So just to ask the way this is argued Boromir and Frodo chose to be evil the ring didn't corrupt them with temptation they made a choice and the ring be damned even though it was said such an evil item cant be used for good purposes
I love alignment threads.
+1
Why not just create outsiders that fit the summoning spells instead of insisting on summoning evil creatures and arguing about in-game, rule-based morality?probably because some folks LIKE to explore issues of morality in their games. I've run entire campaigns where players started off as evil and eventually ended up redeeming themselves. I've also run games where a player toyed around with evil magic and it corrupted them to the point where they had to be put down by the rest of the group.
But this isn't about gaming style.
This is about someone wanting to summon evil creatures because there aren't enough good creatures on the summon lists.
I like exploring morality in games, too. Just not on threads where the only reason for "exploring" it is to whinge about the fact that casting evil spells will, in some people's games, make you evil. I was hoping that this thread might have some solutions instead of armchair social theories on the mores of society and how that should apply (blah, blah, blah).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love alignment threads.
I wish that threads that didn't need to be about alignment wouldn't dissolve into them.
Re-examaning the OP, it IS kinda about alignment. He said the good creatures sucked (not true, once you look deeper, IMO), and was concerned that summoning evil was an evil act.
The devs have said "It's this way". To me, by rules, it's that way. If you play it different, OK.
So just to ask the way this is argued Boromir and Frodo chose to be evil the ring didn't corrupt them with temptation they made a choice and the ring be damned even though it was said such an evil item cant be used for good purposes
No. There are a few things to take into account.
1.) The lord of the rings doesn't use D&D alignments, so having evil rings isn't a contradition
2.) The ring actually effect's people. Putting on the ring actually has a consequence. In D&D casting an evil summon spell has no consequence. At least not an inherent one. There might be a law against it or someone might fear you for it but the spell doesn't actually manipulate your behavior. Alignment descriptor's are mostly meaningless because they either a) aren't needed in a system of subjective alignment or b) don't actually do anything to call it an objective alignment.
3.) Lord of the Rings is a story and not a game. In a game, a small group of people create their own stories. The system they use to create those stories needs to provide coherent definitions in order to be useful. I can understand, conceptually, what people are trying to get at when they use terms like "raw evil" or "liquid hate" or something like that. at least in abstract. But applying that to a game as a rule for me to use to create stories with actually requires further explanation. There isn't one in D&D. There is in LotR.
And to cut of the 'gods' argument... The Deities have no say in the matter.
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.
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.
Ah, so we just modify it. And the 'Deity' arguement works again :P
Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells, and the divine forces of law and good power paladin spells. Divine spells tend to focus on healing and protection and are less flashy, destructive, and disruptive than arcane spells.
Good deities and DIVINE FORCES cannot draw power from planes of evil. Same situation when using Evil deities and DIVINE FORCES.
Once again. houserule if you wanna say it makes someone evil to use summon evil critter. Nuttin in core says summoning a bad critter in and of itself is an evil act.
However, I believe the stronger arguement is ALL summoning is evil. Not that I would use it in one of my games. That would be one of those "don't look at the man behind the curtain" things. Like castles for protection and other sumsuches.
Greg
So just to ask the way this is argued Boromir and Frodo chose to be evil the ring didn't corrupt them with temptation they made a choice and the ring be damned even though it was said such an evil item cant be used for good purposesNo. There are a few things to take into account.
1.) The lord of the rings doesn't use D&D alignments, so having evil rings isn't a contradition
2.) The ring actually effect's people. Putting on the ring actually has a consequence. In D&D casting an evil summon spell has no consequence. At least not an inherent one. There might be a law against it or someone might fear you for it but the spell doesn't actually manipulate your behavior. Alignment descriptor's are mostly meaningless because they either a) aren't needed in a system of subjective alignment or b) don't actually do anything to call it an objective alignment.
3.) Lord of the Rings is a story and not a game. In a game, a small group of people create their own stories. The system they use to create those stories needs to provide coherent definitions in order to be useful. I can understand, conceptually, what people are trying to get at when they use terms like "raw evil" or "liquid hate" or something like that at least in abstract. But to applying that to a game as a rule for me to use to create stories with, requires further explanation. There isn't one in D&D. There is in LotR.
1 Just cuz they arent pointed doesnt mean they dont exist.
2 Repeated evil actions do have a shift on alignment just like keeping the ring.
3.O.o that explains a lot to me Pathfinder is a story thats the point it has rules to make things go better but it is a story and you would be hard pressed to find a dev that would agree with your point that those things have no place.
|
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}
So you did it once, after exhausting your other possibilities.
As I have repeatedly said it will not have any measurable impact on your alignment.What impact the alignment is using the spell repeatedly when you have other options, especially if you aren't extra careful about avoiding "secondary effects".
In your hell hound kill ants example, the hell hound would almost certainly included the farmer family, the orchard and the house in its breath weapon area of effect if possible.
A good outsider would have done all that was possible to avoid harming the family and its properties while killing the ants.
Summon monster allow you to "direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions" but the creature is still doing that in the way it prefer unless you give very precise orders. "It [the creature you summon] appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability."
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.
The problem is that they are under your direction, not under your control, they are still capable to chose what means they should use to reach your ends.
And to cut of the 'gods' argument... The Deities have no say in the matter.
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.
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.Ah, so we just modify it. And the 'Deity' arguement works again :P
Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells, and the divine forces of law and good power paladin spells. Divine spells tend to focus on healing and protection and are less flashy, destructive, and disruptive than arcane spells.
Good deities and DIVINE FORCES cannot draw power from planes of evil. Same situation when using Evil deities and DIVINE FORCES.
Once again. houserule if you wanna say it makes someone evil to use summon evil critter. Nuttin in core says summoning a bad critter in and of itself is an evil act.
However, I believe the stronger arguement is ALL summoning is evil. Not that I would use it in one of my games. That would be one of those "don't look at the man behind the curtain" things. Like castles for protection and other sumsuches.
Greg
The issue is using a spell with an evil descriptor. All summoning is evil does not work in the game.
As an example by my real life logic binding an elemental to an object is evil, but Eberron does not see it that way.
1 Just cuz they arent pointed doesnt mean they dont exist.2 Repeated evil actions do have a shift on alignment just like keeping the ring.
3.O.o that explains a lot to me Pathfinder is a story thats the point it has rules to make things go better but it is a story and you would be hard pressed to find a dev that would agree with your point that those things have no place.
1. Yes it does. A book contains within it everything you need to know about the story. As a writer, I absolutely won't budge of this so its better to just not address it.
2. That wasn't quite my point. My point was that the ring affects your head, you don't behave normally. But the reason you shift alignments in D&D is because you chose to and that's it. There is no strange mystic allure or supernature pull calling out to you to cast summon monster. You just choose to do it and your alignment changes because you chose to do it a lot.
3. Seeing as how I didn't say anything like that, I will clarify what it was I actually DID say. I said, in order to be useful as a tool, a thing needs to be definable as something I can actually interact with, understand, and apply. In D&D there isn't any meaningful description of what tangible evil is. There isn't even an attempt describe it. So it isn't useful in helping to make stories. The devs can disagree all they want. I don't hold them inviolate. They aren't anymore or anyless capable of analyzing the game than you or I. However, I think they actually would agree that in order to use something you have to actually have an idea what that thing is.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
So if a evil spellcaster has some fun summoning celestials to make them do stuff like fight his good enemies: he will slowly become good.
Good is apparently just as corrupting (in a good way) as evil.
If casting [good]spells turns your alignment towards good then yes. How it happens is up to the players/DM, like all fluff explanations for rule crunch.
I'd suggest that summoning an angel awakens parts of the soul/ conscience that the bad guy had locked away in his back-story. Continually doing this, he develops a proper conscience, begins to question himself, begins to dread summoning another angel which will look at him with those big, self-sacrificing, greater good eyes and then die for him. Over and over again. That's more than daddy ever did.
Yes no one is making you cast evil spells however no one made Ted bundy do what he did do you think anyone sane (please dont argue sanity we all can agree on this) would say what he did was good or even just not evil?
Items can affect your alignment and can be affected by it or even fight you because of it.
And yes a book contains everything you need to know you dont need to know a characters alignment to know what it is. Frodo and most hobbits are cleary NG they have no care for law or chaos but do have strong feelings about evil.
And if that book doesn't work for you how about the Grey Gem of Krynn do you feel it and its world are alignmentless when it is clear where certain wizards stand with clarity?
So you did it once, after exhausting your other possibilities.
As I have repeatedly said it will not have any measurable impact on your alignment.What impact the alignment is using the spell repeatedly when you have other options, especially if you aren't extra careful about avoiding "secondary effects".
Once again, its a tool. Some tools require more care when using them. A blunderbus is less acurate than a sniper rifle, so one must take more care. Both are weapons that can be used.
I understand your arguement about the fluff of the game. Hell hounds are EBIL bad things. I agree. But nothing in RAW says summoning them makes one evil or makes the environment worse or even causes a paladin sorcerer to Fall From Grace. All that is great for some gameworlds or some stories. But it ain't a rule.
The only "RULE" part is that divine casters can't summon things of opposing alignments..but neutral divine casters can summon either good or evil. And strangely, the choice of channeling doesn't even come into play for a neutral cleric using summon monster.
I am not arguing that EVIL critters are not evil. They are. And I have had EVIL summons do the worst thing they could and still follow the direction given. But I have had neutral things follow poorly given instructions to the letter as well much to the detriment of a party. Let's face it, elementals can be pretty destructive without even trying. That doesn't make the casting of the spell evil or good.
If I walked into your game and you told me that casting a summon monster spell with an EVIL descriptor was an evil act, I bet I could still have fun in your game. In fact, I am certain of it. But it is a house interpretation of a spell. Not a rule. That is all I am sayin'.
Also, this arguement of mine is ONLY on summon monster spells. NOT create undead or the like. They are very very evil. You are taking the rights away from a soul to go to its home plane. Don't get more evil than that. As for the gate spell and others, I would have to reread em. Not gonna bother right now.. as this is a thread about the summon monster spell.
@Wraithstrike As I told a friend on the phone, you are one of the posters I always like to read. We just disagree on this. I "have" read your posts. My thoughts and yours do not agree on this issue...also, I am fond of using spoilers for the wall of quotes :) and shoulda done so for the PRD quotes above. Thanks for reminding me of how trying it is to read thru em.
Greg
So you did it once, after exhausting your other possibilities.
As I have repeatedly said it will not have any measurable impact on your alignment.What impact the alignment is using the spell repeatedly when you have other options, especially if you aren't extra careful about avoiding "secondary effects".
Once again, its a tool. Some tools require more care when using them. A blunderbus is less acurate than a sniper rifle, so one must take more care. Both are weapons that can be used.
I understand your arguement about the fluff of the game. Hell hounds are EBIL bad things. I agree. But nothing in RAW says summoning them makes one evil or makes the environment worse or even causes a paladin sorcerer to Fall From Grace. All that is great for some gameworlds or some stories. But it ain't a rule.
The only "RULE" part is that divine casters can't summon things of opposing alignments..but neutral divine casters can summon either good or evil. And strangely, the choice of channeling doesn't even come into play for a neutral cleric using summon monster.
I am not arguing that EVIL critters are not evil. They are. And I have had EVIL summons do the worst thing they could and still follow the direction given. But I have had neutral things follow poorly given instructions to the letter as well much to the detriment of a party. Let's face it, elementals can be pretty destructive without even trying. That doesn't make the casting of the spell evil or good.
If I walked into your game and you told me that casting a summon monster spell with an EVIL descriptor was an evil act, I bet I could still have fun in your game. In fact, I am certain of it. But it is a house interpretation of a spell. Not a rule. That is all I am sayin'.
Also, this arguement of mine is ONLY on summon monster spells. NOT create undead or the like. They are very very evil. You are taking the rights away from a soul to go to its home plane. Don't get more evil than that. As for the...
Fine please play by raw which also doesnt point out rape murder theft necrophilia animal abuse or anything else considered evil to be evil they aren't listed anywhere in the raw.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love alignment threads.I wish that threads that didn't need to be about alignment wouldn't dissolve into them.
Did you just say a thread about summoning evil aligned creatures and if that will make your own alignment evil doesn't need to be about alignment? I must have misunderstood you.
Fine please play by raw which also doesnt point out rape murder theft necrophilia animal abuse or anything else considered evil to be evil they aren't listed anywhere in the raw.
Ask and you shall receive. :P
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
EDIT: As for necrophillia and for animal abuse...not certain about those. I would as a DM take it on a point by point basis.
Greg
So my paladin then by raw can't kill or he risk falling? Because thats what that evil defination says.
Though i stand corrected on killing and rape though this still allows theft and necrophillia.
Yes no one is making you cast evil spells however no one made Ted bundy do what he did do you think anyone sane (please dont argue sanity we all can agree on this) would say what he did was good or even just not evil?Items can affect your alignment and can be affected by it or even fight you because of it.
And yes a book contains everything you need to know you dont need to know a characters alignment to know what it is. Frodo and most hobbits are cleary NG they have no care for law or chaos but do have strong feelings about evil.
And if that book doesn't work for you how about the Grey Gem of Krynn do you feel it and its world are alignmentless when it is clear where certain wizards stand with clarity?
Do you think ted bundy was evil? I do. Thats all that matters. The games labels don't.
Some items can. They are the exception not the rule. In most cased however, having the evil descriptor doesn't have much meaning. Further, if you are capable of making choices for yourself then they are actually quite an insult to your intelligence. I don't need my hand held thank you very much. And I suspect you don't either. You clearly have an idea of what is right and what is wrong. You accomplished this without an alignment
Frodo and the hobbits are NOT clearly NG. They are clearly three dimensional characters with desires, flaws, doubts, views, goals, etc. LotR isn't D&D. The story doesn't need D&D alignment and would be worse off with it.
I have never read any Krynn books. I tried to read the first Dragonlance trilogy but I couldn't get past the bad writing. I have heard their writing gets better, but I am not interested in finding out if that is the case. That doesn't matter though. Alignment-less systems do no mean that you don't have a clear position. It means that your clear position is your alignment. It means you have a personality and a philosophy. It means you have volition and can make decisions for yourself.
I want to reitterate this point. Games without alignment rules are not games without morality. Evil and good still exist, and there are many commonly accepted good and evil traits and actions and many debatable ones.
So my paladin then by raw can't kill or he risk falling? Because thats what that evil defination says.
Though i stand corrected on killing and rape though this still allows theft and necrophillia.
I'd still say theft in many cases was hurting and not showing compasion. And yes, you are correct. That is the point that WPharolin keeps trying to make with you. Alignment is poorly defined.
Greg
summon and evil stuff
Is this a the game considers summoning evil issue or Greg says it is evil issue similar to me thinking binding elemental to magic items forcibly and basically making them slaves is evil, even though the game disagrees with me?
edit:added the word evil
something about necrophilia.
Undead need love too. :)
Sadly i think we have derailed the thread.
However you position is that having an alignment is a strait-jacket which is isnt.(Thats how i am reading it anyways) NG characters will steal if needed LE characters will save babies if it futhers their plans. Everyone in the world can be described with the DND alignment system becasue it is an ebb and flow that measures the chacter in terms of the long run not indivdual basis. Casting an evil spell is an evil action casting a good spell is a good action. however it would take many such events to cause a shift even more so if you are using them against their alignments.(though this could be argued as evil since it is forcing a creature to do something against its natural tendencies) The point is to look at alignment as a way to determine where a NPC or PC falls in terms of Deity choice items and spell effects and the like. At no point should a DM look at a lawful good PC and tell him he just turned evil or even Neutral over a single instance of evil.
So my paladin then by raw can't kill or he risk falling? Because thats what that evil defination says.
Though i stand corrected on killing and rape though this still allows theft and necrophillia.
I'd still say theft in many cases was hurting and not showing compasion. And yes, you are correct. That is the point that WPharolin keeps trying to make with you. Alignment is poorly defined.
Greg
Its not poorly defined its meant to be taken and used only as far as your group feels its needed and yes it needs liberal application of Rule 0
At no point should a DM look at a lawful good PC and tell him he just turned evil or even Neutral over a single instance of evil.
I agree 99% with this unless the one evil act just ended the live of 1000's of innocents or some similar catastrophe.
Is this a the game considers summoning issue or Greg says it is evil issue similar to me thinking binding elemental to magic items forcibly and basically making them slaves is evil, even though the game disagrees with me?
summon and evil stuff
I can see that arguement ALOT easier. skeery one...I won't think about it cuz it will derail campaigns. but if I ever created my own world, I would DEFINITELY consider using it.
Greg
At no point should a DM look at a lawful good PC and tell him he just turned evil or even Neutral over a single instance of evil.I agree 99% with this unless the one evil act just ended the live of 1000's of innocents or some similar catastrophe.
If thats the case It usually won't matter the rest of the party kills them before they get blamed too. ;p
something about necrophilia.Undead need love too. :)
Wouldn't that be Unnecrophila?
Greg
At no point should a DM look at a lawful good PC and tell him he just turned evil or even Neutral over a single instance of evil.I agree 99% with this unless the one evil act just ended the live of 1000's of innocents or some similar catastrophe.
+2 unless dealing with Paladins...they have entirely more complex issues.
:PGreg
Is this a the game considers summoning issue or Greg says it is evil issue similar to me thinking binding elemental to magic items forcibly and basically making them slaves is evil, even though the game disagrees with me?
summon and evil stuffI can see that arguement ALOT easier. skeery one...I won't think about it cuz it will derail campaigns. but if I ever created my own world, I would DEFINITELY consider using it.
Greg
I edited that post if it matters. You can go back and read it.
Sadly i think we have derailed the thread.
However you position is that having an alignment is a strait-jacket which is isnt.(Thats how i am reading it anyways) NG characters will steal if needed LE characters will save babies if it futhers their plans. Everyone in the world can be described with the DND alignment system becasue it is an ebb and flow that measures the chacter in terms of the long run not indivdual basis. Casting an evil spell is an evil action casting a good spell is a good action. however it would take many such events to cause a shift even more so if you are using them against their alignments.(though this could be argued as evil since it is forcing a creature to do something against its natural tendencies) The point is to look at alignment as a way to determine where a NPC or PC falls in terms of Deity choice items and spell effects and the like. At no point should a DM look at a lawful good PC and tell him he just turned evil or even Neutral over a single instance of evil.
We haven't ever derailed the thread. The thread is about the morality of summoning demons. You have to talk about morality to stay on topic.
No, my arguement is not that alignment is a strait-jacket. I even used the exact words earlier "alignment is not a strait-jacket in D&D". My argument is that having alignment doesn't add anything to the game and it does take away, by causing pointless arguments over right and wrong. All actions should be judged on a case by case basis. Never on two words with vague and contradictory meanings that no one can agree one.
No one in the real world has a D&D alignment. They aren't defined clearly enough to apply to the real world. Law and Chaos are completely incoherent and good and evil actually aren't all that well defined either. For example, all Objectivists would be considered evil in D&D. That's insulting.
And if the point of alignment is to see where characters fall in line with deity choices than I REALLY feel insulted. I can figure that out on my own with ease.
At no point should a DM turn to a PC and tell him anything about his characters personality no matter how many times he performs an action. If the character has an instance of evil, then natural, logical, in game consequences should follow. Nothing else.
Thread was derail since we arent debating if its an evil act but how DND shouldn't define evil acts at all in any quantifiable rules way.
Thread was derail since we arent debating if its an evil act but how DND shouldn't define evil acts at all in any quantifiable rules way.
How can you define whether or not consorting with demons is evil without defining evil?
At no point should a DM turn to a PC and tell him anything about his characters personality no matter how many times he performs an action. If the character has an instance of evil, then natural, logical, in game consequences should follow. Nothing else.
If you mean the player should not be told he has to act in an evil manner now then I agree, but he should be forewarned that paladins can now smite him if it becomes the case. Your alignment does not determine your personality. Your personality determines your alignment.
I'm out before i get asked the defination of "is" .
In your games which aren't even pathfinder go with it the OP wanted a Pathfinder ruling as stated in Golarion its evil period. In his own game world it can be a good act for all that matters. Our dicussion wasn't even about what was evil you wanted to argue that we can't have the distintion of evil without writing up the NPC demons full stat block and back story to explain his evil. But i can see the brick wall and i am done.
Thread was derail since we arent debating if its an evil act but how DND shouldn't define evil acts at all in any quantifiable rules way.
By the rules I think many agree that it is evil, and it can influence alignment. Whether it should be is up for each person to decide for himself.
In a game like Shadowrun where you are nothing but mercenaries looking for the next paycheck then such things don't matter, but in a game where you are supposed to fight the good fight then whether or not you do bad things should be important.
PS:I am in no way saying you can't be do-gooders in Shadowrun. I am saying it is not the norm in most cases.
If you mean the player should not be told he has to act in an evil manner now then I agree, but he should be forewarned that paladins can now smite him if it becomes the case. Your alignment does not determine your personality. Your personality determines your alignment.
Basically, yeah. I don't think the DM has any say over whether the PC's character believes he is evil. There isn't any reason for the DM to tell him what his alignment IS but he CAN tell him how it will be perceived in the area he is in or by certain religions or organizations. In a non-alignment campaign, a natural consequence WOULD BE that a paladin that couldn't reconcile their moral differences with the offending PC could smite him.
More specifically I meant that the consequences for stealing all the time shouldn't be that his alignment shifts. It should be that there is now an investigation under way that is trying to get to the bottom of things and if he isn't careful he could get caught, tried, and possibly imprisoned.
Thread was derail since we arent debating if its an evil act but how DND shouldn't define evil acts at all in any quantifiable rules way.How can you define whether or not consorting with demons is evil without defining evil?
One does not need to define evil. One only needs to know what the game classifies as evil. The game threw an evil descriptor on a spell, and gives an indirect message that it affects alignment, and the person who is in charge of the campaign setting has said how such things work(in another thread). The intent is clear even if the wording is not.
At this point a person can say I know the intent so I can go with that or they can say words are more important than intent, and just do whatever they want to do as a GM, and ignore the evil descriptors.
More specifically I meant that the consequences for stealing all the time shouldn't be that his alignment shifts. It should be that there is now an investigation under way that is trying to get to the bottom of things and if he isn't careful he could get caught, tried, and possibly imprisoned.
This I agree with also. I often tell my players to be smart about doing the wrong thing, but if they get caught I don't want to hear any whining about the consequences.
One does not need to define evil. One only needs to know what the game classifies as evil. The game threw an evil descriptor on a spell, and gives an indirect message that it affects alignment, and the person who is in charge of the campaign setting has said how such things work(in another thread). The intent is clear even if the wording is not.
At this point a person can say I know the intent so I can go with that or they can say words are more important than intent, and just do whatever they want to do as a GM, and ignore the evil descriptors.
Clearly I choose my words very poorly here. I SHOULD have said "Having a discussion about the rules for the ethics of summoning demons begs the question, is it necessary for there to be any rules for it at all?"
hi, i was wondering, the best creatures (sometimes the only ones) you can summon with a SM spell are demon/devils, that is considered an evil act? because if it is so, an evil summoner is way more powerful than a good one
Actually, it wasn't even Golarion...and my interpretation holds that it is not an evil act. :P
But I do agree with the "one evil act does not make one evil" statement. I also agree that actions help determine alignment. One can say they are Chaotic Evil, but if all they do is help feed the hungry, cure the sick, defend the weak and hold fundraisers for the poor, I am gonna give them a different alignment.
And WPharolin is correct that alignment can be a cumbersome system. That is why DM's have to make so many rulings on it. In my games it is less so, because I have a consensus of opinion with my players. But I have played games in the past with other groups that the DM's interpretation of Evil and Good or even more so Law and Chaos were completely baffling to me. If I play D&D I use it though. I like the system and as said, it isn't an issue in my groups.
As for Paranoia though, only mutants comunists and conspirators are evil. The Computer is always good.
Greg
Greg
Clearly I choose my words very poorly here. I SHOULD have said "Having a discussion about the rules for the ethics of summoning demons begs the questions, is it necessary for there to be any rules for it at all?"
One does not need to define evil. One only needs to know what the game classifies as evil. The game threw an evil descriptor on a spell, and gives an indirect message that it affects alignment, and the person who is in charge of the campaign setting has said how such things work(in another thread). The intent is clear even if the wording is not.
At this point a person can say I know the intent so I can go with that or they can say words are more important than intent, and just do whatever they want to do as a GM, and ignore the evil descriptors.
That is very different then. I don't think so, but to many people if the book does not specifically say something in very exact language then they don't care for it so sometimes you have to pull bits and peices together to try to prove a point or at least get them to see what you are saying even if they don't agree anyway.
The OP had to ask to it is not in plain black and white. The small blurb on descriptors having an effect on alignment was needed in another thread I was in a long time ago when someone tried to say the alignment descriptors don't matter to clerics.
hi, i was wondering, the best creatures (sometimes the only ones) you can summon with a SM spell are demon/devils, that is considered an evil act? because if it is so, an evil summoner is way more powerful than a good one
The good monsters are quiet useful, but evil spells then to be pretty good compared to good spells. It is evil though if you want to go directly by the book. I am not advocating going directly by the book though. It is something each group should decide for themselves. How I managed to not answer you first, I don't know. In any event I have said my piece on the subject, and I have link to another post I made in this thread where the evil descriptor affects alignment. That is all I can do though. Happy Gaming.
|
|
So you did it once, after exhausting your other possibilities.
As I have repeatedly said it will not have any measurable impact on your alignment.What impact the alignment is using the spell repeatedly when you have other options, especially if you aren't extra careful about avoiding "secondary effects".
Once again, its a tool. Some tools require more care when using them. A blunderbus is less acurate than a sniper rifle, so one must take more care. Both are weapons that can be used.
I understand your arguement about the fluff of the game. Hell hounds are EBIL bad things. I agree. But nothing in RAW says summoning them makes one evil or makes the environment worse or even causes a paladin sorcerer to Fall From Grace. All that is great for some gameworlds or some stories. But it ain't a rule.
The only "RULE" part is that divine casters can't summon things of opposing alignments..but neutral divine casters can summon either good or evil. And strangely, the choice of channeling doesn't even come into play for a neutral cleric using summon monster.
I am not arguing that EVIL critters are not evil. They are. And I have had EVIL summons do the worst thing they could and still follow the direction given. But I have had neutral things follow poorly given instructions to the letter as well much to the detriment of a party. Let's face it, elementals can be pretty destructive without even trying. That doesn't make the casting of the spell evil or good.
If I walked into your game and you told me that casting a summon monster spell with an EVIL descriptor was an evil act, I bet I could still have fun in your game. In fact, I am certain of it. But it is a house interpretation of a spell. Not a rule. That is all I am sayin'.
Also, this arguement of mine is ONLY on summon monster spells. NOT create undead or the like. They are very very evil. You are taking the rights away from a soul to go to its home plane. Don't get more evil than that. As for the...
a) we are arguing opinions, not RAW, for the simple reason that alignment is, by RAW, totally dependant on the GM opinions.
"In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls."b) choosing to use a tool that has high chances of doing collateral damage and that wilfully will try to do as much secondary damage as possible (i.e. summoning a evil outsider) is, per se, an action that has repercussions on your alignment.
It is like the guy that build an house using sub par materials. He is wilfully endangering the resident of the house.
He can justify it as much as he want saying "The security rules are excessive, I can cut corners and no one will be really endangered." but in the end the building he has constructed is less safe than the one constructed by a guy that has followed the rules.
The tools you use have a direct impact on your end result.
If you use a shotgun in a hostage situation the chances of wounding innocent are higher than if you use a sniper rifle. Using a hand grenade make it practically granted.
There are situations where the shotgun or the hand grenade can be the only options, but they should not be the rule.
So if a character regularly chose the option with high risk of collateral damage I see him as uncaring about that risk and so uncaring about harming innocents as long as it further his goals.
That is my book fall under evil.
You can argue the "tea party with the devil" is a no harm to anyone option.
Even that is disputable. Every time the character call the devil to the tea party he is opening himself to risk. The devil has a chance to try to convince the character that doing something will be evil in the short run but bring a "greater good" in the long run, he can offer temptations. Even the simple thing that casting the spell will have no immediate negative effect will reduce the perception of the risk involved in using the spell. so increasing the probability that it will be the tool used when it is the time to find a solution to a problem.
|
|
If you mean the player should not be told he has to act in an evil manner now then I agree, but he should be forewarned that paladins can now smite him if it becomes the case. Your alignment does not determine your personality. Your personality determines your alignment.
At no point should a DM turn to a PC and tell him anything about his characters personality no matter how many times he performs an action. If the character has an instance of evil, then natural, logical, in game consequences should follow. Nothing else.
This.
Thread winner.In a non-alignment campaign, a natural consequence WOULD BE that a paladin that couldn't reconcile their moral differences with the offending PC could smite him.
And moral relativism is a thread loser.
Clearly I choose my words very poorly here. I SHOULD have said "Having a discussion about the rules for the ethics of summoning demons begs the question, is it necessary for there to be any rules for it at all?"That's not begging the question.
Wow. How long have I been using that phase improperly? Point still stands.
And moral relativism is a thread loser.
State why, don't flaimbait. In reality morality IS subjective and it IS relative. All concepts are necessarily.
I only just learned myself and had to pass it on. :)
And I appreciate it, really. I hate being wrong >.>