|
Summoning Evil beings is an Evil act. If I were a Paladin I would be warning him very clearly that what he is doing is wrong and is a slippery slope to him becoming Evil. I would also point out to him that the reason he should care about heading down an Evil path is simple - The minute my spidey senses alert me to the Wizard being evil I will Smite him down.
He is now clearly warned, he knows my intentions should he continue these acts. My Paladin would continue to stay in the group if for no other reason than to be there when the Wizards turns.
It is also worth pointing out that one is never in complete control of Evil, and it is sheer arrogance to believe these Evil beings allow you to summon them without having their own agenda - the simple act of regularly summoning them is enough to damn your soul
But then, that's how my Paladin sees it. An alternative approach could simply be to kill the wizards summoned monsters, a weaker 'good aligned' summoned monster is better than a dead evil one, so after the wizard wastes spells getting his monster killed by the Pally he may decide to accept his losses and stick with good monsters.
Yes
The rules don't say in exact words that it is evil, but developers have said on the message boards that they intend for such things to be evil.
With that knowledge in hand a GM must decide which one he wants to follow.
Most people seem to agree it is a mildly 'wrong' act in itself, summoning them frequently is plainly evil, a single or even fairly frequent summoning of devils might not make a character evil in itself.
The best thing to do in my opinion is just to designate the creatures actions, though the player might 'control' the devils, they tend to enjoy being summoned to the material plane to work evil. So if they are attacking the summoners foes, feel free to slaughter them in ways that underline their natures, disembowel and dismemeber them before killing, desecrate the bodies, strangle the children and taunt them while doing so.
If the summoner still doesn't quite get why it is wrong, or at least take more care when summoning them, he should be preparing for a slow or not so slow slide towards evil.
In the last week we saw a rash of these threads until the regulars began creating joke threads with questions ranging from "is stabbing babies in their faces evil" to "is murdering a goblin child evil". Each topic was created for giggles and I almost expected this to be another one. 'Glad it's not.
Hello Paizophiles,
i got a philosophical question here: is summoning devils/demons/evil outsiders an evil act by and of itself?
The rules do not cover alignment specific actions in detail despite being integral to game mechanics. The general consensus is that summoning fiends is an evil act ("consorting" with fiends apparently means summoning them also).
The wizard in my group is inclined to summon evil creatures to do his bidding (mainly fighting other evil creatures).
He is of LN alignment and argues that these monsters are not actually existing (pure energy) and he has total control over them and they are fighting other monsters of the same kind. I am interested in the Pros and Cons. Go, argue. Thanx in advance.
Unless your setting dictates otherwise, summoned monsters are actual creatures stolen from their planes at casters' whims to do their bidding. It's your world, the choices are yours, but find a way to inform the player. A good way is to do it in-game with a successful knowledge (planes) check to allow the character (and player) to realize that he is summoning creatures and not just planar phlegm shaped by his spell.
p.s. The player gets the impression, that evil outsiders are far more versatile and powerful and diverse than good outsiders (a ruther powergamerish opinion) and is oblivious to the paladin´s objections.
Summon Monster spells pick up alignment tags based on the critters summoned. Strangely enough, it seems to be the extremes in alignment (good, evil, lawful, chaotic) that warrant subtypes on outsider (æons are true neutral and have no alignment subtype). On top of these two issues, the summon monster list is extremely limited.
A discussion about adding creatures to the summon monster list and how I handle it.Perhaps adding monsters the wizard would prefer to use would keep him from stepping on paladin toes. If you simply don't want the player using devils (after the player knows that they are actual creatures summoned), describe them in the foulest detail you can. Try to make the player wary of even communicating with these bundles of unleashed wickedness.
For quite a few GMs, a player that makes many "evil" choices will eventually have their alignment changed to an evil type and be forcefully retired as an NPC. The same GMs do not see good acts equally and treat every evil act as a step to becoming NPC with no method of redemption. Some even rub salt in the wound and require the party to defeat the former PC in a later battle. Either the player will love or hate the decision. I greatly sympathize with the players in such groups.
In the end if you have no problem with evil players, simply let the paladin keep his abilities in spite of "consorting with evil" and let him continue to argue with the wizard (in-game only, otherwise something has to be done).
*The alternative is to remove alignment from the campaign. Most of my games run without alignment, but it does take some work to balance all the stupid alignment-specific divine class "features" by implementing another system.
Jack Chick and his obnoxious Platonism.
In my group, we just brand your face with a pentagram.
It seems we've gone full circle on the threads now.
This exact question was the very first one that started the week long cycle of threads.
Do we have another week to go?
Also: Svensor hasn't posted a reply to anyone in the 6 hours he's made the thread, I'm inclined to believe this is just a drive-by trolling thread.
To be more direct:
Wizard is LN, he doesn't care about Good or Evil, means he shouldn't concern himself with evil acts.
Probably should listen to the Paladin's objections, but so long as the guy doesn't break free it's technically still kosher.
Creative Director
|
Summoning an evil outsider is an evil act. Even if they remain under your control, you're still exposing yourself to evil outsiders of your own free will. Summoning one evil outsider isn't as bad for your alignment as summoning lots, of course, and if you want to go evil even faster, just order your devil to do something evil.
But yes. Summoning devils is an evil act. Whether or not that's enough to cause your alignment to shift is up to your GM.
A general trope in just about any genre is that it's far far easier to slide to evil than to crawl your way up to Good especially, where magic is concerned. How that trope is handled will vary by GM and by campaign world. In Gothic Earth for instance, casting magic itself puts you at risk no matter what spell you use. You can open yourself up to the Taint of the Red Death by casting Cure Light Wounds. Or even by using the Bless spell on another person to remove said Taint.For quite a few GMs, a player that makes many "evil" choices will eventually have their alignment changed to an evil type and be forcefully retired as an NPC. The same GMs do not see good acts equally and treat every evil act as a step to becoming NPC with no method of redemption. Some even rub salt in the wound and require the party to defeat the former PC in a later battle. Either the player will love or hate the decision. I greatly sympathize with the players in such groups.
Point taken, but my quoted text above was referring to GMs that only let players slip into taint with no chance of redemption along the way. With a setting like Gothic Earth (Ravenloft) this is the norm, but in Golarion there should be a little bit more flexibility. In horror campaigns it's expected (Who will be alive and what will be left of them?).
It seems we've gone full circle on the threads now.
This exact question was the very first one that started the week long cycle of threads.
Do we have another week to go?
Also: Svensor hasn't posted a reply to anyone in the 6 hours he's made the thread, I'm inclined to believe this is just a drive-by trolling thread.
To be more direct:
Wizard is LN, he doesn't care about Good or Evil, means he shouldn't concern himself with evil acts.
Probably should listen to the Paladin's objections, but so long as the guy doesn't break free it's technically still kosher.
I disagree with the notion that Neutral creatures don't care about good and evil, not caring implies evil rather than neutral. Neutral characters are your average normal person that tries to do well but just doesn't quite manage to be selfless enough to put others interests before himself, but likely to do the right thing when it doesn't inconvenience him too much. A neutral character will do right by his friends and companions but is unlikely to risk life and limb for people he doesn't know.
Evil acts will be distasteful to a neutral character, but generally lacking the conviction to do anything about it unless it affects his immediate social circle, friends, family or possibly people living in his village.
Now an evil character is unlikely to care about summoning demons, as long as it doesnt cause himself or one of his likely few friends or family harm and is at his base selfish, though he might still have friends, family, and other values he cares about, he IS unlikely to concern himself with the morality behind his actions.
Point taken, but my quoted text above was referring to GMs that only let players slip into taint with no chance of redemption along the way. With a setting like Gothic Earth (Ravenloft) this is the norm, but in Golarion there should be a little bit more flexibility. In horror campaigns it's expected (Who will be alive and what will be left of them?).A general trope in just about any genre is that it's far far easier to slide to evil than to crawl your way up to Good especially, where magic is concerned. How that trope is handled will vary by GM and by campaign world. In Gothic Earth for instance, casting magic itself puts you at risk no matter what spell you use. You can open yourself up to the Taint of the Red Death by casting Cure Light Wounds. Or even by using the Bless spell on another person to remove said Taint.For quite a few GMs, a player that makes many "evil" choices will eventually have their alignment changed to an evil type and be forcefully retired as an NPC. The same GMs do not see good acts equally and treat every evil act as a step to becoming NPC with no method of redemption. Some even rub salt in the wound and require the party to defeat the former PC in a later battle. Either the player will love or hate the decision. I greatly sympathize with the players in such groups.
Good requires sacrifice to do the right thing, without that you are not trully 'good' though you can still be very kind, polite and otherwise upstanding citizen. Good isn't supposed to be convenient or easy to obtain.
I disagree with the notion that Neutral creatures don't care about good and evil, not caring implies evil rather than neutral. Neutral characters are your average normal person that tries to do well but just doesn't quite manage to be selfless enough to put others interests before himself, but likely to do the right thing when it doesn't inconvenience him too much. A neutral character will do right by his friends and companions but is unlikely to risk life and limb for people he doesn't know.Evil acts will be distasteful to a neutral character, but generally lacking the conviction to do anything about it unless it affects his immediate social circle, friends, family or possibly people living in his village.
Now an evil character is unlikely to care about summoning demons, as long as it doesnt cause himself or one of his likely few friends or family harm and is at his base selfish, though he might still have friends, family, and other values he cares about, he IS unlikely to concern himself with the morality behind his actions.
That's an interesting take on neutrality.
But an apathy towards what constitutes good and evil isn't inherently evil.
A neutral character could literally not care at all about the summoning of evil outsiders beyond the immediate consequences of said outsider's actions, and that wouldn't inherently be evil. Hell, a neutral character would only really care about his companions if given significant reason to. An adventuring party made out of convenience would not be cared for as much as say a very intimate friend.
Painting neutrality as does the right thing when convenient ignores the potentiality of more fickle characters.
Hello Paizophiles,
i got a philosophical question here: is summoning devils/demons/evil outsiders an evil act by and of itself? The wizard in my group is inclined to summon evil creatures to do his bidding (mainly fighting other evil creatures).
He is of LN alignment and argues that these monsters are not actually existing (pure energy) and he has total control over them and they are fighting other monsters of the same kind.
I am interested in the Pros and Cons. Go, argue.Thanx in advance.
p.s. The player gets the impression, that evil outsiders are far more versatile and powerful and diverse than good outsiders (a ruther powergamerish opinion) and is oblivious to the paladin´s objections.
According to Paizo uppers, despite never saying that casting a spell with a descriptor is a moral act in and of itself in the rules, it is generally accepted that casting an Evil spell is an evil act. However, you are now casting an Evil spell to preform a Good act, resulting in a net Neutrality.
So yes, you can summon evil fiends to fight evil fiends without shifting towards evil. If this is your only hangup, then you'll probably stay Lawful Neutral (and it's entirely possible to be a nice guy, a hero, and genuinely awesome and lovable as a neutral guy).
maybe if the GM alouds 3.5 stuff the wizard could enter the malconvoker prestige class, although that wont help changing the paladin`s opinion
|
|
I disagree with the notion that Neutral creatures don't care about good and evil, not caring implies evil rather than neutral. Neutral characters are your average normal person that tries to do well but just doesn't quite manage to be selfless enough to put others interests before himself, but likely to do the right thing when it doesn't inconvenience him too much. A neutral character will do right by his friends and companions but is unlikely to risk life and limb for people he doesn't know.
Evil acts will be distasteful to a neutral character, but generally lacking the conviction to do anything about it unless it affects his immediate social circle, friends, family or possibly people living in his village.
That's pretty much how I view neutral on the good-evil axis. But neutral can also encompass several other positions.
The wizard who creates magical weapons for an evil tyrant because that tyrant gives him a blank check to conduct his own research isn't evil, he -- as Jeranimus suggests -- simply doesn't care about trivial issues like morality. He's only interest in his research, not what purposes it is put to or where the funding is coming from.
A zealot who only cares about one kind of evil (such as slavery), and is willing to engage in other forms of evil (such as terrorism) towards the end of fighting that one evil isn't evil, he's neutral.
A pragmaticist who aims for good ends, but is willing to use evil means to achieve them (whether that be deadly ambushes or summoning devils to fight for you), is also neutral.
There's also the flipside of the the form of moral cowardice you've describe (the basically good person to selfish/lazy to actually do good), which is the character who basically a bad person, but to terrified of authority figures to actually engage in acts of evil. The guy who only does the right thing when other people are watching or he could get caught. While the first type feels guilty about not doing better (and thinks feeling guilty about it makes it okay that he doesn't act), this second type actively resents having to act good and wishes he could just act on his impulses and do what he wants.
The first type tends to be lawful, the second type chaotic - each recognizing they are only as good as they are because of the law, with the first thinking the law makes him good (thus he supports the law), while the second thinks the law prevents him from having fun (thus he resents the law).
|
Creative Director
|
Summoning an evil outsider is an evil act.Got any rules reference for this?
So can you 'atone' for evil acts by simply summoning enough good outsiders (which ostensibly is a good act)?
But I'm still curious to see the rules reference as PF seems to have removed the only instances of purely mechanical evil acts (channeling negative energy) from the rules, and iirc added verbiage to the alignment selection to say that alignment was solely the DM's purview and that there were no such mechanics.
Am I misreading things here?
-James
The fact that when you cast a summon spell to summon an evil outsider that spell gains the "Evil" descriptor is what makes it an evil act. That's why clerics have the limitations described under "Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells" in their class description. Wizards don't care about alignments, really—a lawful good wizard that becomes chaotic evil doesn't have his class abilities affected at all, but a cleric would.
What we DON'T say is how many evil spells it takes to become evil (or how many lawful ones it takes to become lawful, and so on), because that's pretty much left to each GM to decide.
More to the point, if you're roleplaying your character's alignment properly, you'll be casting spells that match (or at the very least, don't directly oppose) your alignment.
If you're playing a good wizard, you shouldn't cast evil spells because that's out of alignment and character. If you're playing a neutral wizard, that's not so much a concern.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see that in the strictest sense summoning any intelligent creature is an evil act. As forcing a sentient being to appear then enslaving them to do your bidding hardly exhibits respect for the dignity of another, but I digress.
The usual in-game argument is that good-aligned creatures willing do it to further the cause of good. While evil-aligned creatures are compelled to render service.
Now by rules, when used to summon an evil outsider it is an [Evil] spell, but that doesn't mean it is inherently Evil.
Anyway, it more a matter of intent. You can summon a good creature to Evil just as easily as you can summon an evil creature to do Good. Summoning any creature to fight Evil should not be viewed as an evil act.
As for the paladin, he is stereotyping the summoner based on numerous accounts of evil wizards dealing with devils. It would seem logical for the paladin to mistrust such a wizard and to not trust the devils with which he deals, afraid that the wizard will eventually become corrupted.
Ultimately, it's up to the GM where the faint gray line between Good and Evil lies. Even the difference between what is [Evil] and Evil is a matter for the GM.
Hopefully the players can role-play this conflict to a resolution where either the paladin convinces the wizard not to do [Evil] spells, the wizard convinces the paladin that the spells are not that evil, or they elect to go their separate ways.
To clarify: [Evil] means has [Evil] descriptor, Evil means Evil-with-a-capital-E, Evil in the grand scheme of things (alignment), while evil means generally not a nice thing to do.
Summoning an evil outsider is an "evil" spell-descriptor spell. That said, casting an "evil" spell is not clearly defined by the rules as an evil act.
("evil" and "good" descriptors for spells are not a good judge of determining if they are good or evil actions. For example if I use Planar Binding to enslave a good celestial to kill puppies by drowning them in their own tears, it is a "good" spell)
So guess what? As usual it is subjective. That means it is up to the Paladin to decide if this breaks their moral code.
Either way, the Paladin is NOT obligated to stop the behavior. The Code of Conduct is pretty clear though it has been misquoted on this thread multiple times already.
While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Break it down:
Goody goody allies: fine and dandy
Neutral allies who sometimes offend the Paladin's moral code: fine and dandy
Middle of the road allies who regularly offend the Paladin's moral code: normally avoided but no mechanical restrictions
Evil characters: Only to defeat greater evil, and with regular atonement spells, and the greater good must be served
Clear as day. If the summoner is evil, and the greater good is not being served, the Paladin MUST not work with this character. If the summoner is evil, but the greater good is being served, the Paladin MUST get regular atonement spells. If the character isn't evil, the Paladin is not REQUIRED to do anything.
Let them roleplay their own character.
Protection from Good
School abjuration [evil]; Level cleric 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
This spell functions like protection from evil, except that the
deflection and resistance bonuses apply to attacks made by good
creatures. The target receives a new saving throw against control
by good creatures and good summoned creatures cannot touch
the target.
So let me get this straight, protecting myself or others from good is considered an act of evil?! what kind of logic went behind this "alignment design"?!
If I were a DMing and a situation like this arose, I would simply allow the spell, the actions taken under or with the spell is what determines if the act is "good" or "evil", not the spell itself.
Casting fireball at baddies to defend a village from marauders is an act of "good", casting fireball at a group of defenseless villagers is an act of "evil". But the spell itself does not have the good or evil descriptor.
Same goes for the protection from "alignment" and summon monster of different alignments.
Heck even a misunderstood spell like animate dead could be in itself not as morally disgusting under the right situations.
Imagine this scenario, a town you were in has been fighting the local "whatevers" and in the last skirmish, most of your forces were wiped out, their bodies were permitted to be recovered and whatnot, your local cleric/wizard, whatever, in a last ditch effort, decides to raise lots of skeletons/zombies to defend the town from invaders, with the newfound "allies" the cleric/wizard was able to stave off the attacks and claim victory, after this is all done, lets assume the cleric/wizard decides to give the skeletons/zombies a proper burial to honor the bones and flesh which were used in the spell.
Is that an evil act too?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casting fireball at baddies to defend a village from marauders is an act of "good", casting fireball at a group of defenseless villagers is an act of "evil". But the spell itself does not have the good or evil descriptor.
No, but it does have the [Fire] descriptor, so if you cast it too many times, you might turn into fire.
I have played a LN conjurer before and some PCs had a problem with my guy summoning evil beings to do his bidding. I tell you guys what I told them. I summon what I think is the best creature to fight and I don't really care what it is as long as it gets the job done.
Now if he is LN and only summons evil beings then thats at odds with his alignment as he is favoring evil so would become evil over time. The same holds true for good, being neutral means you do not favor sides other then your own so to speak.
I find nothing in the rules to say this, could you refer me to those pages?
IIRC we already discussed this. The rules don't point blank say it is evil so James can't give you a quote. He can tell you how the devs intended for certain things to be viewed.
You can go by the book or the devs intent. It is that simple.
@Mr.Jacobs: He wants a quote saying "Using/casting a spell with the evil descriptor is an evil act." No amount of logical inference is a substitute.
A stop sign means stop.
I'm not sure how anyone can interpret a sign (descriptor) that says evil means anything other than evil.
So let me get this straight, protecting myself or others from good is considered an act of evil?! what kind of logic went behind this "alignment design"?!
You summon the powers of evil to repel anything good.
That sounds kind of evil. . . .
A stop sign means stop.
You're obviously not one of the drivers around here. Stop signs are merely suggestions. :-P
So let me get this straight, protecting myself or others from good is considered an act of evil?! what kind of logic went behind this "alignment design"?!
Not at all, using this spell to do so is evil. :)
I do admit that, IMHO, this spell should not have an alignment descriptor though.
In the core rules 'evil act' is not a mechanical term, but rather a subjective one that is left to the DM.
Actually it's both.
If James is right and the purpose of the [evil] descriptor was synonymous with evil act, and clerics were forbidden some spells to remove mechanically evil acts from them.. then the inflict wound spells should have the [evil] descriptor in 3e, yet don't.
No, because harming things isn't necessarily evil. Smiting a demon isn't evil. Healing things isn't necessarily good either.
James M. the man has given you intent, and we both know the rules don't fully support it. You can argue that logic is not there, but most posters disagree so your not seeing it only means you don't see it the way others do. I gave a full breakdown the last time we discussed this. I won't do it again.
I will give a key sentence though.
prd:Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
That is all I got.
Why would the inflict spells have to be evil? Maybe you are using them to stop someone from escaping.
Channeling negative energy from a class ability, and the word channel being used in that spell are not the same. I have had that discussion before also.
Channel used in the act of rebuking undead was a specific to that ability alone. It was not a statement that channeling is good or evil across the board. If it was then the inflict spells would have the evil descriptor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you shouldnt look at it as endangering your alignment, rather just something you shouldn't do if you are a 'good' person if you do you are into evil territory, but the way the spell is used might compensate for that if you have no other option that more or less works equally well
So,
1) good persons shouldnt use this spell frequently if at all
2) if you are a neutral person casting this spell frequently, why aren't you evil, give it some thought and consider maybe you should play an evil character, even if you dont kill or steal it is likely to fit better than a neutral alignment.
3) It is a stupid thing to do so infront of a paladin
disclaimer: I do not pretend to work within the boundaries of the law as written down in the Pathfinder Core Rule Book, this is my opinion and my opinion only
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3) It is a stupid thing to do so in front of a paladin.
This is pretty much all you need to know about [evil] spells.
Either you're a good cleric, druid or inquisitor and can't cast them anyway, or you are anyone else in the univese (including a good adept, ranger or oracle) and it doesn't matter one bit.
But it's always a bad idea to cast them in front of a paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think James was thinking of clerics.
No he wasn't. An evil act is an evil act whether your class loses anything from it or not. He gives the same responses to this in other threads as well, and also with regards to creating undead. It is always evil, but whether or not you can do it 5 or 5000 times is up to the GM.
I don't know, it always seemed to me that summoning good creatures and forcing them to do your bidding which will potentially cause them pain and get them banished from the prime material plane is a lot more evil than doing the same to an evil creature.
It makes sense in order to maintain theme so that evil guys are always found with evil creatures and good guy are always found with good creatures. In my mind it falls apart upon any further thought.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I were the wizard, and the paladin in the party demanded I stop summoning devils, I would tell the paladin to shove it.
What gives him the right to tell me what I can and cannot summon? As a private magic user, it it is my right to cast summon monster X however I see fit, and am under no obligation to follow the paladin's sense of morality. A mage decides for himself what he should and should not do, not some pretty boy in armor and can choose for himself the moral consequences of his actions.
How dare a paladin try to force his worldview on everyone else!