| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hi
I wondered what happens if a good or neutral aligned creature casts a spell that has the [evil] tag.
a) Can they even cast it?
b) Is it an evil act to do so, aka might shift your alignment, just for casting it, even if its for a good cause?
c) Is there some sort of "backlash" if its a good creature casting it?
d) Would someone like that register as evil on Detect Evil for a while after casting it? Would Smite Evil hurt them?
e) What does the [evil] actually mean? "Protection from Evil" just mentions protection from evil creatures, it doesn't give anything against [evil] spells?
Yes, a spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act.
Neutral casters have more flexibility, but no paladin could ever cast it, and I would determine that a good cleric would also not be given access to that spell by their good deity.
Evil for detect and smiting purposes has to do with character alignment, not spells known/cast. A neutral caster could know and cast evil spells without being evil, and therefore would not be detected as evil and could not be smited (smitten? that just sounds wrong...).
Hi
I wondered what happens if a good or neutral aligned creature casts a spell that has the [evil] tag.
a) Can they even cast it?
b) Is it an evil act to do so, aka might shift your alignment, just for casting it, even if its for a good cause?
c) Is there some sort of "backlash" if its a good creature casting it?
d) Would someone like that register as evil on Detect Evil for a while after casting it? Would Smite Evil hurt them?
e) What does the [evil] actually mean? "Protection from Evil" just mentions protection from evil creatures, it doesn't give anything against [evil] spells?
a. Clerics and druids that are good aligned can not. Arcane casters can.
b. An evil act is an evil act. How many acts it takes to shift the character is up to the GM.c. See B.
d. Yes they would register as evil for the detect evil spell. No Smite evil would not hurt them. You have to actually have an evil alignment of evil to be smited.
e.[evil] means that it has the evil subtype. You don't get any bonuses against evil spells.
d. Yes they would register as evil for the detect evil spell. No Smite evil would not hurt them. You have to actually have an evil alignment of evil to be smited.
For how long would you register as evil? Just while they're casting it or the effect is in place? Or an amount of time that's up to the GM?
d. Yes they would register as evil for the detect evil spell. No Smite evil would not hurt them. You have to actually have an evil alignment of evil to be smited.For how long would you register as evil? Just while they're casting it or the effect is in place? Or an amount of time that's up to the GM?
The rules for the detect spells and the lingering magic are in the "detect magic" description.
Faint 1d6 rounds
Moderate 1d6 minutes
Strong 1d6 × 10 minutes
Overwhelming 1d6 days
Ah, thank you
,There is no mechanical alignment shift merely by casting a spell. Its what you do with the spell.
Summoning a lantern archon to slaughter innocents is an evil act, meanwhile it has the [good] descriptor.
i'm pretty sure if you had a player who made a habit of routinely summoning Archons and using them to slaughter innocent villagers that said player character would be getting all kinds of attention from Archons higher up the food chain.
Yes, a spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act.
I don't see that anywhere in the rules. All I see is that certain divine casters can't cast spells with alignment descriptors opposite their diety's alignment. Does anyone have a page reference for it actually being an evil/good/chaotic/lawful act to cast a spell with the respective descriptor?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure why this thread keeps coming up, nor why people who posted in the other threads, and got the official dev answer, keep posting the opposite of the devs.
Anyway, here's James Jacobs on it.
Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil; that's why they have that descriptor. Same goes for Good or Lawful or Chaotic. That means that certain classes can't really cast them at all (divine classes of different alignments), but that other classes (arcane spellcasters, for the most part) can cast them as much as they like. But casting alignment spells a lot will and should turn the caster toward that alignment, unless the GM doesn't care about alignment and doesn't enforce such changes, in which case the GM should let EVERY player at the table know that alignment doesn't impact the game so that players who do play as if it does have a chance to adjust their play styles as appropriate. Removing the alignment types of certain spells has implications, though, and before you do so make sure that no one in your group is planning on building a character who uses the alignemnt descriptors in their character build!
You would detect that an evil spell was cast. The caster would not detect as evil. Not without an evil alignment.
Certain spells, like Infernal Healing, specifically do make you detect evil, so as a blanket statement, that's false.
Certain spells, like Infernal Healing, specifically do make you detect evil, so as a blanket statement, that's false.
You would detect that an evil spell was cast. The caster would not detect as evil. Not without an evil alignment.In basic RAW, as per the spell "Detect Evil" as written above. The statement is true. If other instances alter the rulings based on circumstance, such as with infernal healing. Then that's a different case.
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Just pointing out that saying Evil spells don't make you detect as evil is not always true. It is true unless the spell states otherwise.
But I don't believe any DM would reason that summoning good aligned creatures to do evil would be 'doing good' rather than doing evil as an example.
And nobody claimed it would. What was said was, casting the spell with an alignment is an aligned act. What you do after that is a different aligned act.
If you save a woman from a fire, that's a good act. If you then sell her to slavers that's an evil act. The fact that you did evil afterwards doesn't change the good act. If you perform an evil act by casting an evil spell to save a burning orphan, it doesn't change the fact you are performing an evil act in the process of doing it.
All it does is balance things out a bit.
And that's really what's being claimed here. That the alignment descriptor on the spell is what matters rather than the actions of the caster and how they are directing the spell.
No, it is not what is being claimed. What's being claimed is one and one thing only. Casting an aligned spell is an act of that alignment. If you are doing it for some reason other than to perform an act of that alignment, all you're doing is perverting both acts. You're perverting the evil act of casting the spell into a good act, or the good act of summoning an archon to do evil. In both instances you are perverting the intention of the spell to work at cross ends to it.
What's most likely to happen is you end up with everyone ticked off at you. The good guys wanting to smash you for perverting good by using evil, and the evil guys wanting to smash you for perverting evil for good ends.
Casting a spell with an alignment descriptor is neither an act of that alignment nor does in mechanically shift the caster towards that alignment. Neither of these is supported in the core rules.
Wrong, it is an aligned act. The creative director of the system said so. You can house rule it, but it is an aligned act. If it weren't, Paladin's would not be forbidden to cast Evil spells. Nor would evil clerics be forbidden from casting Good spells.
Fire is not an alignment, and casting a fire spell has no alignment. Casting a Good/Evil/Law/Chaos aligned spell however is an aligned act. By the rules, it has to be, since you can't cast them if they oppose your alignment.
Again, you can houserule it if you want, but don't state it as a rule, because it isn't.
Certain spells, like Infernal Healing, specifically do make you detect evil, so as a blanket statement, that's false.
You would detect that an evil spell was cast. The caster would not detect as evil. Not without an evil alignment.
Not to nitpick here, but the spell states that the TARGET detects as evil as long as the spell is running on him. It says absolutely nothing about the caster.
No, it is not what is being claimed. What's being claimed is one and one thing only. Casting an aligned spell is an act of that alignment. If you are doing it for some reason other than to perform an act of that alignment, all you're doing is perverting both acts. You're perverting the evil act of casting the spell into a good act, or the good act of summoning an archon to do evil. In both instances you are perverting the intention of the spell to work at cross ends to it.
Is there ANY mention of this mechanic in the core rules? It's noted that spells have alignment descriptors, and that certain casters cannot cast spells with alignment descriptors opposed to their own or their diety's alignment, but it does not say anywhere that it's an evil/good/chaotic/lawful act to cast a spells with an alignment descriptor.
Note that your James Jacobs quote comes from 2 years ago, when Pathfinder was still in Beta. Additionally, no wording at all has been introduced in the game since then to support his statements, so I hardly think they ought to be considered part of the core rules.
Certainly it's something any GM can make a ruling on, as the rules don't really give strict specifications for what is evil, good, chaotic, or lawful other than certain broad intentions and actions.
I side with James Maissen on this issue and, seemingly, against James Jacobs' position. I simply cannot imagine that, for instance, a wizard who occasionally goes around kidnapping and killing innocent victims could somehow redeem himself merely by repeatedly casting protection from evil on himself. How many protection from evil spells might it take to counteract a single murder? Will five protection from evil spells a day keep the murderer "neutral" if he takes the life of a victim only once a month? How about if he doubles or triples his casting rate; would that be sufficient to make him detect as good when he tips his hat to his paladin neighbor? If more castings are required to offset his bad behavior he could simply invest in and discharge one or more wands until he finally tips the scales on the side of righteousness...
If this is the way magic and alignment work in the game, then it'd seem necessary to radically redefine what being "good" and "evil" means.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh*
Gorbacz wrote:To everybody who says: "it's a minor thing, homerule it and be happy !" - yes, but what about PFS ?
PFS uses the core rules. Animate dead is evil, and animating dead is evil, and undead are evil. They're more or less off limits for PCs to play with as a result.
As with all spells that have the [evil] descriptor, casting infernal healing is indeed an evil act. How many [evil] spells it takes for you to cast before your alignment shifts toward evil is entirely left up to your GM. Could be immediate, could be after you cast the spell 100 times, could be never. Could be that as long as you cast the spell for good purposes and do enough good acts to balance out your karma that it'll NEVER have an effect.The [evil] descriptor is mostly in the game so we can have other effects that bolster or diminish spells that are [evil], and to limit certain off-theme spells from spellcasters with alignment requirements. So if you're a good-aligned cleric... no casting of infernal healing for you!
Sylvanite wrote:Awesome! A developer reply! I don't mean to be insolent, but where does it say that casting spells with an [evil] descriptor is an evil act? I thought I remembered that from 3.5, but couldn't find it anywhere in Pathfinder, hence the thread.
Is there a reference I can use with my group, or is it just an implied thing in the rules or an intention?
Beyond common sense that a spell that's evil enough for us to specifically cite it as being [evil], and beyond the circumstantial evidence that clerics can't cast spells that don't match their alignment... no.
Your GM gets to decide how much casting [evil] spells impacts your alignment. Or [good] or [chaotic] or [law] spells for that matter.
Again,
You can houserule it all you want. The guy in charge of the core design has stated, see above, that it is the intention that casting aligned spells is an aligned act, and that it follows from the clerical/paladinic casting restrictions. And saying it was 2 years ago for the first quote I gave is not an argument for the other 2 which were a year ago, and this month.
No, it is not what is being claimed. What's being claimed is one and one thing only. Casting an aligned spell is an act of that alignment. If you are doing it for some reason other than to perform an act of that alignment, all you're doing is perverting both acts. You're perverting the evil act of casting the spell into a good act, or the good act of summoning an archon to do evil. In both instances you are perverting the intention of the spell to work at cross ends to it.Is there ANY mention of this mechanic in the core rules? It's noted that spells have alignment descriptors, and that certain casters cannot cast spells with alignment descriptors opposed to their own or their diety's alignment, but it does not say anywhere that it's an evil/good/chaotic/lawful act to cast a spells with an alignment descriptor.
Note that your James Jacobs quote comes from 2 years ago, when Pathfinder was still in Beta. Additionally, no wording at all has been introduced in the game since then to support his statements, so I hardly think they ought to be considered part of the core rules.
Certainly it's something any GM can make a ruling on, as the rules don't really give strict specifications for what is evil, good, chaotic, or lawful other than certain broad intentions and actions.
The mechanics of the game change. The flavor didn't.
There are some interesting exceptions to the rule..the Poison spell is not given the Evil descriptor but most would regard poisoning someone as an evil act
This should always be noted
I do want to point out one thing here. Messageboard posts are never official, no matter who they come from. The only official source of changes and rulings is the FAQ and the update documents at this time. We here at Paizo will give out opinions and you can feel free to use those as you see fit in your game, but beyond that it is left for your GM to decide (as it should be with all such matters).
We are never going to be able to rule on every single issue that comes up. This game is just too complex for that, so this is the only way to keep our sanity intact (and yours).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
There are some interesting exceptions to the rule..the Poison spell is not given the Evil descriptor but most would regard poisoning someone as an evil act
Because you are not calling on the essence of evil to do the deed. If your spell were putting necromantic energy into the person to poison them, it would get [Evil].
Using the spell to poison is still an evil act, but it's not invoking Evil (note capital vs smaller) to do it. If you were calling forth Evil to poison them by putting Daemon Venom into their veins, then the spell itself would be [Evil], and the act of poisoning would be evil. In other words, you get a two-fer with [Evil] spells used for evil purposes.
This should always be noted
Link
So basically, there is no RAW.
Do it however you want in your games.
I think that's been rule 0 since 1st edition.
When people want to know about this stuff, they come to the forums. If you don't want the input of the designers, then fine. But if people who post questions quite often want to know what the intent was. Posting your own interpretation is fine. But don't mistake it for RAW. The closest you can get to RAW is the people who design it giving their opinion. If that's not good enough, then you are going to houserule it anyway.
Heres something:
Taken from Summon Monster I:
If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.
You merely direct it. Not control. That means if you do something inherently opposed to its nature (AKA evil via archon) the creature will refuse (unless you trick it), much like certain things will not be approached by animals (unless you use handle animal to push them)
I'm thinking that you don't understand what RAW means as you're now confusing that for perhaps RAI.
I know exactly what RAW vs RAI is. In this case, I believe it's RAW, the dev posted he also believed it to be RAW. If you want to ignore that, fine, but that's your interpretation, not RAW.
Did anything involving evil acts change in the move to pathfinder?
Nope.
If not, how do the feelings of one of the designers that didn't alter anything really impact things for you?
They don't change my feelings. Because it's always been an aligned act to cast a spell with an alignment tag. A Paladin has never been allowed to cast an [Evil] spell. Go back and look at the 3.5 books, specifically the GOOD and EVIL books (can't remember the two books names now, the ones that went into epic good vs evil).
Also if they had really meant for it to be as you claimed (until just now) was RAW, wouldn't they, just perhaps, have actually written something to that effect in the core rules?
They did. They put [Evil], [Good], [Lawful], and [Chaotic] in the spells themselves, then they specifically wrote rules stating clerics/paladins could not cast spells opposed to their alignment. That is because casting an aligned spell is an act of that alignment.
I think you might be used to bandying words like 'RAW' and 'houserule' around, but I'm not sure that you've taken the time to sit down with what they mean.
I think you're just trying to be insulting, but I'm pretty used to that on these boards. I think you're in the group of people who read the rules and then ignore what they say because it does not fit with your worldview.
The current rule on alignment change is that it is in the hands of the DM to deal with en total. There's no mechanical cast [x] descriptor spell means act of some alignment. Including that mindless and mechanical move into what is supposed to be your reasoned view as a DM is the houserule and no other.
Yes, the current rule is that alignment change is up to the GM. Nobody has said it isn't. The GM is the one who determines how many evil acts you have to perform to become evil. Please show me where that was posted by me as not being the case. However, the book defines what are evil acts (read the section on evil). The GM can houserule that raising dead is not an evil act. But that's a house rule. A GM can rule that murdering orphans is not an evil act, but that's a houserule, the rules of the game are it's an evil act. A GM can rule that obeying the law is not a lawful act, but it is a houserule. Any mindless claim that an evil act is not an evil act is just a houserule on your part.
You merely direct it. Not control. That means if you do something inherently opposed to its nature (AKA evil via archon) the creature will refuse (unless you trick it), much like certain things will not be approached by animals (unless you use handle animal to push them)
Thank you -- I was going to point that one out also -- a Summoned Archon (unless it's being tricked) isn't going to participate in the slaughter of villagers -- so the whole subversion of a good creature (in this case, really a paragon of Good and Law) argument doesn't really fly.
I'm thinking that you don't understand what RAW means as you're now confusing that for perhaps RAI.
I know exactly what RAW vs RAI is. In this case, I believe it's RAW, the dev posted he also believed it to be RAW. If you want to ignore that, fine, but that's your interpretation, not RAW.
Great, so where is it written?
-James
Great, so, try reading the thread, rather than asking people to repeat what's already been posted.
And that's really what's being claimed here. That the alignment descriptor on the spell is what matters rather than the actions of the caster and how they are directing the spell.
Actually I am not seeing that claim. Casting a spell and what you do with that spell ARE two different actions. All folks are saying is that casting a spell with an alignment descriptor is an act OF THAT ALINGMENT, and that has been supported by one of the Game Developers who's job it is to make such distinctions.
What you do with any spell is an action to be judged on it's own merits as well but spells with aligment descriptors on them are special in that merely casting them is channeling the fundamental energies of this aligment and it DOES impact the casting in a lesser or greater way when they do so.
Use the dark side of the force and it will eventually turn you, etc.
Use the dark side of the force and it will eventually turn you, etc.
Conversely, would using the 'light' side of magic (say by repeatedly casting protection from evil while lounging around the house) help counteract evil deeds (say for instance, the occasional murder of innocents)?
I would say however that using [Good] spells for evil means pushes a person even faster towards the Evil side of the fence. If he starts summoning Astral Devas to butcher the Village of Hommlet, he's going to attract some really unfavorable attention from the power that supervises those Devas. (That's why most evil Big Bads summon evil things to do thier dirty work)
As pointed out above, summoning doesn't give you absolute control, only direction. A planar creature is not going to violate it's alignment in a gross way. An Archon isn't going to kill orphans. You might get a devil to go into a burning building and rescue them, as that might be part of a subterfuge, or you might get him to heal the guy you're torturing.
This is my take on it, and it's houseruling, but I see the summoned creature as having a sense of what you are wanting done and why. So it knows if you intend a good or evil or neutral act, and won't perform something opposed to it's alignment.
Use the dark side of the force and it will eventually turn you, etc.Conversely, would using the 'light' side of magic (say by repeatedly casting protection from evil while lounging around the house) help counteract evil deeds (say for instance, the occasional murder of innocents)?
Casting protection from Evil is a Good aligned act... The consequences of casting repeatedly a Good aligned spell are in the hands of the DM... ;)
Use the dark side of the force and it will eventually turn you, etc.Conversely, would using the 'light' side of magic (say by repeatedly casting protection from evil while lounging around the house) help counteract evil deeds (say for instance, the occasional murder of innocents)?
Why don't you ask your ref that after you have a nice talk about morality, ethics and alignment and how it applies to the actions of your characters and his game world? That question is not handled in the rules. The OP one is.
While Pathfinder is a game it is a ROLE PLAYING game and has a scope far beyond simple numbers. Questions of Aligment will always be subject to individual interpretation (by both GM's and players) and as such are best handled on a group by group basis which is why 99% of aligment questions always end up in huge arguments here on the boards, since they are nearly impossible to quantify concretely, as morality itself is.
Individual actions considered in a vaccum are meaningless. The context of the how the spell is used, what spell it is and the overall actions of the caster all go into deciding their current aligment standing.
The 'occasional murder of innocents' is no small evil in my view (since you asked for my view). So no, no amount of casting Protection from Evil while lounging around the house will have any effect to counteract that level of evil transgression, especially since your doing it solely to 'game the system' in an attempt to counter your evil deeds, and not from any actual wish to be redeemed and make up for the murder(s) by the character in question. In fact it may actually push you deeper into evil as you are attempting to subvert the purpose of 'universal good' that is laced into that spell to your own selfish and petty ends. So while a small smattering of good energy infuses you when you cast, the selfisha and crass reasons your even doing it easly cancel it out and possibly reinforce your current evil.
It's not exactly a balance sheet.
EXACTLY! Some people try to make aligment a numbers game and it just can't be done. If morality and ethics just aren't that simple and never can be. We are not binary machines acting on rigid action codes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lets assume he killed a few puppies before he left on his trip, but along the way had no opportunity to commit an overt evil act
Damned fool shouldn't have killed the puppies outright but instead have carried them along with him so as to torment and starve them along the road. Poor planning was his sin. Now he's gone and unintentionally made himself into an honest drow. =P
That question is not handled in the rules. The OP one is.
Actually no. Only the first of his five part question have any clear RAW means of adjudicating it. The rest is rather nebulous and, as you pointed out, is best decided by individual gaming groups since the RAW are largely silent on the issue.
The 'occasional murder of innocents' is no small evil in my view (since you asked for my view). So no, no amount of casting Protection from Evil while lounging around the house will have any effect to counteract that level of evil transgression, especially since your doing it solely to 'game the system' in an attempt to counter your evil deeds, and not from any actual wish to be redeemed
Agreed.
But it also seems to me that the opposite should also hold true. A GM trying to force a PC's alignment shift towards evil merely for casting spells with the evil descriptor while not using those spells for evil ends or otherwise performing overtly evil acts is likewise trying to 'game the system' to the PC's detriment.
|
Doing evil is easy. And it does include casting Evil spells. However, the opposite is not easy. Doing good is more difficult, and casting Good spells will help, but it doesn't add up the same way as Evil does. That's why paladins get so much power, because that power is supposed to be used for good. Most of the actual stats of good creatures are higher than evil, and I think it's supposed to represent good is harder than evil to do.
Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but it does not turn you evil. It goes add to your soul's corruption to evil (or if people rather, the EVIL bar!). For some classes, doing even 1 evil act is bad for them (all paladins, some clerics). For other classes not bound by alignment, there's no real effect for the time being. Casting Death Knell to kill a villain is an evil act, even if it's for a good cause, and it will corrupt your soul a little. However, razing a village and raping the women and children will corrupt your soul a lot more, even if evil spells were not cast to accomplish those goals.
But as people have stated, doing good is much harder. Darth Vader wasn't really redeemed until he made a decision that changed history and resulted in his death. People don't purify their souls through repeated casting of Good spells. They have to perform good acts, and generally difficult and life threatening good acts. In addition, that being has to understand and accept the good he's doing along with doing those acts with a good and pure reason (like Vader throwing the Emperor into the pit to save Luke, and it's for the love of his son, a pure and good reason). It's all very dramatic, but RPers wouldn't have it any other way.
The problem with these things is how to handle it mechanically. It's difficult, and morality shouldn't be gauged by a stat block. These are the problems that arise when players who wish to skate by on morality usually argue against good/evil acts with questionable act to grey the matter at hand.
And this is a much more difficult decision than "low Cha = ugly and everybody will shun you, except you can make it up in skill points." Alignment doesn't even have that to help it along.
D&D/PF has black and white morality built into the game. Evil is evil, good is good, etc. If it's between good and evil, it's neutral. This has always been true. A character with the evil subtype (like a demon) will always show up as evil in a detect evil spell -- even if the character is really good.
Casting an evil spell is an evil act. It's always been this way in D&D/PF. Just like real life, doing something evil in order to do something good/neutral is still evil -- the ends do not justify the means.
So an evil creature casting a Protection from Evil spell to protect itself from another evil creature (which has a legitimate reason to want to kill the evil caster) is a good aligned act?
Really?
Absolutely. It's black and white. An evil spell is evil. A good spell is good.
If alignment has you in such a tizzy, just do what JJ said and get rid of it/ignore it.
|
|
D&D/PF has black and white morality built into the game. Evil is evil, good is good, etc. If it's between good and evil, it's neutral. This has always been true. A character with the evil subtype (like a demon) will always show up as evil in a detect evil spell -- even if the character is really good.
Casting an evil spell is an evil act. It's always been this way in D&D/PF. Just like real life, doing something evil in order to do something good/neutral is still evil -- the ends do not justify the means.
Exactly.
However, there are certainly degrees of evil. Casting the spell once will not make you evil. Casting it over and over again might not make you evil. But doing lots of evil acts, even with good in mind (let's wipe out an entire race like orcs because they are evil!) will make a character evil.
Futhermore, it's up to the players along with the DM to determine how "evil" those spells and acts make you.
I myself, would rule a kid who always kicks dogs and cats and doesn't do much good in the world to be neutral but with taints of evil. A kid to kicks animals, bullies other kids, steals from parents, sets fires to building, lots of acts of vandalism...well, that's evil enough to get evil as an alignment in my book.
But that's the problem, because everybody has a different opinion on that. So the game gives you what is objectively evil like evil spells, animating the dead, tinkering with souls, etc. Those are evil, period. Other things are more subjective.
Lastly, remember this is a game. It's not supposed to be the authority on good/evil in the real world. But it can make players think, and that's a good thing.
Nothing in the rules states casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an evil act. It is highly implied however.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
If an evil descriptor doesn't have to do with alignment, what does it have to do with?