to be a chaotic good deity with that philosophy.
Yup...and even if that demon would be under Quest spell or whatever, it might still do its bets to taint the surroundings, especially the summoner...comic Books of Magic did handle this in some of the earlier issues, as does story of Faust (especially the movie by Murnau, where Faust summons Mephistotheles to get rid of plague in his hometown...). That's mostly roleplaying and co-operation with DM but should definitely be considered as evil acts.
Didn't Ravenloft also have some kind of taint system?
For what it's worth, I don't think D&D is built upon the premise that evil is a path of ultimate self-destruction that conventional morality and much literature is based upon.
The idea of inflicting some sort of taint or corruption upon players is more a question of how the specific campaign world works.
On the other hand, IMC use of an evil spell will tilt PC alignments that way as sure as killing a random person on the street.
Regards,
Jack
You could make evil spells require taint, but I would incur some kind of benefit for them to balance that out. Otherwise, it's just not tempting to use evil spells. That's the point of evil - it's tempting, it gives people power, and the heroes of goodness define themselves by their rejection of the benefits of evil.
Consider the sacrifice rules in the Book of Vile Darkness. Anyone can gain the benefits, without investing a feat or gold to do it. The benefits are powerful, and actually encourage depraved acts. It's tempting to use, but the heroes are defined by whether or not they choose to use this.
That's a good point- perhaps there's a special condition that if you voluntarily fail and alignment save, you gain a +2 bonus for that specific casting of the spell? Hardly worth it in the long run, but tempting in the immediate, nonetheless, which is how evil typically works.
However, I'm not just doing this for evil. It's quite possible, in this system, that an evil spellcaster could accidentaly become good by summoning too many celestials. Should good also have this bonus? On the one hand, it would take away the insideous power of evil somewhat, but I also like the thought of encouraging the "ultimate power of good" philosophy, as well, which would be accomplished by at least balancing these benefits.
I wouldn't worry about doing anything like that for Lawful and Chaotic spells, as they don't seem very apt to reaching out and trying to convert someone, at least not the way the lore arround the forces of good and evil do in our culture.
Perhaps, outside of exact rules deffinitions, evil creatures are simply easier to control, at least temporarily, while good creatures are more scrupulous in what they do, which would come down to how I played/described summoned outsiders.
I don't have Unearthed Arcana, and really must say I don't have much interest, either.
The taint rules in UA are also in Dragon magazine. It's one of the 3.0 issues, I forget which one...I'm thinking early 300's.
M@
Luckily, d20srd.org has all the Unearthed Arcana rules.
I don't know you guys, I have a problem with alignments producing taint. I mean its just a reflection of a characters moral standing based on their chosen philosophy. Alignment, imho, anyways does not restrict you in any way. A good character CAN at will commit evil acts, he or she just CHOOSES not to. And if they DO commit evil, then their alignment just shifts towars evil (depending on the circumstances and severity of said action). I really don't see the need for taint. Sure summoning demons is evil, but so is killing innocents...does that produce taint? and Taint also carries a derogatory connotation can evil characets or NPCs be tainted by good? will saving a life give you good taint?
I also have a vision of a thoroughly evil villain summoning archons to commit more evil (with no intention of reforming)...becoming tainted by good....having his alignemt shift temporarity...waltzing into a good church (now immune to all the hallows and forbiddances and the protection vs evils etc...) to commit more evil....just doesn't make sense to me.
And IF you do choose to go the Alignemt taint way...then you must introduce mechanisms for the law chaos axis too maintain balance (this gives more ammunition my players who think that True Neutral is the alignemt to be, since they are the only ones with no spells that can detect or traget them LOL).
Anywyas just my 2 cents, but i think its unecessary...the characters as always have free will...but their actions carry consequences in games only (besides the paladin and clerics who draw their divine powers for dieties...and their violations affect their powers instantly). Fighters and sorcerors continue to function just fine with a different alignment but their action have consequences in game.
But if do like the taint system...i would suggest checking out the Shadowlands taint (from oriental adventures) to give you ideas...but just remember THAT taint could never be expunged.
Have fun, and be safe all.
It's not a restriction. It's just giving a clear rules adjudication to what the consequences of taking these actions are. I'm not calling this "taint" like everyone else is. I actually have no firm idea what this "taint" mechanic is, though I can take a wild guess.
My interpretation of the rules is that spells of an alignment descriptor are composed of the basic essence of that philosophical outlook, and thus using them exposes oneself to much greater risk of changing one's own outlook to that of the spell's. I realize that's just my opinion, but I like it and want to present it. This just helps me decide when enough is enough and your actions catch up to you, resulting in real change.
Also, our culture seems to stress good vs. evil much more than order vs. chaos; the former two seem to be the ones that do all the work to convert people to their side. That's also how I want to portray it in my campaign, as I consider good vs. evil much more important than law vs. chaos. So that's why I'm not including save modifications for the latter two.
Interestingly enough, I have a player who hates TN, as he claims that it's "just nothing," and that disturbs him. He'd much rather have an outlook classifiable by one of the other alignments, even though that puts him under the effects of some spells.
There seems to be a distinction between "evil deeds" and "association with fundamental evil." It is a pretty fuzzy one, but it's already there in the game. Check out the description of detect evil. Cleric-types register at the highest level. Like evil outsiders. Others are much harder to discern ("shining" about half as "darkly" as a cleric-type of equivalent level).
The sum of the evil deeds and intents of non-divine classes is just not as evil as those of divine classes. Their evil is more mundane, even if they commit the same deeds and have the same intent. It seems this is because of some kind of feedback loop the divine folks have. The more evil they do, the more it feeds their dark masters, who are well pleased with them and so grant them more power to commit more evil.
A Taint mechanic just takes this a step further. It makes the distinction between mundane evil and supernatural evil a palpable one. If you do mundane evil deeds you are just a nasty person. If you start consorting with the minions and tools of true darkness you are going to be changed by doing so. Doing mundane evil may leave you more open to the effects of association with supernatural evil (you already have places for the taint to "hook in" or just have an eroded "immune system") but they are not the same thing.
Whether the reverse should be true for good (i.e is there "good taint") depends on how these fundamentals work. Good can just provide you with a hyped up "immune system" making you resistant to the effects of Taint. However, since you ARE opening yourself to evil you are risking Taint. Moreover, since you are committing an evil deed by doing so (and both means and ends matter in D&D alignment)you are moving yourself quickly towards an evil alignment (thereby losing your alignment based taint resistance).
Or you can have a corresponding "reverse taint" and have something change in people who work closely with the forces of good. Maybe they move towards a "state of grace." (Maybe people who work with good start becoming aasimar? And taint shapes you into a tiefling?)
In any case, a campaign with a focus on these issues would really be served by examining the Books of Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds.
It's really a variant to use taint to represent evil. Standardly, it's just an evil act to use evil magic, and like stealing or lying, a person can do it without being truly evil.
Evil spells just tend to bring evil into the world and have evil consequences. Perhaps the undead you created will attack innocent people when you're not around, or the demon you summoned to perform a task will tempt a good cleric to perform evil acts while he's there. Perhaps your use of undead will give someone else the idea to try it, and he in turn will do evil things with it, or do evil things to get it, or the demon you summon will make you a substantially better offer if you agree to do a few little evil things.