|
One of the things about a lot of outsider types is that they tend to be long-term thinkers. Probably more so for devils than demons, say, but still - they generally have plenty of time to wait things out.
So when you summon a big bad to save the kids from the orphanage sure, you're doing a small amount of short term good (in a cosmological sense)... but what if the bad thing saving those kids impressed one of them enough for him to grow up studying up on demons and devils, to sell his soul for power, to raise an army of fiends and to wage war in an effort to conquer the world? Maybe that summons wasn't such a good idea after all..?
Of course the above is more about roleplaying out the consequences of character actions, hopefully in an interesting and dramatic manner - adding to the story and the plot, if you will. Announcing a PC 'is now evil' for (essentially) no better reason than 'just because' is the opposite of that.
While spells with alignment tags may be that alignment on a cosmological scale, it shouldn't really futz with the character's alignment, IMHO, it should just mean stuff tends to play out one way or another. It's part of the character's personal journey to go from upstart young buck Wizard wowing the crowds with his cool devil-summoning powers to a mature arch-mage who finally realises that all actions have consequences. Skipping over that with some bland game mechanic would be, IMHO, a loss for all involved.
Another nice plot to pull is to wait until the evil-summoning PC gets home after a long adventure, out of spells, low on Hit Points, and mostly just wanting to soak in a bath and get some sleep, and have him find a devil waiting there for him with a 'proposition'...
'We've noticed that you've been making extensive use of damned resources and like to think that you've benefited from doing so. As such a valued customer, perhaps we could interest you in the delux deal, reserved only for such special clients as yourself..?' :)
... Using the power of evil can be a slippery slope, sure - but the fun is in role-playing that out, not wielding the DM bat of alignment changing.
The way they run things has ramifications outside of their opinions alone.
I disagree.
The fact that in James Jacobs' campaign you can use Vital Strike in ways that they've expressly said by RAW are not allowed does not have any more ramifications than if someone else also did this.
For a home campaign you see the idea, weigh it, and decide whether or not to make it a house rule.
For sanctioned events and PFS, Mr Jacobs' house rule doesn't come into play as it's a house rule and has no place there despite from all that I've come to believe that Mr Jacobs is a fine DM and runs a great campaign.
There is a difference between what someone, even a designer, rock star, or movie star, does in a home campaign and what's official and in print.
By RAW there is no mechanics for [evil] descriptor spells ever altering one's alignment. It's a common house rule amongst many as its a folklore rule, but that's their call. Just as its the other poster's call to make it essentially the opposite where it comes to summoning creatures.
As a fun aside back in 1E when you cast monster summoning it was a creature of opposite moral alignment (good summoned evil and evil summoned good). Not that this has any bearing here, but its an interesting aside (imho).
-James
James intentions on fluff are taken as rules in this regard since the "turn evil" thing is a rule enforced fluff issue. Well it is not actually rule enforceable since they never made a rule for it, but it is the staff's idea that it be the case.
It is one of those situations where a rule is written a certain way, but everyone(most peole) knows the intent was for it to be ran another way. At that point a GM has to decide is he going to to by what the designer intended(which has been clearly expressed) or what the designer actually wrote(no real proof) in the book, and in this case there is no direct statement about a GM changing alignments only a line saying the descriptors interact with alignment.PS:I agree with your RAW statement.
Both Vital Strike and Empowered have been errata'd and FAQd to explain how they work.
For all intents and purposes, they function as described there. And the errata first showed up in a forum post.
I'm confused as to what's being gotten at with those examples.
So how do you sit with Vital Strike?Obviously the RAW require a standard action and makes it not compatible with other attack actions.. yet they've clearly gone against this....
I'm sorry I know where you're going here.. but what it honestly is is a pervading sense of circular logic. Its there in the developer's posts so its not you I'm singling out here.
I think Vital Strike should have been errata'd, and not just been given an FAQ. As written it can be applied to any one attack such as a charge by my interpretation. I don't think it is all that powerful so I will allow it on a charge. When someone ask me a rules question I often give intent as opposed to RAW. I figure if they don't like the intent enough they will just houserule it anyway like I do.
This is all pervasive, and the current PF developers are no different or somehow immune to this phenomenon. From Jason saying that empower doesn't multiply 'static +s' on things like magic missile (despite that being the example in the old 3e PhB) to James talking about Vital Strike.
They went back on the empower thing, but I ignored it even before they went back to the 3.5 ruling because I did not like it, but when the question came up online I always referred them to Jason's post. It was up to them at that point if they wanted to go with the 3.5 of PF(at the time) ruling.
Now you can make a fine house rule along these lines, but you want to becareful and realize that in fact that in a way you are going against the current RAW. Doing that won't turn you (as a person) evil or cause a rip in the fabric of the universe, but it is a house rule.
I understand that as written it is a houserule which is why I think the intent should be more clear than it is. I think the writers sometimes assume that people have the same understanding of the game that they do. The only reason I know about was because I have been playing and reading things they have written for so long I know the intent, but if I was new I would not know it, and I would be arguing against it.
I think to a large extent, how evil an action is, is a GM call, but I also think certain things were intended to be an evil act without question. The issue is that these things are not spelled out well enough.
Personally I think this concept that summoning an evil creature shouldn't be evil really comes down to how much of a "vacuum" the summoning takes place in.
By that I mean how much the summoned creature is role-played out.
For those arguing that the spell shouldn't be evil by itself I am getting the feeling they are viewing and treating the creature summoned as any other non sentient weapon. It's only as evil as the wielder or what it is used for.
For me that's too much of a reduction in the roleplay aspect of this game. To me if you summon a demon, devil.. etc. It doesn't stop being a paragon of evil. You may order it to go into the orphanage and save the orphans. But unless you are following along and trying to dictate it's every movement it's going to be constantly looking for a way to cause mayhem, death and destruction. To try and claim it's not your character's fault when your summoned demon paints the inside of the orphanage with your opponents entrails seems disingenuous.
Personally I think this concept that summoning an evil creature shouldn't be evil really comes down to how much of a "vacuum" the summoning takes place in.
By that I mean how much the summoned creature is role-played out.
For those arguing that the spell shouldn't be evil by itself I am getting the feeling they are viewing and treating the creature summoned as any other non sentient weapon. It's only as evil as the wielder or what it is used for.
For me that's too much of a reduction in the roleplay aspect of this game. To me if you summon a demon, devil.. etc. It doesn't stop being a paragon of evil. You may order it to go into the orphanage and save the orphans. But unless you are following along and trying to dictate it's every movement it's going to be constantly looking for a way to cause mayhem, death and destruction. To try and claim it's not your character's fault when your summoned demon paints the inside of the orphanage with your opponents entrails seems disingenuous.
It will probably use the orphans entrails if you don't specify to bring "all of them" out alive.
I think to a large extent, how evil an action is, is a GM call, but I also think certain things were intended to be an evil act without question. The issue is that these things are not spelled out well enough.I think it's entirely a GM call, as the core rules state.
I know that Pathfinder removed the only place where an act was mechanically an evil act from the SRD rules. And I do believe that they augmented the alignment language to stress that it was solely a GM's call when a PC might need to alter their alignment based on their behavior.
So I think that I disagree. I'm not sure who you believe 'intended' some things to be mechanically an evil act.. are you talking about the current PF developers, the prior 3.5 ones, the 3e ones, who?
If it's the PF developers, then I'm thinking that whomever had final edit didn't quite agree as I said PF expressly removed the only mechanically evil act that the 3rd ed PhB had.
Now many of the developers might rule differently than the way it got written down in the Core rules, just like the might rule differently on empower or vital strike.
Anyway, I think we more or less agree, so it's been fun,
James
I think all editions considered certain things to be evil. IIRC poison was called out as evil in 3.5, but not so in Pathfinder. The logic was that it caused undue suffering. Most likely IMHO if someone ask James he will say it is evil, but I just see it as tool similar to a sword.
I do think we agree though. :)
I only saw the evil and good tags as descriptions for rules relating to spells or spellcasting. Such as clerics and alignments. Wizards are free to do whatever they want.
I would never in a million years rule that summoning an devil would have a negative impact on a lawful good wizard.
There is a reason a lawful good cleric, simply can't do it, because the spell is considered evil by said cleric's god. A wizard has no such bounds or ties to the divine.
If a wizard wanted to trick his way into an evil cult to overthrow it, I think summoning the devil or demon that best represents that cult during a ritual would be a smart idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Holy thread necro; almost 5 years!
I only saw the evil and good tags as descriptions for rules relating to spells or spellcasting. Such as clerics and alignments. Wizards are free to do whatever they want.
I would never in a million years rule that summoning an devil would have a negative impact on a lawful good wizard.
There is a reason a lawful good cleric, simply can't do it, because the spell is considered evil by said cleric's god. A wizard has no such bounds or ties to the divine.
If a wizard wanted to trick his way into an evil cult to overthrow it, I think summoning the devil or demon that best represents that cult during a ritual would be a smart idea.
Per Ultimate Intrigue, it's an evil act. That does not mean that a LG wizard can't summon a demon. But it is an evil act, even if one in the service of "the greater good." Similar to most other aligned acts, a single [Evil] summoning would not change someone's alignment. But if you make a habit of constantly summoning devils and demons, and don't do a heck of a lot of altruistic acts, it might point to the fact that you're really playing a neutral character, and your GM might want to have an OOC discussion with you about it.
If anyone bothers you about it being evil, just cast protection from evil a few times, since by the same logic that is good and should cancel it out.
If anyone bothers you about it being evil, just cast protection from evil a few times, since by the same logic that is good and should cancel it out.
But remember what you tell the summon to do also influences your alignment.
Get it to save an orphan from an enemy=Good act.
Get it to eat an orphan before an enemy does = evil act. And mean. Stop Ninjaing.
But yeah, casting Protection from evil will boost your alignment too.
I have returned form the dead to take over the worl- oh, holy craaaaaap! *its head rolls off the side of the screen*
That out of my system (yes, I'm aware Cheburn pointed that out already), it's worth saying that this is the most current thread on that topic.
Necromancy isn't the worst thing in the world, though... ;D
If anyone bothers you about it being evil, just cast protection from evil a few times, since by the same logic that is good and should cancel it out.But remember what you tell the summon to do also influences your alignment.
Get it to save an orphan from an enemy=
Good act.
Get it to eat an orphan before an enemy does = evil act. And mean. Stop Ninjaing.But yeah, casting Protection from evil will boost your alignment too.
Not at my table. When it comes to casting align-ed flavored spells the consequences of doing so at my table will vary from incident to incident.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is what I do at my table: Summoning evil does not make you evil. Just as summoning good does not make you good. The same goes with summoning law or chaos. Good, lawful, chaotic and evil aligned divine casters are prohibited from summoning the opposite alignment because they are channelers of a divine force, however ever nebulous, that operates by their own set of rules. IE Deity/Divine empowering force overwhelms servant's alignment. Now for neutral clerics, they can summon either side due to the nature of balance, though I have seen home rules lock them down based on what type of energy they channel correspond to summoning (channel positive, summon up good, channel negative summon up evil). Now if you want to avoid this silly trope, modify the summons list with the 10,000 outsiders that are equal CR as provided in the summoning handbook supplement or the feats from the various faith guides, and poof, no more summon mon 8 confusion where the good guy only gets elder elementals.
For arcane casters, they can summon whatever influence they like. If they're committing evil acts such as murder, rape, charm, robbery for personal gain rather then survival, slavery, and so on, it's pretty obvious they're going to the bad place. If they're committing good acts with evil denizens, then poofski they go to the good place, or just end up in neutral land. Does this mean arcane spellcasters, especially summoners, get more use out of summon spells without DM intervention? Yup. But an easy adjustment of the summoning lists as above takes care of this.
Now as for things like protection from evil and what not, it follows the same logic. Animating or creating undead or becoming undead is not inherently an evil act, especially if the worshippers AGREED to become undead for a variety of purposes. Case in point, the lich who decides to become undead because they're not a 20th level wizard that can get immortality as an arcane discovery. So they decide to protect their loved ones by watching over them and teaching them to be better people. Add in the cleric of a god who sees life, death, and undeath to be 3 shades of the same existence. Vile evil is sweeping the land, converting everyone to one state. Said cleric decides to eliminate this evil and restart the proper cycle by animating worshippers or spirits that agree to be his or her servants. Hell, you could add a whole roleplaying aspect of a caster animating undead by negotiating with the spirit that still bears some sort of connection to its body or essence. Once their task is done, poof, the spell duration ends and the body dissipates.
Also, let's not forget the prestige class from 3.5 that you can take for good divine spellcasters and summon up evil people. I can't remember the name, but it's designed for this type of debate. And lastly, it's your game. What the devs say only goes if you want to follow their advice or rulings. This RAW vs RAI vs RADS (Rules as Devs say) vs RADUS (Rules as devs say unofficialy) vs FAQRU to RAW (Frequently Asked Questions Rules Updates to Rules as Written) is silly for a qualitative debate like this. Now if you want to debate how high you can jump, the above works perfect.
Oh and to add in the next debate, using poison is not evil, nor is dual-wielding Halfling commoners.
Also, let's not forget the prestige class from 3.5 that you can take for good divine spellcasters and summon up evil people. I can't remember the name, but it's designed for this type of debate.
It was called the Malconvoker, was pretty boss, didn't require divine spellcasting ().
However, that's an aside for another time, as that was from a (slightly) different game with (slightly) different rulings.
And lastly, it's your game. What the devs say only goes if you want to follow their advice or rulings. This RAW vs RAI vs RADS (Rules as Devs say) vs RADUS (Rules as devs say unofficialy) vs FAQRU to RAW (Frequently Asked Questions Rules Updates to Rules as Written) is silly for a qualitative debate like this. Now if you want to debate how high you can jump, the above works perfect.
This is true, but it's worth being aware of these things and discussing them, because many like going with the official rulings, and cleaving as closely to them as possible - this makes, for example, changing tables or groups easier; it also makes going from home games to, say, PFS, easier.
Per Ultimate Intrigue, it's an evil act.
Le Sigh!
I have been reading so many good things about UI I guess it was inevitable there would be one thing they F- up, but why oh why did it have to be this one...
Oh well! at least now I get to bolt of glory some kittens and it all balances out/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's mentioned that the Gray Paladin can't cast an [evil] spell, but that doesn't mean that an [evil] spell is particularly evil act. Paladins can't get away with any small infractions if they want to keep their powers, but that leaves lots of room for non-Paladins to still get into a nice afterlife with a few deviations along the way.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually if Ultimate Intrigue hadn't said casting Evil descriptor spells is an evil act, regular paladins could have cast Evil spells but grey paladins couldn't. Because unlike clerics and druids, paladin spell casting is not limited by alignment in the core rulebook.
That's probably because they're aren't any Evil Paladin spells. For reasons that should be extremely obvious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, let's not forget the prestige class from 3.5 that you can take for good divine spellcasters and summon up evil people. I can't remember the name, but it's designed for this type of debate.It was called the Malconvoker, was pretty boss, didn't require divine spellcasting ().
However, that's an aside for another time, as that was from a (slightly) different game with (slightly) different rulings.
And lastly, it's your game. What the devs say only goes if you want to follow their advice or rulings. This RAW vs RAI vs RADS (Rules as Devs say) vs RADUS (Rules as devs say unofficialy) vs FAQRU to RAW (Frequently Asked Questions Rules Updates to Rules as Written) is silly for a qualitative debate like this. Now if you want to debate how high you can jump, the above works perfect.This is true, but it's worth being aware of these things and discussing them, because many like going with the official rulings, and cleaving as closely to them as possible - this makes, for example, changing tables or groups easier; it also makes going from home games to, say, PFS, easier.
That was it; the Malconvoker. But in any case, any DM should weigh the official ruling for any rule as what works in their game, sans official events like PFS or Paizocon. This current line of becoming the alignment you wield strays to close to the silly 1st Ed argument about good clerics not be able to use reversed versions of healing spells. So what you have with these rulings is stratfiying arcane casters into pre-defined moral straightjackets. Or any class that picks spell like abilities. And now, if my alignment is shifting, I can spam low level good spells and be all sparkly moral again. Pass. Personally the better solution is to judge the intent of the user of the spell and make up alignment/divinely sourced summoning tables for the divine casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually if Ultimate Intrigue hadn't said casting Evil descriptor spells is an evil act, regular paladins could have cast Evil spells but grey paladins couldn't. Because unlike clerics and druids, paladin spell casting is not limited by alignment in the core rulebook.That's probably because they're aren't any Evil Paladin spells. For reasons that should be extremely obvious.
There is a feat for Paladins to add 4 spells to their spell list with few limits.
This has also been official in Golarion for a while (Champions of Purity mentioned it, I believe), and explicitly stated by the folks at Paizo to be their intent for the core rules, too.
So, really, this should surprise nobody.
Being Golarion only made this ridculousness much easier to ignore, especially with the PFS counter-ruling.
On the plus side the FAQ still exists, so I guess it doesn't mess up PFS, and certainly won't mess up my home game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what you have with these rulings is stratfiying arcane casters into pre-defined moral straightjackets. Or any class that picks spell like abilities.
Eh. As long as you aren't a Paladin and your Good acts outnumber and outweigh your Evil ones, you'll be fine.
And now, if my alignment is shifting, I can spam low level good spells and be all sparkly moral again. Pass.
Only if your GM would let you commit some other theoretically Good act from purely selfish motives and redeem yourself that way.
Does your GM let you make up for murdering people by letting you help old ladies across the street? No? Then this wouldn't work either.
Being Golarion only made this ridculousness much easier to ignore, especially with the PFS counter-ruling.
It's not all that ridiculous if you actually think it through.
On the plus side the FAQ still exists, so I guess it doesn't mess up PFS, and certainly won't mess up my home game.
The reason for the PFS FAQ is that, due to PFS being an organized play campaign, the only 'aligned acts' that exist are ones that actually change your alignment on the spot, or at least have the potential to do so.
Casting an Evil spell isn't nearly that big a deal and isn't intended to be.
|
So, you roll up a lawful good wizard and played for 5 levels.
1st - 4rd level - Saved a village from a goblin rampage, extinguished a fire at an orphanage, found an evil artifact and turned it over to those who would destroy it and destroyed many undead.
Also, donated to your lawful good church, did a bake sale for the orphans to rebuild their orphanage and even went home to spend time with your mother.
5th level - Discovered the fun of summoning spells. None of your acts or motives changed... but you now summon many demons. You wouldn't believe how good Dretchs are at making monkey bread or gingersnaps when properly motivated.
6th level - Is now true neutral. Because the balance between doing LG acts and CE acts is TN. Yay, thank you 'casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act' mechanic.
Your buddy, George the Lawful Good arcanist was lucky. He favored Devils, so he's at least Lawful Neutral.
But what is this, now that you are fighting more evil aligned creatures who use mind control effects you are using Protection From Evil often as well? Oh, but only as often as you summon demons?
Still neutral, but just try a bit harder!
The BBEG, a sadist who spends most of his time summoning celestials to torture them... he gets to be TN too! Isn't this game fun when you quantify good and evil acts based on descriptors instead of intent?
-------------
Yes, the above is over-dramatization.
But
1) Summoning isn't calling. They don't get a will of their own when summoned. Their magical effects disappear at the end of their duration. That should be addressed in the implementation of the rules for what kind of act it is.
2) Actually shifting someones alignment based on what they cast when their other actions do not agree with the shift is... well, silly. How much 'evil' is there in summoning a being who has no ability to commit evil other than through your will and the fact of its own existence? Is it 'skipped on a dinner check' evil? 'Shot someone just to watch them bleed' evil? What're we talking here?
3) Given the rule, it would be entirely possible to be attacked by a recurring villain who only summoned angels to attack you... and you cast Protection From Good to prevent them from hurting you... and suddenly you are evil and he is good... or you are both now neutral.
I mean, that could be funny. The PC, now evil, attacks the BBEG to follow his alignment, even though the BBEG has now redeemed himself. And the BBEG, now good, protects the town. But just so... silly.
---------
To be completely serious, alignments as chains is not so fun a concept that I would want to be a part of all my characters. Its fun to play the paladin who struggles to be lawful good, or the inquisitor who follows his alignment path with blind devotion.
But my CN wizard who just likes to party shouldn't suddenly become CE just because he doesn't have an issue with discoursing with demons. Though, if they convince him to sacrifice flesh to their unholy gods that's a different thing entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intentionally being obtuse.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Lorewalker:
Again, that only makes sense if all Evil and Good acts are precisely equal. Having an Evil person suddenly become Good because he uses a Good spell is like having him become Good because he tips the waiter once. And having someone become Evil from one spell is like having them become Evil after a yelling match with a friend where they say something deeply hurtful. It's completely absurd and not how Alignment works. Having spells being Aligned acts doesn't cause that kind of stupidity, being idiotically simplistic in how you view Alignment does.
There's also the matter of context. Giving a child candy is a Good act...but not enough to outweigh the Evil of then killing the child. Taking a child's security blanket and destroying it is Evil...but not enough to outweigh the Good of using it to smother a fire that would have killed dozens.
As for your numbered points:
1) Summoning isn't calling. They don't get a will of their own when summoned. Their magical effects disappear at the end of their duration. That should be addressed in the implementation of the rules for what kind of act it is.
Not in a big way. They're the platonic ideal of the creature types summoned. They'll do what you say, but, say, a Demon will inherently do so in the way that causes the most collateral damage, because that's what Demons do and what it enjoys doing. Summoning them is risky for everyone around you.
2) Actually shifting someones alignment based on what they cast when their other actions do not agree with the shift is... well, silly. How much 'evil' is there in summoning a being who has no ability to commit evil other than through your will and the fact of its own existence? Is it skipped on a dinner check evil? Shot someone just to watch them bleed evil? What're we talking here?
Again, it's 'risking the safety of the people around me for ______ reason' evil. How evil will depend on the reason...but why exactly didn't you summon a non-Evil creature? Why was the demon necessary?
3) Given the rule, it would be entirely possible to be attacked by a recurring villain who only summoned angels to attack you... and you cast Protection From Good to prevent them from hurting you... and suddenly you are evil and he is good... or you are both now neutral.
No. As stated above this is utterly idiotic. Say a villain attacking the village was polite and offered you mercy, but you were rude in response and attacked him while he was still talking. Would that change your alignments? No? Then why would this? Those are a good action (offering mercy) and an Evil action (not even attempting to resolve the situation peacefully when there's a clear opportunity for that). Why would the use of spells change that dynamic?
I mean, that could be funny. The PC, now evil, attacks the BBEG to follow his alignment, even though the BBEG has now redeemed himself. And the BBEG, now good, protects the town. But just so... silly.
In addition to the stupidity of single minor acts causing alignment change (noted above), this assumes Alignment dictates behavior. That's not how the game works. Behavior dictates Alignment, not the other way around.
|
|
@Lorewalker:
In addition to the stupidity of single minor acts causing alignment change (noted above), this assumes Alignment dictates behavior. That's not how the game works. Behavior dictates Alignment, not the other way around.
If what I wrote seemed silly to you... good. That was the point. It's very much a 'see what not to do' exercise.
I agree with you on many parts of your concept! But the rules do not have enough 'rule' behind them to completely agree with you. You are fiating it to marginalize the effect. I think that is a good thing and GMs should do that.
Again, it's 'risking the safety of the people around me for ______ reason' evil. How evil will depend on the reason...but why exactly didn't you summon a non-Evil creature? Why was the demon necessary?
But as for this, there is zero risk. So there is no point to this statement. You could summon your self the biggest baddest of evils and it would still get on its knees and meow if that is what you asked it to do. They are completely under your control and without order only attack those who are 'enemies' of yours.
If they do differently at your tables... well that is your call. But it isn't in the text.
Now, as for why, the evil creature may well have an ability any other possible summons do not and is needed to save the day.
No. As stated above this is utterly idiotic. Say a villain attacking the village was polite and offered you mercy, but you were rude in response and attacked him while he was still talking. Would that change your alignments? No? Then why would this? Those are a good action (offering mercy) and an Evil action (not even attempting to resolve the situation peacefully when there's a clear opportunity for that). Why would the use of spells change that dynamic?
The whole point is the acts weren't singular, but repeated over and over. As James Jacobs said, repeated use should move your alignment.
And nothing in the rules say 'how evil'. That is you saying how evil it is. Don't forget that. I was underscoring this as important for review before ruling.One action should be a drop in the bucket unless it was drastically different in alignment from what you normally do. But if you constantly steal an apple... you might just be a thief instead of someone who stole an apple once. And if you constantly cast protection from good you might just find yourself evil. Or at least neutral. That is, at least, according to the stated intent of the devs.
If you found it silly when I said it... good. It is no less silly when they say it and I'm glad you agree with me. ^.^
A) The summons is under your control. So unless someone breaks it via a control summoned creature or other mind control magic, it doesn't go murder hobo unless you tell it to.
B)These rulings are turning casting alignment based spells into extra bookkeeping for arcane casters and GMs. Now I have to continually worry about tracking how many aligned spells I cast because a certain trend might change my alignment.
C)If usage of these spells does the above, then we might as well make an alignment chart to track how many points committing an act shifts you on the moral spectrum. Ooh! Now we have more chartfinder!
Yup another pass on this idea. Alignment is based on your roleplaying and the moral use of your talents, not how many alignment related spells I cast in a day.
|
|
Actually if Ultimate Intrigue hadn't said casting Evil descriptor spells is an evil act, regular paladins could have cast Evil spells but grey paladins couldn't. Because unlike clerics and druids, paladin spell casting is not limited by alignment in the core rulebook.That's probably because they're aren't any Evil Paladin spells. For reasons that should be extremely obvious.So we're ignoring "Corruption Resistance" from Advanced Player's Guide, "Protection from Outsiders" from Demon Hunter's Handbook, and "Planeslayer's Call" from Advanced Class Guide, then? All of which are on the Paladin's spell list and able to have the evil descriptor? I can certainly see a situation where a number of CG enemies are disrupting the local LG government, so a Paladin would find them on the opposite side of the table from a good outsider. Gaining the Chaotic subtype going against Lawful is a slightly different story but outside of Inevitables the Paladin would still pick Good when going up against Devils and Kytons.
Grant we've moved beyond the Core Rulebook at this point.
And I didn't even have to mention Unsanctioned Knowledge -> Infernal Healing that has been possible since 2011. 5 years.
Or Wands/Scrolls.
Or Multiclassing, which is in the core rulebook... and one of the suggested paths to Eldritch Knight used to be Paladin 2/Sorcerer 6/Eldritch Knight X (or maybe Paladin 2/Sorcerer 3/Dragon Disciple 4/Eldritch Knight X... files that away for later)So, TLDR, many ways for a Paladin to cast evil spells that have existed for a long time.
Those spells "are able" is not the same as "are". I actually see little to no times where a Paladin would be fighting a non-controlled Good Outsider, let alone a LG government fighting CG outsiders.
And all those others involve multiclassing or UMD to cast spells inherently not available to a Paladin. Even with Unsanctioned Knowledge it only worked if you saw the clarification in Ultimate Intrigue as something new and never heard of before instead of something that has been an assumption since the game's beginning.
If the Paladin tried to add Infernal Healing to it's spell list the GM should have obviously disallowed it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being Golarion only made this ridculousness much easier to ignore, especially with the PFS counter-ruling.It's not all that ridiculous if you actually think it through.
I have thought about it, a lot. And it is ridiculous. My big problem isn't necessarily with evil spells, it's with good spells.
So [evil] spells are inherently evil. Casting evil spells slowly increases the amount of evil in the world (or however you fluff it), so the very act of casting them is evil, no matter what your intent is, or how you use the effect. It doesn't have to be a major change, but eventually it will change your alignment. Fine in and of itself.
The logical extension to that is that using [good] spells is inherently good. no matter what your intent or how you use them you are adding to the good to the world. Doing something for personal gain that does not harm another is the very essence of neutral, it cannot be evil by any definition of the word. So spamming magic circle against evil for your own benefit is ultimately inherently good and cannot be nullified or reduced by a neutral act without some pretty tortuous reasoning, therefore it is eventually going to make you actually good.
And that does not sit right with me, nor does treating [evil] spells differently to [good] spells. So I'm left with the heartfelt belief that alignment tags are a purely rules function, and tying them to acts of alignment is nonsense.
|
|
If what I wrote seemed silly to you... good. That was the point. It's very much a 'see what not to do' exercise.
I agree with you on many parts of your concept! But the rules do not have enough 'rule' behind them to completely agree with you. You are fiating it to marginalize the effect. I think that is a good thing and GMs should do that.
I'm glad we agree on what to do. but I'm not fiat-ing anything. the rules as they stand (in champions of Purity) explicitly call casting an Evil spell a 'minor' act of Evil. Treating them as minor is thus entirely RAW and likely RAI.
But as for this, there is zero risk. So there is no point to this statement. You could summon your self the biggest baddest of evils and it would still get on its knees and meow if that is what you asked it to do. They are completely under your control and without order only attack those who are 'enemies' of yours.
To quote 'It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability.'
But that doesn't govern how it attacks. You summon a Hezrou, and it will, if practical, cast Chaos Hammer on your opponents in a way likely to cause some collateral damage to innocent bystanders, because it's CE and that's sure to amuse it.
And similar things. It's definitely an avoidable problem with careful orders, but it remains a very slight risk of using summon monster to pull out fiends.
If they do differently at your tables... well that is your call. But it isn't in the text.
I dunno. Having Demons and Evils behave in an Evil manner within their limitations seems pretty valid by the rules to me. Summon Monster has strict limits, but there's still some Evil you can work within them.
Now, as for why, the evil creature may well have an ability any other possible summons do not and is needed to save the day.
Well, in that case, it's likely justifiable. Like breaking a solemn promise to save a life. Doesn't make the act good, but outweighs it.
The whole point is the acts weren't singular, but repeated over and over. As James Jacobs said, repeated use should move your alignment.
In a vacuum, they would, yes. So...if you spend years doing nothing Evil and casting lots of Protection From Evil, you might well hit Neutral or Good eventually.
But isn't that redemption and penance, in a sense? I mean, you're consciously choosing to focus a lot of energy into your redemption and are avoiding committing evil acts.
Now, if you try and do that while still going out and doing legitimately Evil acts? No chance, the minor good of even a few hundred Protection From Evil spells is outweighed vastly by even a single murder.
a good example of an equivalent act to casting a Good spell is tipping your waiter well after being nice to them. How many waiters do you need to tip to make up for a murder?
And nothing in the rules say 'how evil'. That is you saying how evil it is. Don't forget that. I was underscoring this as important for review before ruling.
Actually, as mentioned, Champions of Purity specifically called them out as 'minor' (with the exception of Animate Dead, which it mentions as much worse).
One action should be a drop in the bucket unless it was drastically different in alignment from what you normally do. But if you constantly steal an apple... you might just be a thief instead of someone who stole an apple once. And if you constantly cast protection from good you might just find yourself evil. Or at least neutral. That is, at least, according to the stated intent of the devs.
Absent any other meaningful moral choices? Sure. If you save a lot of lives, give to charity, and the like, your little Protection From good addiction is a drop in the bucket. A debatably nasty little vice, but not nearly enough to make you Evil or Neutral on its own.
It's if you don't have that pattern of good deeds that the constant use of Evil spells gets you into trouble.
If you found it silly when I said it... good. It is no less silly when they say it and I'm glad you agree with me. ^.^
I agree with that being silly, yeah. The rules just don't say that.
A) The summons is under your control. So unless someone breaks it via a control summoned creature or other mind control magic, it doesn't go murder hobo unless you tell it to.
See above for my point of view on this issue.
B)These rulings are turning casting alignment based spells into extra bookkeeping for arcane casters and GMs. Now I have to continually worry about tracking how many aligned spells I cast because a certain trend might change my alignment.
Not really, no. Not unless you keep track of every aligned act a character does already. Most characters do them all the time, after all. Adding spells to the list just means you need to be aware of them and pay vague attention if a PC is using them a lot, not keep a running tally.
C)If usage of these spells does the above, then we might as well make an alignment chart to track how many points committing an act shifts you on the moral spectrum. Ooh! Now we have more chartfinder!
Nah.Meaningful acts can and should outweigh spellcasting preferences in almost all cases. It's only if you're really mortally ambiguous anyway that spells start being a deciding factor.
Yup another pass on this idea. Alignment is based on your roleplaying and the moral use of your talents, not how many alignment related spells I cast in a day.
I don't think anyone's arguing otherwise in most cases. But that guy who never does any Good acts, just works as a mercenary doing mostly Neutral stuff (and for entirely Neutral reasons), and uses a lot of Evil spells in the course of his work because they're 'efficient'? That guy should maybe be Evil.
|
|
I have thought about it, a lot. And it is ridiculous. My big problem isn't necessarily with evil spells, it's with good spells.
Interesting.
So [evil] spells are inherently evil. Casting evil spells slowly increases the amount of evil in the world (or however you fluff it), so the very act of casting them is evil, no matter what your intent is, or how you use the effect. It doesn't have to be a major change, but eventually it will change your alignment. Fine in and of itself.
Well, again, it only changes your alignment in the absence of other factors.
The logical extension to that is that using [good] spells is inherently good. no matter what your intent or how you use them you are adding to the good to the world. Doing something for personal gain that does not harm another is the very essence of neutral, it cannot be evil by any definition of the word. So spamming magic circle against evil for your own benefit is ultimately inherently good and cannot be nullified or reduced by a neutral act without some pretty tortuous reasoning, therefore it is eventually going to make you actually good.
If you never do anything Evil? Sure. You're 'Sunday Good' and very much on the border of the alignment, but you qualify.
And that does not sit right with me, nor does treating [evil] spells differently to [good] spells. So I'm left with the heartfelt belief that alignment tags are a purely rules function, and tying them to acts of alignment is nonsense.
I wouldn't treat them differently. I'd just note that even relatively minor Evil acts will more than counteract your Magic Circle guy's Good, so he has to be at least a fairly decent guy (Neutral, and most likely the good-ish end of that alignment) in order to actually remain Good.
That seems reasonable enough to me. He's clearly working as a professional demon-imprisoner for the government or something, which is a pretty Good thing to be doing, even if he is just in it for the money.
therefore it is eventually going to make you actually good.If you never do anything Evil? Sure. You're 'Sunday Good' and very much on the border of the alignment, but you qualify.
Then if the only evil you do is casting [evil] spells you are only 'sunday evil'.
And when you get to that point why bother with it at all. If the impact of alignment tags is that minor compared to the use you put the spell too then it is a waste of time.
|
|
Then if the only evil you do is casting [evil] spells you are only 'sunday evil'.
And when you get to that point why bother with it at all. If the impact of alignment tags is that minor compared to the use you put the spell too then it is a waste of time.
Nah. It's relevant. Someone who's just barely Good or Evil is still Good or Evil for magical purposes, which are relevant. A 'Sunday Evil' mercenary mage is still very much susceptible to a Paladin's Smite Evil, for example.
Additionally, people who fit into this category are gonna be pretty rare. You have to be Neutral and then really cast a whole lot of Aligned spells in order to fall into it. Almost nobody actually does that.
@Lorewalker:
Again, that only makes sense if all Evil and Good acts are precisely equal. Having an Evil person suddenly become Good because he uses a Good spell is like having him become Good because he tips the waiter once. And having someone become Evil from one spell is like having them become Evil after a yelling match with a friend where they say something deeply hurtful. It's completely absurd and not how Alignment works. Having spells being Aligned acts doesn't cause that kind of stupidity, being idiotically simplistic in how you view Alignment does.
Sadly till we get a book/FAQ on alignment that says otherwise: they are equal acts.
DMs can houserule otherwise, but that doesn't change that by the normal rules they are equal.|
|
@Lorewalker:
Again, that only makes sense if all Evil and Good acts are precisely equal. Having an Evil person suddenly become Good because he uses a Good spell is like having him become Good because he tips the waiter once. And having someone become Evil from one spell is like having them become Evil after a yelling match with a friend where they say something deeply hurtful. It's completely absurd and not how Alignment works. Having spells being Aligned acts doesn't cause that kind of stupidity, being idiotically simplistic in how you view Alignment does.
Sadly till we get a book/FAQ on alignment that says otherwise: they are equal acts.
DMs can houserule otherwise, but that doesn't change that by the normal rules they are equal.
Where is it said they're equal acts? I've not read anything of the sort.
|
Wondering about this ability of the Devil Impostor's archetype for the Unchained Summoner:
Fiendish Summons (Sp): A devil impostor must apply the fiendish template to any creatures summoned via her summon monster spell-like ability regardless of her alignment. This alters the unchained summoner’s summon monster ability.
Q: --> is the fiendish template addition considered an evil act?
|
|
Then if the only evil you do is casting [evil] spells you are only 'sunday evil'.
And when you get to that point why bother with it at all. If the impact of alignment tags is that minor compared to the use you put the spell too then it is a waste of time.
Nah. It's relevant. Someone who's just barely Good or Evil is still Good or Evil for magical purposes, which are relevant. A 'Sunday Evil' mercenary mage is still very much susceptible to a Paladin's Smite Evil, for example.
Additionally, people who fit into this category are gonna be pretty rare. You have to be Neutral and then really cast a whole lot of Aligned spells in order to fall into it. Almost nobody actually does that.
Soooo... in other words doesn't really matter as will probably not happen? Pretty much like he said?
Either A) They matter and thus are not as marginalized as you claim
or B) They do not matter as they are marginalized as to be practically uselss... so there is no real point.
|
|
Where is it said they're equal acts? I've not read anything of the sort.@Lorewalker:
Again, that only makes sense if all Evil and Good acts are precisely equal. Having an Evil person suddenly become Good because he uses a Good spell is like having him become Good because he tips the waiter once. And having someone become Evil from one spell is like having them become Evil after a yelling match with a friend where they say something deeply hurtful. It's completely absurd and not how Alignment works. Having spells being Aligned acts doesn't cause that kind of stupidity, being idiotically simplistic in how you view Alignment does.
Sadly till we get a book/FAQ on alignment that says otherwise: they are equal acts.
DMs can houserule otherwise, but that doesn't change that by the normal rules they are equal.
That's sort of the rub. There is no real metric. Yes, there is the 'minor evil' wording for evil spells tucked away. But what IS a minor evil act? Alignment is still pretty grey despite it being a real, tangible thing on Golarion.
It's something with no real definition. Just vague ideas. Which is Paizo speak for 'we will never give definites, it's the GMs job to figure it out'.
Which is okay but it leaves real rules discussion to flap in the wind. It's all opinion after the point beyond the boiler plate rules.
In fact I would say despite the arguments that it is good for the game that it is so vague.
|
|
Wondering about this ability of the Devil Impostor's archetype for the Unchained Summoner:
Fiendish Summons (Sp): A devil impostor must apply the fiendish template to any creatures summoned via her summon monster spell-like ability regardless of her alignment. This alters the unchained summoner’s summon monster ability.
Q: --> is the fiendish template addition considered an evil act?
You're fine there. The template does not add the [evil] alignment type to the creature. So, it is not an evil act.
|
|
You're fine there. The template does not add the [evil] alignment type to the creature. So, it is not an evil act.Wondering about this ability of the Devil Impostor's archetype for the Unchained Summoner:
Fiendish Summons (Sp): A devil impostor must apply the fiendish template to any creatures summoned via her summon monster spell-like ability regardless of her alignment. This alters the unchained summoner’s summon monster ability.
Q: --> is the fiendish template addition considered an evil act?
Thanks!