However, there are certainly degrees of evil.
In a system of black and white morality, not really. In PF/D&D, the only degree of evil in the game is from the perspective of evil aura strength. The game doesn't have a "lesser evil" descriptor -- or a "major evil".
Black and white morality says,
Is the spell evil? It is totally 100% no doubt or wiggle room evil.
Is the spell good? It is totally 100% no doubt or wiggle room good.
Can't tell one way or the other? It's neutral (neither black or white).
I'm not saying that's how I think (or how you should think). I'm just saying that's how D&D/PF works.
Again, highly implied. The only interaction specifically called out is aligned Clerics not being able to cast opposite aligned spells.
Do the rules have to state to players that their characters should continue to breathe during the game? It might be highly implied, but it's not written in the rules.
Otherwise, a GM can rule that they forgot to breathe and pass out q:
There's a line between common sense and ranges of how implied something is. At a certain point, you don't need something to be implied q:
Something marked as good is good. Something marked as evil is evil.
Again, highly implied. The only interaction specifically called out is aligned Clerics not being able to cast opposite aligned spells.Do the rules have to state to players that their characters should continue to breathe during the game? It might be highly implied, but it's not written in the rules.
Otherwise, a GM can rule that they forgot to breathe and pass out q:
There's a line between common sense and ranges of how implied something is. At a certain point, you don't need something to be implied q:
Something marked as good is good. Something marked as evil is evil.
There are fewer shades of gray in PF.
However, there are greater and lesser evils. Killing a puppy is evil. Killing a newborn is evil. I think everyone would agree that the puppy is a lesser evil than the newborn.
By the same token, giving a beggar a copper is good. Buying him a meal is good. Giving your life to protect an inoccent is good. I don't think anyone would argue they are equally good.
Casting a spell with an [Evil] or [Good] descriptor is an evil or good act. Probably about as evil as stealing a child's toy, or good as giving a beggar a silver piece. Neither one is going to shift your alignment all by itself, especially if you're doing other good or evil things to counteract it. But, if you're doing it continuously, and playing mostly neutral, then eventually you'll slip and fall down that stairwell into evil, or look around and blink and realize you're not so selfish as you used to think you were.
I can say,
"If you think casting an evil spell is not evil in a black or white morality system, you lack common sense."
(:
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Yes, it's an evil act, so if you're good aligned, make sure it's well-justified. Casual use of evil spells definitely has a corrupting effect. And check out the Dresden Files for a series of books that deals with the idea that the good guys sometimes resort to evil magic.
The alignment system for PF hasn't changed since 3.X. It's all the same.
If a paladin kills a puppy for no reason (mistreatment of animals), that's an evil act -- hello Ex-Paladin.
If a paladin kills a new born for no reason (murder), that's an evil act -- hello Ex-paladin.
While you can make your own judgements about whether one is worse than the other, the game doesn't care.
A GM is granted the power to shift alignments as they see fit. The GM can determine if one or more evil actions is enough to indicate an alignment change. But whether or not an action is evil (or the degree of that evil) is invisible to the *game system* itself. It just sees "evil" or "good" or "neutral".
The alignment system for PF hasn't changed since 3.X. It's all the same.
If a paladin kills a puppy for no reason (mistreatment of animals), that's an evil act -- hello Ex-Paladin.
If a paladin kills a new born for no reason (murder), that's an evil act -- hello Ex-paladin.
While you can make your own judgements about whether one is worse than the other, the game doesn't care.
A GM is granted the power to shift alignments as they see fit. The GM can determine if one or more evil actions is enough to indicate an alignment change. But whether or not an action is evil (or the degree of that evil) is invisible to the *game system* itself. It just sees "evil" or "good" or "neutral".
A paladin is a special case, he is more heavily limited. And in either of the above, the single act didn't turn the Paladin Evil (alignment was what I was talking about), it just turned off his powers. He's still LG, he just made a mistake, and needs to atone for it.
|
However, there are certainly degrees of evil.In a system of black and white morality, not really. In PF/D&D, the only degree of evil in the game is from the perspective of evil aura strength. The game doesn't have a "lesser evil" descriptor -- or a "major evil".
Black and white morality says,
Is the spell evil? It is totally 100% no doubt or wiggle room evil.
Is the spell good? It is totally 100% no doubt or wiggle room good.
Can't tell one way or the other? It's neutral (neither black or white).
I'm not saying that's how I think (or how you should think). I'm just saying that's how D&D/PF works.
There absolutely are degrees of evil. Killing a villain who gave up and hoped to use your mercy to stay alive is a lesser offense than sacrificing an entire country so the wizard can turn into a lich. Stealing from people for your own greedy needs is less evil than trying to bargain with an evil outsider so you can kill the husband of a woman you lust for so you can satisfy your lust.
There are definitely degrees of evil. Depending on how one looks at it, Detect Evil even says so when the caster can tell how strong the evil is.
Again, highly implied. The only interaction specifically called out is aligned Clerics not being able to cast opposite aligned spells.Do the rules have to state to players that their characters should continue to breathe during the game? It might be highly implied, but it's not written in the rules.
Otherwise, a GM can rule that they forgot to breathe and pass out q:
There's a line between common sense and ranges of how implied something is. At a certain point, you don't need something to be implied q:
Something marked as good is good. Something marked as evil is evil.
Again, implied <> written.
And yet...
SuffocationA character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. If a character takes a standard or full-round action, the remaining duration that the character can hold her breath is reduced by 1 round. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check in order to continue holding her breath. The check must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success.
When the character fails one of these Constitution checks, she begins to suffocate. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hit points). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she suffocates.
Slow Suffocation: A Medium character can breathe easily for 6 hours in a sealed chamber measuring 10 feet on a side. After that time, the character takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage every 15 minutes. Each additional Medium character or significant fire source (a torch, for example) proportionally reduces the time the air will last. Once rendered unconscious through the accumulation of nonlethal damage, the character begins to take lethal damage at the same rate. Small characters consume half as much air as Medium characters.
Having had characters affected by stench attack/effects, the assumption is that characters breathe. A character my inform the DM that he is not breathing, and then may be apply the above rule.
Written - specific text exists stating a rule
Implied - specific text does not exist, but the rules point strongly to a conclusion
Intended - specific text does not exist, and the rules do not point to a conclusion. A designer states that the intent of the rule was to a certain end.
Many people confuse these three. Such confusion has occurred on this thread.
Poorly written rules are most often subject to being examined for implication or intention. Well written rules require little interpretation.
The number of points being discussed that involve poorly written rules in a splat book that is not even released yet is troubling, and is hopefully not the symptom of bigger problems at Paizo.
Poorly written rules are most often subject to being examined for implication or intention. Well written rules require little interpretation.
It has been my experience that no matter how clearly rules are written, people will always argue ad nauseum about their interpretation and application.
For example, the rules seem pretty clear and easy to me, but it never ceases to suprise me the lengths folks will go to (and how many there are) to argue some obscure rule twist or specific phrasing to get some advantage for themselves.
Yes, it's an evil act, so if you're good aligned, make sure it's well-justified. Casual use of evil spells definitely has a corrupting effect. And check out the Dresden Files for a series of books that deals with the idea that the good guys sometimes resort to evil magic.
Correct. The spells marked Evil are Evil to use. However, Good people CAN and DO commit evil acts every day. Anything self-serving or jerkish... is evil.
Good people can blackmail a guard to let them into a dungeon without bloodshed... but Blackmail would be considered Evil...
Casting an 'Evil' spell does not automatically change your alignment. For that matter, casting ALL Evil spells all the time doesnt change your alignment.
Only the DM can do that when HE decides that you've gone bad. And the RAW don't tell the DM when or how to do that. It's all DM perogative.
Casting the spells would give a taint for the Detect spells... but other than that it doesn't change who your character IS...
My Sorcerer with the 'infernal' bloodline get the 'Protection from Good' spell... It's marked 'EVIL'. Granted I've never had a reason to cast it yet... but I can think of a FEW...
I also plan on him picking up 'infernal healing' eventually... It's all tied with his blood and his hereditary... At heart he's still CG, and avoids conflict whenever possible. Until his pERSONALITY changes, his alignment stays where it is...
Since comparing the quantitive evilness or goodness of casting aligned spells and the abstract morality of performing evil or good acts is so subjective how's about a simpler exercise? Ignoring the circumstances under which either is used, does casting one good-aligned spell effectively cancel out the alignment imbalance wrought by casting one evil-aligned spell? Does spell level play into the equation?
There are definitely degrees of evil. Depending on how one looks at it, Detect Evil even says so when the caster can tell how strong the evil is.
Detect evil cares about the monster's power level and his alignment or subtype. The actual degree of evil -- how many evil actions committed by a creature or the severity of those actions (how *evil* they are) is subjective. The game doesn't associate rules with how evil an action is. It gives the GM the power to make that determination. But the game itself only cares whether a person/place/thing is evil or not. Sometimes a GM can make that determination. Sometimes the game has rules for that -- like when a spell is labeled an evil spell. Or when a creature is labeled an evil creature. . .
Evil Subtype: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the evil-aligned outer planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, page 299).
The same principle above should apply to evil spells.
Since comparing the quantitive evilness or goodness of casting aligned spells and the abstract morality of performing evil or good acts is so subjective how's about a simpler exercise? Ignoring the circumstances under which either is used, does casting one good-aligned spell effectively cancel out the alignment imbalance wrought by casting one evil-aligned spell? Does spell level play into the equation?
Not necessarily. The GM makes that determination. Alternating between good and evil spells might truly confuse things (like saving innocents one day and murdering them the next). But the GM is the final arbiter for this.
Great, so, try reading the thread, rather than asking people to repeat what's already been posted.
Great, so where is it written?-James
Meaning.. it's NOT written.
It is, but you disagree with my way of reading what is written.
At this point, there is no way we are going to convince the other. You say it isn't written in the book, I say it plainly written. This is an impasse.
By all means, in your own game, let Paladins cast evil spells all you like, and lich's cast good. I shall use the rules as I believe they were both written and intended.
It is easier to do evil than good, and I think that if either the act or the intention is evil then the designers would consider it to be evil.
For something to be good there can be no evil involved.
Summon demon to save village=evil
Summon angel to slaughter village=evil
I think that to truly be good(in the game) you can't use the tactics of the bad guy.
Now if my only choice is to commit the evil act or let the village die I would summon the demon, but it would be a last resort.
I think you bolded the wrong part:
"Evil Subtype: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the evil-aligned outer planes."
All that means is that some creatures from the evil-aligned planes don't have the evil descriptor. That means a golem crafted in an evil-aligned plane wouldn't automatically have an evil descriptor.
As TOZ says it might be implied, and you might, as a DM, elect to make it an act of that alignment (to one degree or another) the rules as written do not mandate this.
I hope you don't drive. Stop signs mean stop. They don't mean an act of one degree or another of stopping.
Evil means evil. There's no other way to think about it. Except if you completely abandon common sense.
Does fire mean fire? Does a fire descriptor indicate a spell might do cold damage? A spell might do cold damage, but to the descriptor, that is *meaningless*. The spell is a fire spell. It doesn't care if the spell does cold damage or not.
Great, so, try reading the thread, rather than asking people to repeat what's already been posted.
Great, so where is it written?-James
Meaning.. it's NOT written.
It is, but you disagree with my way of reading what is written.
At this point, there is no way we are going to convince the other. You say it isn't written in the book, I say it plainly written. This is an impasse.
By all means, in your own game, let Paladins cast evil spells all you like, and lich's cast good. I shall use the rules as I believe they were both written and intended.
They are correct. It is like how James Jacobs intended for all paladins(or was it clerics) to have deities in Golarion, but it did not make it into the book. Eventually he came on the boards and said that was the intent, but never said it in exact terms.
It is kind of like you telling your kids they can take the car and you don't specify so they take the Ferrari. Now they might know you meant any car except the Farrari, or at least you thought they should know, but since you did not say it(=RAW) they can say they did not know.RAW(it has to be written in the book).
We are not saying it is not the intent. We are saying it is not stated. Anything else is RAI. I agree that evil spells are evil acts, but nowhere do those words actually exist. With James backing that up people have to decide to go with intent or not go with intent.
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.
Evil spells are not objectively evil simply because they have that descriptor.
Casting protection from good is not in any meaningful sense an evil act. Animate dead, on the other hand, probably is inherently evil. Not because it has the evil descriptor, but because you're animating the dead. Determining whether casting a spell is good or evil [or chaotic or lawful] is as simple [or complex] as determining whether any other action is good or evil. If you're committing a good deed, then it's a good act; if you're committing an evil deed, then it's an evil act. The mere act of summoning a lantern archon or casting prot from evil does not make a caster more good than he otherwise was. I think common sense dictates quite strongly that it is the actions taken - not the descriptors on a spell - that determine whether the act is good or evil. Casting animate dead would be evil whether it had the evil descriptor or not. Summoning a demon and compelling it to fight your enemies is not an evil act in itself. Not if the words "evil act" are to have any significance.
I hope you don't drive.I hope you'll stop with the passive aggressive attacks on your opponents. It will strengthen your arguments greatly.
It's just frustrating when someone sees a sign, they start "interpreting" it to mean something else. Sometimes something literally means something. I apologize for the attacks, but I'm just irritated with this line of reasoning. *grumble grumble*
It is kind of like you telling your kids they can take the car and you don't specify so they take the Ferrari. Now they might know you meant any car except the Farrari, or at least you thought they should know, but since you did not say it(=RAW) they can say they did not know.
RAW(it has to be written in the book).
And when you don't say it the second time, or the third? When do you have to admit that you are leaving it up to them whether or not they are taking the Ferrari?
This is something that hasn't changed (much) in multiple versions and editions of these rules. The authors/designers have changed but, if anything, they have removed mechanical acts of alignment along the way.
In 3e there were mechanical evil acts (channeling negative energy) but Pathfinder has done away with those.
We are not saying it is not the intent. We are saying it is not stated. Anything else is RAI. I agree that evil spells are evil acts, but nowhere do those words actually exist. With James backing that up people have to decide to go with intent or not go with intent.I would disagree with [evil] descriptor spells being evil acts. If a DM were to make that the case for their home campaign, that's their call. But I don't find really any support for it. Rather than being a thoughtless automatic call it should be an overall judgment call.
James clearly shows us how he would do things as a DM, and that's great. But if it really was the intent then Pathfinder has failed to convey that in the core rules.
In fact what the rules have conveyed (when comparing them to the prior versions) is that it is in the DM's hands rather than in the rulebooks. To me that's both the intent and the rules as written.
If we really want to judge 'intent' which set of authors should we be looking towards here? The ones that didn't change things, or the ones that originally wrote them?
-James
I do agree that failed to convey it. I know a few rules were snipped, such as the one saying reach affects diagonal squares, the mechanical alignment rules also. I don't see where poison is evil in the book, but I am sure the intent is there(in the developer's minds). They really do need to reinsert it if that is their intention.
In his post I don't think the was speaking as a GM though. I think he was speaking as a developer. I think they assumed a better understanding of the rules than actually existed when certain rules lost detail. Many of the older(experience wise) gamers know the intent, but if you are brand new you could not figure it out by the rules. Even if you are not new it could easily be seen as a rules change.
You mean seeing the [evil] descriptor and reading into it things that were never attributed to it?
You mean besides that "evil" thing?
I like this post (via Google)
This debate has been revisited countless times.
The important thing with Animate Dead is that reviving a corpse of the rightfully departed into a hideous mockery of life is fundamentally different from making your footstool fetch itself.
It's also good that the [Evil] descriptor means that Good Clerics can't cast it.
As far as an [Evil] spell altering alignment, that differs by DM. Casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act, which is relevant to Clerics and Paladins who multiclass into other casting classes. Does committing an Evil act make you Evil? Maybe. Mostly, though, Good people shouldn't WANT to commit Evil acts, or at the very least should feel badly about doing it.
In short, casting Animate Dead 57 times doesn't really make a Neutral Good Wizard turn Neutral Evil: Instead, it suggests that his alignment ought to have been Evil in the first place. A Good person wouldn't do it in the first place.
A wizard asking 'How many times can I cast an [Evil] spell before turning Evil?' is like a rogue asking 'How many times can I steal from orphans before turning Evil?'
Deja vu.....
My two cents: It's not RAW, but is probably intended for [evil] spells to be considered acts of evil. That said, alignment is impossible to adjudicate if you start breaking it down to individual acts. The ONLY way to handle this is through an "at the table" agreement by the people playing. Otherwise, how do you keep track? Is using the Bluff skill a minor evil to lie to someone? Is it worth as much as casting Infernal Healing in terms of shifting your alignment? What cancels out the use of an [evil] spell? Does saving a thousand people? Saving one? Does nothing cancel it out?
When you start making "tally" marks for alignment you've gone down the wrong road. Since there is no way to use rules for this, it HAS to be a GM or group call.
Merely casting a [fire] spell doesn't mean it has an impact on your character for example.
Your comparing apples and oranges. Fire and Evil are both descriptors, yes, but only one is an aligment descriptor.
Spell descriptor are there to illustrate how they interact with other spells and other factors, included in that list is alignment. It seems the simplest of logic that an aligment descriptor interacts with alingment. Much as elemental descriptors interact with elements.
Your arguments are basically saying that Aligment descriptors (and by inferred extention all descriptors) are not even there and do nothing since every possible interaction has not been explicitly spelled out before hand. But descriptors are there, they DO SOMETHING. Since the rundown for descriptors says they can interact with Aligments, and evil is an alignment descriptor, it seems rather clear that an alignment descriptor is meant to interact with alignment.
What cancels out the use of an [evil] spell? Does saving a thousand people? Saving one? Does nothing cancel it out?
It would seem that, all things being equal, casting a [good] spell would effectively balance the scales.
|
|
It is interesting that certain descriptors have unspoken assumptions about them, and others don't.
In GURPS, if a spell uses fire, it uses the fire rules. Any damaging fire spell has a chance to set someone on fire. Any damaging lightning spell ignores protection from metal armor.
In D&D/PF, *a few* fire spells can actually start a fire, but most don't. One electrical spell had a bonus to affect someone in metal armor, but most don't.
The [fire] descriptor seems more relevant in determining interactions between the spell and the protection from energy or resist energy spells, or the Cold or Fire subtypes. It doesn't necessarily mean that the spell in any meaningful way *is fire.* (Indeed, scorching ray and searing light and a 3.5 brass dragon's breath weapon inflict 'fire' damage, despite not being fire, and various third party spells inflict 'fire' damage using super-heated water or steam.)
Assuming that the mechanical gamist [fire] descriptor actually means the real-world chemical reaction that we call *fire*, or that the mechanical gamist [evil] descriptor correlates 100% to the moral or philophical concept of *evil,* is just that, assuming.
'Level' means lots of things in this game. So does 'divine' (which can refer to dieties, or to a type of magic, or even be used as a verb, in the case of using a divination spell).
And so does evil, which, in brackets, is a gamist mechanical concept that determines whether a spell can be cast by a good-aligned cleric *or* a cleric of a good-aligned diety. The evil subtype is different, and determines how one is affected by a paladin's smite, and what sort of damage reduction your natural weapons might penetrate. An evil alignment is again different, and determines how spells like protection from evil and holy word affect the character. An 'aura of evil' is a fourth type of evil that could be possessed by a neutral cleric of an evil god (such as a LN cleric of Asmodeus), or by a good or neutral character who has recently received infernal healing.
These are four different mechanical uses of the word 'evil' in the game, and mixing them up leads to confusion, IMO.
The house rule about outsiders not doing anything they don't want to do, when summoned, seems more trouble than it's worth. What celestial (or fiendish) animal *wants* to be sent in to a certain death? The spell would flat out never work, since, in most cases, the caster won't even be able to communicate with his summoned creatures, and therefore not even be able to spend a minute using Diplomacy to talk them into cooperating (which, with a 1 round / level duration, means that he'd have to be 11th level before he could even get a round of use out of a summoned creature). Might as well remove it from the game.
Even the 'higher level archons will show up and stop you' argument tears the whole thing down, since if archons can do this, then you can bet your bippy that powerful devils and demons will also take advantage of this freedom to come and go.
"Asmodeus!"
"You just sent that lemure to it's death, in a chaotic fashion, to hold off a pack of evil kobolds. I like evil kobolds. Some of them even worship me... I don't much care about the lemure, actually, I'm just using you as an excuse to come here and kill a bunch of good people, since that's explicitly allowed under the 'no making outsiders do anything they'd find morally uncomfortable' clause of your summon monster spell. You didn't know about that? Hardly my problem, it's been on file in the Hall of Tortured Screams in Avernus for ages. We cannot allow ignorance of the law to be a defense, after all. I have to kill you now, for appearances sake, or else I'd have to fill out a bunch of paperwork. Sorry about that."
These are four different mechanical uses of the word 'evil' in the game, and mixing them up leads to confusion, IMO.
I totally agree.
Sadly they mix together ): For instance, the subtype and alignment definitions merge. In the evil subtype description, a creature with such a type is subject to things that apply to evil creatures as well as the creature's actual alignment. So a good succubus is affected simultaneously by protection from good and protection from evil.
In the case of determining whether an action is evil, two completely independent sources contribute to this: the GM and the rules.
For instance:
Divine Judgment (Sp): At 7th level, when a vindicator's melee attack reduces a creature to –1 or fewer hit points, he may sacrifice a prepared 2nd-level spell or available 2nd-level spell slot to invoke death knell upon the target as an immediate action (using the vindicator's caster level). As vindicators mete out divine judgment, this is not an evil act.The save DC increases by +2 if his weapon has a ×3 critical multiplier, or by +4 if it is ×4.
In this statement, it is implying that using the equivalent effect of death knell is *exceptionally* not an evil act. If using a death knell is not an evil action, why say this? The spell description for death knell doesn't mention evil. . . except for the spell descriptor. So clearly in this case the game marks actions as evil or not evil.
So, I don't see how we can avoid confusion. . . especially since the GM is granted almost unlimited powers at the same time as he is expected to stay within the framework of the rules (unless house rules are made).
What cancels out the use of an [evil] spell? Does saving a thousand people? Saving one? Does nothing cancel it out?It would seem that, all things being equal, casting a [good] spell would effectively balance the scales.
All things are never equal because a good act does not cancel out an evil one. You can't kill someone for you own gains, and then save another person and have them just cancel out. Well maybe you can if the GM is that lenient, but don't expect it to work like that.
Warning Sarcasm ahead.....
Is the evil eye hex an evil hex?
Whoops, there go my spells!
James Maissen is 100% correct, and has been politely, and logically debating with you people. You could at least stop insulting him and actually provide something from the Rules As Written that you declare says that casting a spell of a specific subtype is a certain type of act.
If you're going to argue that it's RAW, actually show the RAW. We have the whole PRD available for free for a reason, and the message boards have a really neat quote feature too. So use that.
James Maissen is 100% correct, and has been politely, and logically debating with you people. You could at least stop insulting him and actually provide something from the Rules As Written that you declare says that casting a spell of a specific subtype is a certain type of act.
If you're going to argue that it's RAW, actually show the RAW. We have the whole PRD available for free for a reason, and the message boards have a really neat quote feature too. So use that.
There's no text for this in the PRD.
There's also no text for damaging swarms with a torch (there was in 3.5, but it got removed inadvertently).
There's also conflicting text on a number of subjects (+10 to disguise from polymorph subschool spells? +20 to disguise to polymorph spells?)
So when RAW matches RAI perfectly, then we'll give you quoted text.
Until that time, there are going to be holes that can be easily filled with simple common sense. If something is marked as evil, doing it is evil. If the book said a banana was evil, a banana would be evil. There's moral ambiguity about most (but not all) actions in D&D/PF. Some actions don't have moral ambiguity. And that has been proven above with the Divine Judgment text from the Holy Vindicator.
James Maissen is 100% correct, and has been politely, and logically debating with you people. You could at least stop insulting him and actually provide something from the Rules As Written that you declare says that casting a spell of a specific subtype is a certain type of act.
If you're going to argue that it's RAW, actually show the RAW. We have the whole PRD available for free for a reason, and the message boards have a really neat quote feature too. So use that.
There's no text for this in the PRD.
There's also no text for damaging swarms with a torch (there was in 3.5, but it got removed inadvertently).
There's also conflicting text on a number of subjects (+10 to disguise from polymorph subschool spells? +20 to disguise to polymorph spells?)
So when RAW matches RAI perfectly, then we'll give you quoted text.
Until that time, there are going to be holes that can be easily filled with simple common sense. If something is marked as evil, doing it is evil. If the book said a banana was evil, a banana would be evil. There's moral ambiguity about most (but not all) actions in D&D/PF. Some actions don't have moral ambiguity. And that has been proven above with the Divine Judgment text from the Holy Vindicator.
If the thing you listed are not supported with text then they are not RAW. That does not mean they are not the rules, but RAW and rules are not synonymous.
The rules are the way the game was meant to be played. RAW is what is actually stated.If I have to use common sense to figure something out that makes it RAI not RAW.
The RAW text can't be provided because the RAW test does not exist.
Hi, I'm a True Neutral Cleric. I've cast Summon Monster III to bring forth Lantern Archons sixty times in last month, am I Neutral Good already?
I mean, I haven't been mean to kids and old ladies, and I even helped one village to get rid of kobolds, for a modest price.
*Subject to GM approval.
Yes, the same way that casting a [fire] spell changes you showly into an elemental casting [evil] spells makes you evil.
So that would be a no.
Committing fiery actions doesn't make you more fiery (unless they set you on fire).
Committing evil actions might potentially make you evil (but that's up to the GM).