There's a lot of "ends justifying the means" in this thread. That's not surprising; really we've been having this alignment discussion as gamers for all our lives.
I don't think the ends ever justify the means, myself, but I don't think you have to get that philosophical to find what is at the core of the question.
Personally, I don't think you can ever really use an evil thing to fight another evil thing with complete success. If you could, Gandalf could have taken the Ring and fixed everything.
I'm not talking about tools, now, mind you. But we are talking about demons and devils and what-not, and in the end they simply have their own agendas and are not trustworthy. I think it is up to the GM to make sure that whatever info a good person gleans from a demon comes at a high cost and isn't trustworthy. We're talking about creatures that are basically hate and lies and mischief made flesh.
Stuff.
Or, he could have summoned a fire elemental to do the same task, without the [Evil] descriptor. Or a Mephit. Or heck, a Hound Archon to step in and usher the family to safety.
In your example, your wizard chose to cast the spell in a specifically Evil manner. There wasn't even a really compelling reason to... he had a slew of choices.
The fact that he did a good thing doesn't change the fact that he specifically went out of his way to do it by using a creature from Hell.
Where is the contradiction? Nothing i can find demands sentience to have an alignment.
Okay, so lets get this out of the way so I don't have to keep supporting my claims. Here is why alignment in D&D is not a tangible force, but a property of subjective beings with sentience and freewill.
First, what does the game say that an alignment actually is...
"A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil."
Do objects, mindless creatures, spells, or locations have any capacity to exhibit a general moral and personal attitude? The answer is no with one exception: oobject that have an intelligence score.
"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."
"Alignment IS" thats important because this is telling us what alignment actually is in the game. Notice the word 'general' in the first paragraph, followed by the assertion in this paragraph that alignment is not a straitjacket and that it is broad. This is subjective alignment (which is a property of sentient creatures). If it were objective then it WOULD be a strait jacket. You would either conform to the rules of a particular alignment or you wouldn't.
"All creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items."
"Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic."
And here they flat our attribute morality to volitional, sentient beings. I'm not going to go any further because I already proved my point. But in each of the separate alignment axis definitions there are even more indicators that attribute alignment to sentience. Evil locations, creatures "born of evil", and evil spells are all a violation of the rules of alignment and are plain wrong.
I don't really see the problem with the alignment system as it stands. If it doesn't work for your group, drop it; there's no reason you cant, or in fact, should not do if it makes the game more fun for you.
I dropped alignment 14 years ago.
That said, I think that at least in the case of summoning spells, its very appropriate the core game makes a point to call out that if you use these spells to summon evil creatures, the spell itself is evil. It makes sense.
Why can't you make the decision yourself? Why does the game need to tell you? Why can't each character have a different opinion that they feel is valid?
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness,
death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good,
language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting,
sonic, and water.
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.
Thats what my pdf says on them not saying it hasn't been FAQed but from those lines its not inherently evil to do so though the GM is within his rights to have NPC's question a character who always uses demons to do his work.
Where is the contradiction? Nothing i can find demands sentience to have an alignment.Okay, so lets get this out of the way so I don't have to keep supporting my claims. Here is why alignment in D&D is not a tangible force, but a property of subjective beings with sentience and freewill.
** spoiler omitted **...
You can't be made of something that is not tangible.
Because a characters opinion does not make a thing so.
My character might not think that summoning Demons is wrong; his opinion does not make this thing so.
In the core rules, and in the core setting, my characters opinion is irrelevant (and frankly, it should be); summoning Demon's is an evil act. How I feel about that does not, and should not matter.
You can't be made of something that is not tangible.
And good thing too. I wouldn't want to be made of apathy, for example. Luckily we aren't made of morality, because morality isn't tangible and can't make things.
In the core rules, and in the core setting, my characters opinion is irrelevant (and frankly, it should be)...
You just broke my heart! You're character is one of the stars of the show, NOTHING could be more to the story than the parties opinions! That's how stories are made!
And good thing too. I wouldn't want to be made of apathy, for example. Luckily we aren't made of morality, because morality isn't tangible and can't make things.
You can't be made of something that is not tangible.
You knew what I meant. :)
I was saying if the alignments were not tangible in the game world then the monsters could not be composed of them. I am sure you know that many outsiders are formed from the alignments so I don't need a quote for that.
In the core rules, and in the core setting, my characters opinion is irrelevant (and frankly, it should be)...You just broke my heart! You're character is one of the stars of the show, NOTHING could be more to the story than the parties opinions! That's how stories are made!
Characters can be wrong. Flawed. Heck, they can even be non-good and still be heroic!
His or her opinions, however, have no more value than mine; and mine certainly don't have any effect on the world around me.
To a degree, however, Pathfinder doesn't work like that. And luckily for outsiders! Things that are intangible for us, it turns out, are not quite such for them.
So your issue is that Good Evil Law or Chaos can't infuse an object or creature and have it take on certain properities. This is a common occurence in most fantasy media thats how these can happen even in a world where most things make the choice for themselves.
In the core rules, and in the core setting, my characters opinion is irrelevant (and frankly, it should be)...You just broke my heart! You're character is one of the stars of the show, NOTHING could be more to the story than the parties opinions! That's how stories are made!
By the book the alignments are as inflexible as the laws of physics in our world, and I can argue that the gravitational constant is something different than what it is in our world, but my opinion would not matter on the issue. I am not saying all games should be played that way, but by the book alignment is what it is.
PS:I do wish to throw alignment out the window in 10 or so years when PF 2 come along.
edit:I want alignments to an extent that people should be heroic, and not take the easy route, but I don't want it hard wired into the system so heavily.
In the core rules, and in the core setting, my characters opinion is irrelevant (and frankly, it should be)...You just broke my heart! You're character is one of the stars of the show, NOTHING could be more to the story than the parties opinions! That's how stories are made!By the book the alignments are as inflexible as the laws of physics in our world, and I can argue that the gravitational constant is something different than what it is in our world, but my opinion would not matter on the issue. I am not saying all games should be played that way, but by the book alignment is what it is.
PS:I do wish to throw alignment out the window in 10 or so years when PF 2 come along.
edit:I want alignments to an extent that people should be heroic, and not take the easy route, but I don't want it hard wired into the system so heavily.
Where do you find them to be inflexable other than with spells and items?
Stuff.Or, he could have summoned a fire elemental to do the same task, without the [Evil] descriptor. Or a Mephit. Or heck, a Hound Archon to step in and usher the family to safety.
In your example, your wizard chose to cast the spell in a specifically Evil manner. There wasn't even a really compelling reason to... he had a slew of choices.
The fact that he did a good thing doesn't change the fact that he specifically went out of his way to do it by using a creature from Hell.
Well, he coulda dun that. But Mighty Magic Wizard Man is all about playin' with alignments.
See, them there ants were just all animal/insect neutral like. Even though they were about to devour that poor farmer family. Killin' folks is seen as Evil by many...but its okay if you are bein' neutral hungry. Else all sortsa animals would be fallin' to the dark side. :(
Seemed unfair to kill em with somethin' neutral as well.
So bein' a feller that likes a bit o' irony. He summons a hellhound and forces it to do a good act. Bein the summoned critter 'taint got no will of its own. It saves the poor famer family per Mighty Magic Wizard Man's instructions.
As for ends justify the means...not really certain how that even applies. Nuttin' in the rules says nuttin' about summoned critters makin' the scales o' alignment tip one way or 'nother.
It do say, and I be paraphrasin', that if you work for a "GOOD" god you can't be summonin' no durn evil things. I agree with the fluff of an earlier poster that sez it is cuz good gods dont have access to evil planes like that...so cannot grant ye' power to summon em.
@ wraith Well, you see them were commoners of low level, low intely gents and no durn skill in Knowledge(planes) nor Knowledge(religion) so they just thought the monster dog wer some monster dog and bein that they were saved from bunches of ants and feller din't even claim a Reee Ward. Wall, he wore just like a Hero from those Hero stories. :P
As for Alignment to be or not to be...we use it in our games. Like it. But it has and always will be a subjective system that is going to change from table to table. Its a guide not a contract. Ceptin' o' course if you are a Paladin...but there are other threads for that :)
So bein' a feller that likes a bit o' irony....
Erm, liking 'irony' in no way excuses this; its like saying, "Hey, you know what would be funny for Cleric Dan, who lives down at the temple of Desna? Showing up to his party with an imp familiar!" Its needlessly exposing the world to a being of literally pure evil. Its negligent, if not outright malicious, and is 100% an [evil] act.
In addition, I'm not convinced this is in any way actually ironic.
You knew what I meant. :)
I was saying if the alignments were not tangible in the game world then the monsters could not be composed of them. I am sure you know that many outsiders are formed from the alignments so I don't need a quote for that.
I honestly don't know where this assertion that demons and angels are literal products of a moral perspective came from. I have never seen anything stating that any creature in the game has ever been born from tangible morality (though a link or something would be appreciated if it is true). However, even if that is the case, it is still wrong, as per the definition of alignment. Alignment cannot be both subjective and objective, and it is subjective.
By the book the alignments are as inflexible as the laws of physics in our world, and I can argue that the gravitational constant is something different than what it is in our world, but my opinion would not matter on the issue. I am not saying all games should be played that way, but by the book alignment is what it is.
Except that the rules for alignment actually tell you that it isn't. Alignment is subjective in D&D by RAW (I defer you to my previous post where I clearly demonstrate this). It also WANTS D&D to have objective morality as implicated by the mechanics for evil spells and items. However, those rules are wrong. The are not inviolate simply because the devs said so. They have to actually account for the contradiction or it isn't true.
Where do you find them to be inflexable other than with spells and items?In the core rules, and in the core setting, my characters opinion is irrelevant (and frankly, it should be)...You just broke my heart! You're character is one of the stars of the show, NOTHING could be more to the story than the parties opinions! That's how stories are made!By the book the alignments are as inflexible as the laws of physics in our world, and I can argue that the gravitational constant is something different than what it is in our world, but my opinion would not matter on the issue. I am not saying all games should be played that way, but by the book alignment is what it is.
PS:I do wish to throw alignment out the window in 10 or so years when PF 2 come along.
edit:I want alignments to an extent that people should be heroic, and not take the easy route, but I don't want it hard wired into the system so heavily.
The alignments are tied to certain actions. If you do X it falls into an alignment. In theory all of us GM's would agree on what that alignment is for that one action. To stay in the spirit of the thread if I summon an evil monster then that is an evil act. It does not matter if it saves the world. Now I would never change a character's alignment if they did something really bad to save the world, but it is what it is.
Stuff.Or, he could have summoned a fire elemental to do the same task, without the [Evil] descriptor. Or a Mephit. Or heck, a Hound Archon to step in and usher the family to safety.
In your example, your wizard chose to cast the spell in a specifically Evil manner. There wasn't even a really compelling reason to... he had a slew of choices.
The fact that he did a good thing doesn't change the fact that he specifically went out of his way to do it by using a creature from Hell.
Well, he coulda dun that. But Mighty Magic Wizard Man is all about playin' with alignments.
See, them there ants were just all animal/insect neutral like. Even though they were about to devour that poor farmer family. Killin' folks is seen as Evil by many...but its okay if you are bein' neutral hungry. Else all sortsa animals would be fallin' to the dark side. :(
Seemed unfair to kill em with somethin' neutral as well.
So bein' a feller that likes a bit o' irony. He summons a hellhound and forces it to do a good act. Bein the summoned critter 'taint got no will of its own. It saves the poor famer family per Mighty Magic Wizard Man's instructions.
As for ends justify the means...not really certain how that even applies. Nuttin' in the rules says nuttin' about summoned critters makin' the scales o' alignment tip one way or 'nother.
It do say, and I be paraphrasin', that if you work for a "GOOD" god you can't be summonin' no durn evil things. I agree with the fluff of an earlier poster that sez it is cuz good gods dont have access to evil planes like that...so cannot grant ye' power to summon em.
@ wraith Well, you see them were commoners of low level, low intely gents and no durn skill in Knowledge(planes) nor Knowledge(religion) so they just thought the monster dog wer some monster dog and bein that they were saved from bunches of ants and feller din't even claim a Reee Ward. Wall, he wore just like a Hero from those Hero stories. :P
...
Maybe the commoner's son is home on spring break from the wizard academy, and has knowledge(arcana). :)
Born from the foulest of mortal souls—their
personalities and memories long since scoured by
millennia of torment—would-be devils rise from the
masses of suffering souls as lemures, revolting beings
of mindless evil potentiality. Only through continued
centuries of torture or by the edicts of more powerful
devils do these least of devilkind rise to become
deadlier fiends, graduating through a pain-wracked
metamorphosis dictated by their masters or the infernal
whims of Hell’s semi-sentient layers.
Sorry they are born from evil souls not evil incarnate still born evil though.
Now I would never change a character's alignment if they did something really bad to save the world, but it is what it is.
Exactly. A single act does not a trend, or a habit, make; its one act. It doesn't define a character.
However, when it becomes your default trick, your primary mode of acting on things...
But how can I redeem these evil creatures if I don't make them appear and feel the wonder, power, and awe of performing good deeds?
But how can I redeem these evil creatures if I don't make them appear and feel the wonder, power, and awe of performing good deeds?
Since you dont summon the same one each time even then you couldn't do it and i would argue unless you give them free will your only brainwashing them not teaching them.
|
Except devs have stated that casting an evil spell is an evil action.People who like to tow this line see a correlation between [evil] and evil but not for any of the other alignments as it becomes plainly clear how false and silly it is there.
Why you guys are so in love with this fallacy? Maybe because without it your argument don't work?
Let's be honest here: the largest part of the guys that claim that casting [evil] spells should not have long term alignment effects will not cast a [good] spell if they were forced at gun point because they feel that [good] spells are underpowered and not cool.
Sure, what you do with the spell has a way larger impact on your alignment than the simple act of casting the spell, but choosing to memorize and cast a [evil], [good]. [chaotic] or [lawful] spell isn't meaningless.
It is very significant, especially if the memorized/learned spell is one that always has the specific descriptor.
All that said the summoning list at some level is lacking in options to make possible to chose what to summon.
It would be good to have one elemental and at least one extraplanar creature of each extreme alignment at each level.
A good GM should add to the list enough options to make that possible.
So bein' a feller that likes a bit o' irony....Erm, liking 'irony' in no way excuses this; its like saying, "Hey, you know what would be funny for Cleric Dan, who lives down at the temple of Desna? Showing up to his party with an imp familiar!" Its needlessly exposing the world to a being of literally pure evil. Its negligent, if not outright malicious, and is 100% an [evil] act.
In addition, I'm not convinced this is in any way actually ironic.
The irony is the contrast between the actual and the perceived conditions.
Evil critter brought forth by good being to destroy neutral thing doing evil act. Irony! :)
As for the evil familiar, as long as this fellow keeps it in check not really seing the evil act of it. Could be a devout neutral follower of Desna that brought it. I am certain Cleric Dan doesn't like it one lil bit. And those pranksters best not be showin' up to a Sarenrae wingdig or the imp will become familiar with a few scimitars.
But this discussion wasn't about familars or creating undead. It is about the Summon Monster spell. And those critters. Certainly, if you use gate... you got some evil actions going on. Familiars got a lot more lattitude than summoned critters. Oh, and yes, I feel that if you summon a dretch outside a temple of Torag...you are just asking for trouble.
But, that falls under "Ideas not well thought out" as opposed to an EVIL act. Summoning that Dretch and sending it into a shrine of Desna and having it romp around the benches and wotnot. Yep, I see that as desecration of a good church and an evil act. Merely summoning it is not.
But that is the Vagueness of D&D :) This is all subjective and opinion :P
Greg
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alignments are tied to certain actions. If you do X it falls into an alignment. In theory all of us GM's would agree on what that alignment is for that one action. To stay in the spirit of the thread if I summon an evil monster then that is an evil act. It does not matter if it saves the world. Now I would never change a character's alignment if they did something really bad to save the world, but it is what it is.
Specific actions SOMETIMES fall into a specific alignment. The definitions we have aren't actually broad enough to handle every action. To demonstrate this I'm going to quote Frank Trollman (yeah, yeah, I know. Not this boards favorite person).
"Person A has a personal moral code and well defined pattern of conduct. They go to a new land that has different behavioral strictures than theirs. They do not change their behavior and are now breaking the law where they are but staying consistent with their past behavior and stated goals.
Person B has a personal moral code and well defined pattern of conduct. They go to a new land that has different behavioral strictures than theirs. They change their behavior to fit in with the requirements of the land they are currently in, making a clean break with their previously established routine.
Which one is Lawful, which one is Chaotic. Why?
Would it make any difference if the difference in strictures was something essentially inconsequential like "wearing purple (required/restricted)?" Would it make any difference if the difference in strictures was something you personally felt strongly about like "eating ancestors (required/taboo)?"
D&D morality is not a strait jacket, but it also is not very helpful when determining the alignment of a specific action. But that's okay, because specific actions shouldn't have alignments since the definition of alignment states that alignment is a measure of "general personality"
Exactly. A single act does not a trend, or a habit, make; its one act. It doesn't define a character.However, when it becomes your default trick, your primary mode of acting on things...
...then you are acting in accordance with you own nature, which should be defined by you. You might think summoning demons is justified. The vicars of the Enlightened Way may agree that its entirely acceptable while the mayor may ban it in his town entirely. We don't need alignment systems to account for good and bad. The world handles it just fine.
But how can I redeem these evil creatures if I don't make them appear and feel the wonder, power, and awe of performing good deeds?
A: I'd start with a Calling spell for one, so that you could get the same outsider each time.
B: While there may be some value in conditioning here, what arguably happening is the summoner is being conditioned as well. Note: the outsider, being immortal and most likely more experienced and set in its nature, probably has the advantage in seeing who retains their inherent nature longer.
C: Its still [Evil], right up until you actually succeed. Actually not even then! Still Evil, because the target can't ditch the subtype. That said, I'd argue at this point the [Evil] tag is just a thing to be noted; it shouldn't change or reflect on your alignment when you summon that particular outsider... however, trying again on another outsider... now you've expanded that planes influence into the material by even more... who was conditioned here again...?
Hmm. Sounds like a fun thing to try, but a little outside the scope of the fundamental nature of the summoning spell itself.
But how can I redeem these evil creatures if I don't make them appear and feel the wonder, power, and awe of performing good deeds?Since you dont summon the same one each time even then you couldn't do it and i would argue unless you give them free will your only brainwashing them not teaching them.
This way I'm reaching more of the unbelievers. Their freewill is a hindrance to experiencing 'goodness'.
True you may justify it as okay and the chuch may see it as evil the question is if it slowly eats away at your goodness corrupting you like a drug if you keep using it.
...then you are acting in accordance with you own nature, which should be defined by you.
Actually, I'd say your nature is defined and described by your actions, not by what you think of it.
If you're a person who does bad things, it doesn't matter what you think of those things; they're still bad.
I honestly don't know where this assertion that demons and angels are literal products of a moral perspective came from. I have never seen anything stating that any creature in the game has ever been born from tangible morality (though a link or something would be appreciated if it is true). However, even if that is the case, it is still wrong, as per the definition of alignment. Alignment cannot be both subjective and objective, and it is subjective.
It can not be subjective. Even if it is badly written or impossible to be hard-coded without being written in legalese it is still objective. The fact that it is hard to pin down you can say it is subjective, but the intent was to hard code it. In short the intent of the law is more important than the letter of the law which is very unclear in this case. As to the assertion it has been commonly discussed that certain planes are made of or home to certain alignment, such as the abyss. These planes form certain creatures. I would probably have to get Todd Stewart to break it down, and he may or may not pop in.
Except that the rules for alignment actually tell you that it isn't. Alignment is subjective in D&D by RAW (I defer you to my previous post where I clearly demonstrate this). It also WANTS D&D to have objective morality as implicated by the mechanics for evil spells and items. However, those rules are wrong. The are not inviolate simply because the devs said so. They have to actually account for the contradiction or it isn't true.
You can't account for every possible situation though, and that is basically what is needed. That does not make the rules any less valid. That does not make them subjective. It just means the book is only allowed to be so big. Even in our world the laws have certain intents, but there is always wiggle room. We can go back and rewrite a law to cover a loophole. It is not feasible for the devs to do that.
Let's be honest here: the largest part of the guys that claim that casting [evil] spells should not have long term alignment effects will not cast a [good] spell if they were forced at gun point because they feel that [good] spells are underpowered and not cool.
Thank goodness, I don't fall into that catagory. That just seems awfully silly. You point a gun at me, I am gonna do what you say. If I live, I'm callin' the PO po though. And I am goin' on the record to say, Summoning a good creature under threat of violence is an evil act by the agressor.
That aside, I play a summoner in a kingmaker campaign. We were in a situation that my eidolon became useless due to mind effectin' magik. He quickly dismissed it and summoned some lantern archons ( my goto summon when I can't think of anything) They done got ensorceled too.
The only thing I could think of was either a dretch or lemure. I remembered one of em was immune to mind effects. So, DM had me roll some dice to see if my character remembered... sho nuff.. it was the lemure. Summoned some of them and slowed the baddie down.
DM didn't say I feel tainted with evil...we see eye to eye on the alignment thing...and summoner lived to summon again :).
But RP wise, my character, a follower of the liberator...doesn't summon {usually} nasty things, not because of risk of making him EVIL but because they are EVIL and not fun to have around. Stinky nasty foul lemure nasties. UGH.
Greg
EDIT changed due to do, and added a forgotten {usually}
Actually, I'd say your nature is defined and described by your actions, not by what you think of it.If you're a person who does bad things, it doesn't matter what you think of those things; they're still bad.
Morallity cannot exist without thought. It is only a concept of thought and what you think of it does define whether or not it is evil. The westboro baptist church hates homosexuals and views it as evil. I don't agree with them. Neither of us think we are wrong. There is no evil-o-meter that we can compare it too.
But the orphanage gets painted, and an old lady crosses the road safely, and farmer John's fence gets repaired. And all this happens whether I summon an angel, an elemental, or a demon. Because they are ALL under MY control using Summon Monster. As if I were painting the orphanage myself.
And I'm a neutral-aligned Sorcerer. Show me where any of the nasty stuff that's been mentioned appears in the rules.
"Person A has a personal moral code and well defined pattern of conduct. They go to a new land that has different behavioral strictures than theirs. They do not change their behavior and are now breaking the law where they are but staying consistent with their past behavior and stated goals.
Person B has a personal moral code and well defined pattern of conduct. They go to a new land that has different behavioral strictures than theirs. They change their behavior to fit in with the requirements of the land they are currently in, making a clean break with their previously established routine.
Which one is Lawful, which one is Chaotic. Why?
Neither one is inherently lawful or chaotic just because they went to a new area. I would think they are both lawful. Nobody can appeal to everyone's code of conduct. It that were the criteria then nobody would be lawful.
Person B changed his behavior but he is consistent with it so he is still lawful. If he continued to flip-flop between the two I would say he is chaotic.
As an example and this is very simplistic, if I change my normal dressing style from basketball jerseys to casual wear(khakis and a collared shirt), but I continue to dress casually I am still lawful.
Morallity cannot exist without thought. It is only a concept of thought and what you think of it does define whether or not it is evil. The westboro baptist church hates homosexuals and views it as evil. I don't agree with them. Neither of us think we are wrong. There is no evil-o-meter that we can compare it too.
Actually, I'd say your nature is defined and described by your actions, not by what you think of it.If you're a person who does bad things, it doesn't matter what you think of those things; they're still bad.
Yes but the question is how would a higher power see it. Remeber we have definable gods in pathfinder who do agree on what is good and evil. Evil gods don't claim they are good they claim they are right. Right and wrong do not equal good and evil.
But the orphanage gets painted, and an old lady crosses the road safely, and farmer John's fence gets repaired. And all this happens whether I summon an angel, an elemental, or a demon. Because they are ALL under MY control using Summon Monster. As if I were painting the orphanage myself.
And I'm a neutral-aligned Sorcerer. Show me where any of the nasty stuff that's been mentioned appears in the rules.
What nasty stuff?
What nasty stuff?
Corruption, slippery-slope, alignment-changing stuff.
In other words, by RAW, why should I give a rip?
There is no evil-o-meter that we can compare it too.
Wow, while thats true in real life, that's totally wrong in Pathfinder. Ask a Paladin; it takes them a matter of seconds to run something through the evil-o-meter and let you know the results.
As well, as I've said before, there is also no need to worry in the case of outsiders either; all the works been done for you. They're clearly labelled in the Bestiary where they fall on the Evil scale.
What nasty stuff?Corruption, slippery-slope, alignment-changing stuff.
In other words, by RAW, why should I give a rip?
Not caring is a pretty good indication of exactly his point. You dont need benefits or reasons to do Good generally; just a desire to do so regardless of the lack of benefit to yourself.
It can not be subjective. Even if it is badly written or impossible to be hard-coded without being written in legalese it is still objective. The fact that it is hard to pin down you can say it is subjective, but the intent was to hard code it. In short the intent of the law is more important than the letter of the law which is very unclear in this case. As to the assertion it has been commonly discussed that certain planes are made of or home to certain alignment, such as the abyss. These planes form certain creatures. I would probably have to get Todd Stewart to break it down, and he may or may not pop in.
It can't be objective because it specifically attributes itself to things that are 100% subjective. I'm not just saying it is subjective because its easier or because its convenient and it doesn't matter what was intended only what is. I'm saying its subjective because the words they chose to use to describe what an alignment is are not compatible with objective morality. But subjective alignment conforms to the stricture.
You can't account for every possible situation though, and that is basically what is needed. That does not make the rules any less valid. That does not make them subjective. It just means the book is only allowed to be so big. Even in our world the laws have certain intents, but there is always wiggle room. We can go back and rewrite a law to cover a loophole. It is not feasible for the devs to do that.
It doesn't need to account for every possible situation because it tells us that that was never the goal. It says that it was meant to cover general personality. It doesn't even try to handle anomalies or contradictions in your personality and the result is that it can't. Nor should it.
Real world laws aren't inherently good. Some are. Most aren't. Many that aren't still have social value but then again many are a hindrance. I see the Patriot Act as evil, for example, but it isn't inherently evil.
I realize it is not feasible for the dev's to account for all alignment possibilities. I wouldn't want them too. My position is that they shouldn't try to account for alignment at all.
So how do you handle things like the protection spells or holy avengers or even the gods. Is is based on your last action on how you have acted on average or what?
What nasty stuff?Corruption, slippery-slope, alignment-changing stuff.
In other words, by RAW, why should I give a rip?
Using evil spells is considered to be an evil action. Evil actions can change your alignment. If you are not a divine class it generally does not matter though.
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
Here we see the spells have an alignment attached to them.
If you do X aligned things I don't think it is a stretch to say you move toward that alignment.However if that is not enough
[Descriptor]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
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.
Once again more proof that these spells descriptors have an affect on alignment.
Your actions generally determine your alignment.
A GM could as an example have a good aligned despot who tortures the masses, and says the paladin's smite does not work on him because he is CG, but he should not be surprised of several books fly in his direction. Those core books are heavy so I don't suggest that to any new GM's.
So how do you handle things like the protection spells or holy avengers or even the gods. Is is based on your last action on how you have acted on average or what?
There is no point system here so I go by a general actions in certain situations. I would also warn a player if he were acting outside of the alignment on his character sheet. I have never bothered to change anyone's alignment, and I really don't care what is on the character sheet unless the alignment has a direct effect on the class, such as a paladin.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I got no issue with a good wizzie's summoned demon saving a group of orphans from a burning building caused by the stray blast during a battle between a summoned celestial and summoned elemental for a dispute over water rights between two neutral clerics.Seems like a good deed to me. Despite the "[evil]" descriptor.
Greg
Maybe.
But let's look what a Herozu ordered to save the poor children entrapped in the burning building will probably do.1) smash the wall to enter the building (smashing is fun);
2) grab one child (and the other children will scatter at the sight of a hulking demon);
3) smash another wall to leave the building (smashing is fun and after all he is saving the children even if he get a few burns, right? so he is obeying your orders);
4) rinse and repeat till the burning building collapse above the boys left in it.
He will be simply following his alignment doing that.
Do the same thing with a Lillend Azata:
1) She would use a door if possible;
2) sleep on the children so they stay together (if the current location is not immediately dangerous);
3) grab 2 children and hurry outside for the safest route possible;
4) repeat till all the children are safe.
As she has different priorities than the herozu she will try to use different systems.
So what means you use isn't meaningless.
Sure, you can give very explicit orders to the herozu to reduce the collateral damage he will do, but he (and all the summoned creatures) will follow his nature if your orders leave any option to him. If possible he will follow your instructions in a way that will create the most collateral damage and suffering possible.
Gonna step back a sec, so if my Neutral character summons lantern archons over and over.. he is tipping the global golarion scale to good? He is commiting "good" acts?
If the mere summoning of something is good or evil act if the thing is not neutral, I gotta go with summoning in and of itself is an evil act.
You are bringing forth something from its home and removing its freewill forcing it to do acts of your bidding. The acts may be good, evil or indifferent..but the critter has no choice.
Kinda like casting dominate on a paladin to have them help the sweet lil' stowed up granny across the street. ( sure over kill I know) You are taking away his free will. I thought that was evil.
Greg
Gonna step back a sec, so if my Neutral character summons lantern archons over and over.. he is tipping the global golarion scale to good? He is commiting "good" acts?
If the mere summoning of something is good or evil act if the thing is not neutral, I gotta go with summoning in and of itself is an evil act.
You are bringing forth something from its home and removing its freewill forcing it to do acts of your bidding. The acts may be good, evil or indifferent..but the critter has no choice.
Kinda like casting dominate on a paladin to have them help the sweet lil' stowed up granny across the street. ( sure over kill I know) You are taking away his free will. I thought that was evil.
Greg
Summoning a creature and forcing it to act against its nature may very well be an evil act, in the same way that it would be to coerce it physically or through magical domination.
This would be in addition to the spells inherent alignment, however.
I dont think a Hound Archon is going to begrudge you summoning it to save a family however, nor is a fire elemental going to be particularly upset you asked it to burn things.
Just like summoning a demon to plant a garden for the elderly is not as evil as summoning him to wreak havoc; its still evil, though what you do with the tool you've made influences the degree in not-insignificant ways.
It can't be objective because it specifically attributes itself to things that are 100% subjective. I'm not just saying it is subjective because its easier or because its convenient and it doesn't matter what was intended only what is. I'm saying its subjective because the words they chose to use to describe what an alignment is are not compatible with objective morality. But subjective alignment conforms to the stricture.
I get what you are saying, but I don't think it is possible to write alignment in the game in such a way. All you can do is give a general idea and convey intent.
My position is that they shouldn't try to account for alignment at all.
I think they wanted guidelines for heroic actions, and summoning evil creatures to help you out should be a last resort. I don't think heroes use the same methods as the bad guys. I should say they won't in a heroic type game which is the idea of many fantasy stories. You take the hard way even if it hurts.
Wow, while thats true in real life, that's totally wrong in Pathfinder. Ask a Paladin; it takes them a matter of seconds to run something through the evil-o-meter and let you know the results.As well, as I've said before, there is also no need to worry in the case of outsiders either; all the works been done for you. They're clearly labelled in the Bestiary where they fall on the Evil scale.
I don't even want to get into the paladin naughty alarm debate so I'll skip that, except to say detect spells are dumb.
I don't see why they should be clearly labelled. That creates more problems than it solves. Those labels don't work. Its KINDA workable with demons and angels but this system applies to other creatures. It disgusts me to no end that ANY creatures is inherently evil. Inherent evil means that creatures aren't evil because of their culture or actions, but just because they were labeled that way. That is why alignment systems need to die by fire. Because they are contradictory, ineffective, and more often than not immoral (go figure).
So how do you handle things like the protection spells or holy avengers or even the gods. Is is based on your last action on how you have acted on average or what?
I actually only play pathfinder rarely these days. I play Tomes more often than not these days as it was better balanced than Pathfinder, but essentially Pali's loose the alignment radar and gain a bonus to sense motive. Protection from alignment spells are reworked to be more of an anti outsider, undead, and summoned creature thing. Holy avengers are sacred only because people in the game world "think" that is the case. Gods actually need the least amount of work in a no alignment game. Their personality and philosophies are easy to use without a two word label.
Summoning a creature and forcing it to act against its nature may very well be an evil act, in the same way that it would be to coerce it physically or through magical domination.
This would be in addition to the spells inherent alignment, however.
I dont think a Hound Archon is going to begrudge you summoning it to save a family however, nor is a fire elemental going to be particularly upset you asked it to burn things.
Just like summoning a demon to plant a garden for the elderly is not as evil as summoning him to wreak havoc; its still evil, though what you do with the tool you've made influences the degree in not-insignificant ways.
So it is okay to kidnap and force something to do something as long as it is within its nature? Cuz that is a good act?
Nah, my system is easier. Summoning just summons a tool. How the tool is used determines the alignment of the action. Casters that have limits based on descriptors are limited acordingly. Neutral casters do not become good by summoning good things... nor do they become evil summoning evil things. HOW they use it affects their alignment.
Greg
Edit: gonna step aside from this thread for a bit to read other stuff. Jadeite's Inquisitor post for one. Be back later to try and win the discussion :P
Problem here...Paladins and Good Clerics are mechanically forbidden from casting spells with the [evil] descriptor, so it can't happen.
I still believe this is the biggest point right here. Characters that are labeled as inherently 'GOOD' are forbidden from casting the 'EVIL' spells.
That really sums it up. If doing evil was ok if the end result was good... then Good clerics could do it.
If there was a chance that you could 'redeem' demons with acts of goodness... Paladins would be all for it!!
However such is not the case. They are not allowed to do Evil things... and they are not allowed to summon Evil creatures... Therefore, Summoning Evil creatures is Evil.
And to cut of the 'gods' argument... The Deities have no say in the matter.
While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction.
While many clerics and paladins have gods... they do not ALL have them. Yet the stipulation still stands. Good Clerics can not summon Evil creatures.