The planar binding spell is a bit curious. It assumes that a good outsider needs to be trapped when called. Is that *always* the case?
It also is essentially an X (evil, good, etc) attack (will save) on an outsider associated with X. Usually those attacks don't work or are negated if the attack and the creature share the same alignment. It just seems like it's a bit silly to do that to a good outsider *if* you genuinely need the outsider's help for reasons that further the cause of good.
I think this spell uses spell descriptors in a strange way. . . even protection from X makes more sense.
Honestly, this always bothered me (along with several other spells) so I added planar ally to arcane lists and planar binding to divine lists. Hopefully I'll get things balanced enough to remove divine and arcane types from magic to just have magic.
I've never understood why a priest should have magic in the first place. I get why developers do it, but from a personal perspective I could only see priests having a few supernatural abilities and possibly capable of a few rituals.
I walk into your house and I cut down your wife with my sword.
I walk into a bar and cut down a patron with my sword.
I walk into a dungeon and cut down an orc with my sword.
I walk into a pit and cut down a devil with my sword.At which point does this cease being an evil act?
Killing is evil. There is a great emphasis in the evil alignments for killing. There's a great emphasis on not killing in good alignments. At which point does killing/murdering/slaying stop being an evil act.
According to the actual rules? Never. As written adventurers are very near to always irredeemably evil. According to the actual definitions for good and evil; Lawful Good paladin's are paradoxical. By paradoxical I, of course, mean non-existent.
However, under a more sensible (see: not dumb) system the answer is "At the point that the person you are killing had previously demonstrated themselves to be an enemy and had tried to kill, enslave, torture, rape or otherwise invoke violence against you, your loved ones, or the people in your society."
At which point does killing/murdering/slaying stop being an evil act.
Originally, D&D had the concept of black and white morality. Killing a devil is always good. Killing an angel is always evil. Killing a boar is always neutral.
Animal activists would argue that killing a boar isn't always neutral -- but from D&D's black and white morality, it's pretty much neutral. Animal cruelty itself is evil -- not the act of killing. I know angels can have an evil alignment, but that's an extremely unusual corner case.
Killing a person can be evil (killing an innocent person), good (stopping a killer from killing others), or neutral (defending yourself). Thus, killing has no alignment -- it's just an act.
You're loading up your word choice by saying "murdering" and "slaying" as the same thing as killing. Typically we (people in the real world) associate the word "murder" with unlawful killing. Slaying implies violence, and we typically associate violence with being wrong -- however, there's no way that's true in D&D.
And a GM also determines whether or not something is an evil act, a good act or whatever.
You really aren't using the GM Fiat argument in a rules discussion are you? I was sure we were discussing intent or you would not have asked James J for a quote earlier.
Your argument that the term doesn't mean the same thing is amusing as really the strongest basis for you position of an [evil] descriptor spell being an evil act is that they named it [evil].
The fact that the inflict wound spell also be evil supports my position, which is why I am calling "another bad use of language in the rules."
Conversely that means summoning angels is a good act regardless of what you use them for. So just summon some good outsiders to do volunteer work with troubled inner city teens in your downtime and enjoy your shiny new LG outlook.
Sheesh.
I don't think the short duration of the spell would give you too many points on the good guy scale. Now if you could increase the duration to a what you GM considered a meaningful amount that would be cool. You might be able to influence some kids in a good way.
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.There we go, it's official. I'm in shock.
Enslaving good celestials with planar binding is now OFFICIALLY a good action because it has the "good" spell descriptor.
Or do you wish to amend that statement JJ?
Casting the spell and using it to enslave them are two different things. If I bind a good outsider and immediately release it so it is not a prisoner then nothing evil has been done. If I enslave it the initial casting of the spell is still good even if what I do afterwards is not.
|
In a complex action that is composed of multiple actions, the evil actions will generally overshadow the good actions as far as alignment impact.
Exceptions can occur, but any combination of means and ends where evil enters the picture creates a stain that never completely washes off.
That holds true for Paladins.
For Antipaladins, it is the other way around of course ;-)
Creative Director
|
So Good characters only perform Good acts, Neutral characters only perform Neutral acts, and Evil characters only perform Evil acts?
Nope.
Good characters perform mostly good acts, neutral characters perform mostly neutral acts, and evil characters perform mostly evil acts.
Not every act is equally good, neutral, or evil, and in some cases the amount of good someone does far outweighs the evil they do, and vice versa.
And again... exactly how many acts of a specific alignment it takes to result in your alignment shifting toward that act is 100% up to the GM.
Killing is evil. There is a great emphasis in the evil alignments for killing. There's a great emphasis on not killing in good alignments. At which point does killing/murdering/slaying stop being an evil act.
A great many combat veterans, police officers and the many who have had to kill to defend themselves and on behalf of others unable to defend themselves would call this sentiment out as utter nonsense.
|
|
I walk into your house and I cut down your wife with my sword.
I walk into a bar and cut down a patron with my sword.
I walk into a dungeon and cut down an orc with my sword.
I walk into a pit and cut down a devil with my sword.At which point does this cease being an evil act?
Killing is evil. There is a great emphasis in the evil alignments for killing. There's a great emphasis on not killing in good alignments. At which point does killing/murdering/slaying stop being an evil act.
According to the actual rules? Never. As written adventurers are very near to always irredeemably evil. According to the actual definitions for good and evil; Lawful Good paladin's are paradoxical. By paradoxical I, of course, mean non-existent.
However, under a more sensible (see: not dumb) system the answer is "At the point that the person you are killing had previously demonstrated themselves to be an enemy and had tried to kill, enslave, torture, rape or otherwise invoke violence against you, your loved ones, or the people in your society."
In fact, the RAW does not mention a ban against killing for Good characters. They mention a respect for life and they make much about how you deal with innocent life (page 166 of the CRB).
Ooops. I just realized that I mentioned the RAW in a thread about Alignment. Sorry about that ;-P
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While planar binding does indeed allow you to "trap and bind" outsiders, there's nothing preventing you from simply talking to outsiders you'd be friendly with in the first place.
If you're a good guy who uses planar binding to conjure up a good outsider, you still have to make a Charisma check to get it to work for you. There's nothing intrinsically harmful to an outsider to be caught by a planar binding; it's more or less just inconvenient to them. If you're a good spellcaster and you fail to convince a good outsider to do some work for you, whether or not you let the outsider go is up to you. If you don't, and decided to keep it trapped out of spite, THAT'S when it starts being sketchy and creepy, and THAT'S when, in games I run, good spellcasters start to tread dangerous alignment ground.
If you're a good guy and planar bind a good outsider and make your Charisma check to convince it to work for you, and/or you give the outsider a reward, that's not evil at all. That's merely calling upon a possibly (but not necessarily) reluctant ally and convincing it to help. It's no more evil, really, than convincing a friend to drive you to the airport, even though that drive might take several hours out of his day.
If, on the other hand, when your friend refused, you locked him in your basement and kept him there until he agreed with you... THAT would be evil.
I realize that there's none of this language in the actual text of the spell, but that's why GMs exist. To handle things that the rules do not.
People are getting hung up thinking there is one overarching Good vs Evil when it comes to actions. There aren't.
Intention : This is the Intention of the act. That is, what is your intention doing this act? That is the primary way mortal beings change alignments in PF/D&D.
Good :
Heal someone who's hurt without asking for a reward, or expecting one.
Run into a burning building to save an orphan.
Neutral :
Heal someone who pays you to heal them.
Throw buckets of water on a burning orphanage to try to save some of them.
Evil :
Poison someone, then charge them for the antidote.
Start a fire to burn down an orphanage, so you can run in and save a couple and get a reputation as a good guy.
Aligned Acts : These are acts that, no matter what intention you have, are aligned with a specific alignment. These acts, no matter what your intention, are so aligned with an alignment that they creat another alignment event, which may match or conflict with your intention. It could be seen as using a tank of toxic waste to put out the fire on the orphanage. Yes, you were trying to put out the fire and save the orphans, but you doused them with toxic chemicals and radioactive slag to do it.
Good :
Cast a spell with the [Good] tag.
Evil :
Cast a spell with the [Evil] tag.
Evil always overshadows good no matter who performs it. Anti-Paladins have it easy, they just need to make sure that when the day is done the world is worse for having them in it.
Evil is usually associated with the easy, shortcut way. Of course it's easier to bypass morality and do something wrong rather than work hard to make things right. Being considerate and thinking of others are hallmarks of good. Being selfish and thinking of only yourself are hallmarks of evil.
So it's simple for a paladin to violate a code of morality. It can actually be quite a challenge for an anti-paladin to truly perform a work of good. . . particularly if he's truly evil.
Ashiel, let's take this up a notch...
d20 is massively combat-centered. Combat, as in trying to KILL other creatures, quite a lot of them sentient.
If I am arrogant enough declare our cultural view on good and evil as an absolute definition for the fantasy world we play in... how come any of these butchers calling themselves adventures is anything other than evil? How can they be, after reaching the two-digit levels from experience that was mostly gained by KILLING others, gaining most of their wealth by taking the spoils of whom they killed, or by stealing it from someone's grave?
I don't really care about d20 being combat centered. Virtually every RPG I've ever played has spent a vast majority of its rule set describing combat, how to deal with combat, how to reward combat, how death and dying works (usually based on combat or hazards as opposed to dying of old age), and so on and so forth. Frankly I don't really care that so much emphasis is put on combat because ultimately that is where the action is.
The question that I posed, but no one seems to understand, is that at some point committing this evil act is no longer viewed as evil. Let's look at what the game says:
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.
If you want to argue that the game doesn't say killing is innately tied to evil, then you are basically ignoring what the game actually says on the matter. RAW evil implies killing, and even when a Paladin is killing a goblin rather than hogtying it and/or capturing it alive in the head of combat, he is killing out of convenience. However, there are few on this board who would say a Paladin has committed an evil act for killing a goblin during the heat of combat.
So my point is, look into yourself and then ask "When is it alright for a Paladin to kill someone", and then you will have my answer for when it is alright to summon a fiend (possibly a Lawful Neutral fiend, humorously enough) to fight evil or to further the cause of good.
While planar binding does indeed allow you to "trap and bind" outsiders, there's nothing preventing you from simply talking to outsiders you'd be friendly with in the first place.
If you're a good guy who uses planar binding to conjure up a good outsider, you still have to make a Charisma check to get it to work for you. There's nothing intrinsically harmful to an outsider to be caught by a planar binding; it's more or less just inconvenient to them. If you're a good spellcaster and you fail to convince a good outsider to do some work for you, whether or not you let the outsider go is up to you. If you don't, and decided to keep it trapped out of spite, THAT'S when it starts being sketchy and creepy, and THAT'S when, in games I run, good spellcasters start to tread dangerous alignment ground.
If you're a good guy and planar bind a good outsider and make your Charisma check to convince it to work for you, and/or you give the outsider a reward, that's not evil at all. That's merely calling upon a possibly (but not necessarily) reluctant ally and convincing it to help. It's no more evil, really, than convincing a friend to drive you to the airport, even though that drive might take several hours out of his day.
If, on the other hand, when your friend refused, you locked him in your basement and kept him there until he agreed with you... THAT would be evil.
I realize that there's none of this language in the actual text of the spell, but that's why GMs exist. To handle things that the rules do not.
That same thing I said. Spells are not "Evil" it the action you do with it is or is not. It is a GM call. The "Evil”,” Good" "Lawful", & "Chaos" are just descriptors that describe the spell energy and how it interacts with targets. Just like “Acid”, “Cold”, “Electricity”, &”Fire”.
But I'm a bit curious. Why would a Neutral wizard become evil for using summoned fiends to do good? I mean, the entire basis of the understanding of the balance between good and evil in Pathfinder hinges on the idea that doing evil to evil things is somehow justifiable, and thus not an evil action. Otherwise a Paladin would fall for slaying a bandit because killing is evil, but because he's killing for good then it somehow makes it okay.My question would be: Why is that neutral wizard summoning fiends in the first place? Why not aeons or elementals or psychopomps? And for that matter, why is a neutral wizard trying to do good in the first place? He's not really neutral if:
1) He's working with fiends and letting them spread their influence (even if that means nothing more than being visible).
2) He's trying to do good deeds.
The argument is fundamentally flawed, as far as I can tell.
Depends on the cosmology, honestly.
Take, for example, Zelazny's Dilvish the Damned. We start with this heroic paladin type who views good and evil through a lens of very black and white morality. An evil wizard decides to send him to Hell. After a good while in Hell, he's made some friends there, and learned an awful lot of black magic, and then finally manages to escape along with his new best friend, who happens to be a demon, if a somewhat nicer one than most.
Dilvish's worldview has matured a lot and he now views the world in shades of grey. He doesn't like using black magic, but it's what he knows, and since it's the tool he has at hand, it's what he's going to use for the greater good.
Admittedly, this is using a magic system where knowing how to summon a demon doesn't necessarily mean you know how to summon an angel or a psychopomp. And I'm fine with that. In fact, for my own games, I favor making them two separate spells just so you can have the characters who are trying to do acts that don't match the alignment of their magics simply because these are the only tools they have at hand.
"Evil implies Killing" does not mean that "Killing implies Evil".
For example, there are such things as mercy killings, especially in RPG where you can find an innocent who is being transformed against his will into an evil monster.
So are you suggesting that hurting, oppressing, and killing are not evil acts? You must be since they are noted in the same fashion as killing. If you say "it depends" then you acknowledge that evil acts are somehow mitigated to at least neutrality by the circumstances.
Honestly it's almost disturbing out you seem to be suggesting that killing someone isn't innately tied to evil.
EDIT: Likewise it says that people that are neutral have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to help or protect others.
Essentially, it apparently is a neutral act to commit evil against the guilty (but not the innocent), which falls into James Jacob's own definition of a neutral character: "Someone who does neutral things most often".
"Evil implies Killing" does not mean that "Killing implies Evil".
For example, there are such things as mercy killings, especially in RPG where you can find an innocent who is being transformed against his will into an evil monster.
So are you suggesting that hurting, oppressing, and killing are not evil acts? You must be since they are noted in the same fashion as killing. If you say "it depends" then you acknowledge that evil acts are somehow mitigated to at least neutrality by the circumstances.
Honestly it's almost disturbing out you seem to be suggesting that killing someone isn't innately tied to evil.
EDIT: Likewise it says that people that are neutral have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to help or protect others.
Essentially, it apparently is a neutral act to commit evil against the guilty (but not the innocent), which falls into James Jacob's own definition of a neutral character: "Someone who does neutral things most often".
Killing does not equate to murder. The alignment-based descriptions perhaps erroneously use "killing" where they should have stated "murder". Swap murder in for killing in those descriptions and you solve the problem.
Killing in defense of yourself, in defense of others and during times of war is not commonly considered to be murder. The good alignment descriptions you yourself have quoted make no express restrictions against killing, nor do the neutral descriptions.
If you take killing always = evil, I hope you're vegan. Slaughtering animals is killing too. Are butchers evil? Not unless their methods are torturous. They almost never would be, since a clean kill is *much* to the butcher's benefit.
If you take killing always = evil, I hope you're vegan. Slaughtering animals is killing too. Are butchers evil? Not unless their methods are torturous. They almost never would be, since a clean kill is *much* to the butcher's benefit.
Hope, you're not a vegan. Plants are creatures too. Plant baby murder!
Hope, you're not a vegan. Plants are creatures too. Plant baby murder!If you take killing always = evil, I hope you're vegan. Slaughtering animals is killing too. Are butchers evil? Not unless their methods are torturous. They almost never would be, since a clean kill is *much* to the butcher's benefit.
Nah, plant creatures would be killing - and worth XP. Plants don't have stat blocks. Dangerous plants that are not creatures are hazards, thus still worth XP. Or animated objects (and still worth XP).
Last I heard, ears of corn, trees, fruits, veggies, shrubberies and so on aren't worth any XP...
;)
That same thing I said. Spells are not "Evil" it the action you do with it is or is not. It is a GM call. The "Evil”,” Good" "Lawful", & "Chaos" are just descriptors that describe the spell energy and how it interacts with targets. Just like “Acid”, “Cold”, “Electricity”, &”Fire”.While planar binding does indeed allow you to "trap and bind" outsiders, there's nothing preventing you from simply talking to outsiders you'd be friendly with in the first place.
If you're a good guy who uses planar binding to conjure up a good outsider, you still have to make a Charisma check to get it to work for you. There's nothing intrinsically harmful to an outsider to be caught by a planar binding; it's more or less just inconvenient to them. If you're a good spellcaster and you fail to convince a good outsider to do some work for you, whether or not you let the outsider go is up to you. If you don't, and decided to keep it trapped out of spite, THAT'S when it starts being sketchy and creepy, and THAT'S when, in games I run, good spellcasters start to tread dangerous alignment ground.
If you're a good guy and planar bind a good outsider and make your Charisma check to convince it to work for you, and/or you give the outsider a reward, that's not evil at all. That's merely calling upon a possibly (but not necessarily) reluctant ally and convincing it to help. It's no more evil, really, than convincing a friend to drive you to the airport, even though that drive might take several hours out of his day.
If, on the other hand, when your friend refused, you locked him in your basement and kept him there until he agreed with you... THAT would be evil.
I realize that there's none of this language in the actual text of the spell, but that's why GMs exist. To handle things that the rules do not.
Except that is not at all what James said...
James said a [good] spell is a good act, [evil] is an evil act. That is unrelated to how you actually use the spell, so using a [good] spell to torture angels is still very much an evil act and probably out off character for almost everyone that is likely to use the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Evil implies Killing" does not mean that "Killing implies Evil".
For example, there are such things as mercy killings, especially in RPG where you can find an innocent who is being transformed against his will into an evil monster.
So are you suggesting that hurting, oppressing, and killing are not evil acts? You must be since they are noted in the same fashion as killing. If you say "it depends" then you acknowledge that evil acts are somehow mitigated to at least neutrality by the circumstances.
Honestly it's almost disturbing out you seem to be suggesting that killing someone isn't innately tied to evil.
EDIT: Likewise it says that people that are neutral have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to help or protect others.
Essentially, it apparently is a neutral act to commit evil against the guilty (but not the innocent), which falls into James Jacob's own definition of a neutral character: "Someone who does neutral things most often".
Killing does not equate to murder. The alignment-based descriptions perhaps erroneously use "killing" where they should have stated "murder". Swap murder in for killing in those descriptions and you solve the problem.
Killing in defense of yourself, in defense of others and during times of war is not commonly considered to be murder. The good alignment descriptions you yourself have quoted make no express restrictions against killing, nor do the neutral descriptions.
If you take killing always = evil, I hope you're vegan. Slaughtering animals is killing too. Are butchers evil? Not unless their methods are torturous. They almost never would be, since a clean kill is *much* to the butcher's benefit.
There is no factual difference between Killing and Murder other than the circumstances - which is my entire point. Killing in self defense, killing to eat, killing in a war, killing to protect, killing because you don't like that person, killing because your girlfriend told you to. All are killing. Most would agree that some of those I listed are not evil, while others in that list would be.
Likewise, it could be considered evil to kill animals if viable alternatives for nourishment were available. For example, if you have a ring of sustenance and kill animals just because you like the taste of their flesh, that would probably quirk a few eyebrows before someone who killed an animal because he was hungry.
Murder is synonymous with killing. The only difference between murder and any other killing is circumstances. Even the law takes circumstances into account. Most places have laws in place that - under specific circumstances - you are not charged for murder because you killed someone. This is generally when you kill someone in self defense, but even then different laws define murder in different ways, or have different limitations or specifics with how they define those exceptions.
All you're doing is making excuses. Either there is a point when a usually evil act is acceptable, or there isn't. Everyone wants to point and say that D&D is black and white without accepting the fact that in a black and white world, virtually everyone will end up being black if they play the game as it is traditionally played. Either there are shades of gray, where circumstances, motivations, and results come into play or there isn't. Hiding behind thin semantic differences like they mean something beyond circumstances is faulty.
So I re-iterate.
I take my sword and kill your wife.
I take my sword and kill someone attacking me.
I take my sword and kill an evil fiend.
At which point is killing different?
That same thing I said. Spells are not "Evil" it the action you do with it is or is not. It is a GM call. The "Evil”,” Good" "Lawful", & "Chaos" are just descriptors that describe the spell energy and how it interacts with targets. Just like “Acid”, “Cold”, “Electricity”, &”Fire”.
I'd said it before, to me, the descriptors of [Good], [Evil], and even [Fire], [Cold], etc all have meaning. The alignment descriptors indicate you are spewing otherworldly essence into the prime plane when you use them. By the same tone, I consider [Acid], [Cold] etc to be spewing the pure essence of the elemental planes into the world.
So, to me, if you have a lab, and you are constantly casting [Fire] spells in it, eventually that primal essence is going to build up. It's going to be warm no matter what, fires are going to burn easier, cold spells will eventually be harder to cast, ice cubes will melt faster.
So, if you are constantly casting [Evil] spells, you are going to be spewing the elemental essence of [Evil] all over your lab. Necromantic energy will build up, evil spells become easier, evil spirits get attracted to it, unnatural things begin to happen nearby.
If you are constantly casting [Good] spells, then the place becomes more goodly. It develops an aura, people feel better inside, they heal faster when they sleep, good spirits are attracted to it.
Is one person going to make a holy shrine or a evil cess pit all by themselves, no, but they are contributing to what's going on, and that's why the spell has the descriptor, and why it can change your alignment, you're leaking that type of energy into the world.
That same thing I said. Spells are not "Evil" it the action you do with it is or is not. It is a GM call. The "Evil”,” Good" "Lawful", & "Chaos" are just descriptors that describe the spell energy and how it interacts with targets. Just like “Acid”, “Cold”, “Electricity”, &”Fire”.
I'd said it before, to me, the descriptors of [Good], [Evil], and even [Fire], [Cold], etc all have meaning. The alignment descriptors indicate you are spewing otherworldly essence into the prime plane when you use them. By the same tone, I consider [Acid], [Cold] etc to be spewing the pure essence of the elemental planes into the world.
So, to me, if you have a lab, and you are constantly casting [Fire] spells in it, eventually that primal essence is going to build up. It's going to be warm no matter what, fires are going to burn easier, cold spells will eventually be harder to cast, ice cubes will melt faster.
So, if you are constantly casting [Evil] spells, you are going to be spewing the elemental essence of [Evil] all over your lab. Necromantic energy will build up, evil spells become easier, evil spirits get attracted to it, unnatural things begin to happen nearby.
If you are constantly casting [Good] spells, then the place becomes more goodly. It develops an aura, people feel better inside, they heal faster when they sleep, good spirits are attracted to it.
Is one person going to make a holy shrine or a evil cess pit all by themselves, no, but they are contributing to what's going on, and that's why the spell has the descriptor, and why it can change your alignment, you're leaking that type of energy into the world.
on a side note-
This gives me an interesting idea...What if casting spells actually altered your character (more than just the alignment spells affecting your alignment)?
Ashiel, the "differences" are important when it comes to killing. Killing for sustenence is called hunting or (for a butcher) part of the job. Killing in self-defense is just that - defense. Killing some one just because is murder. Killing for pay is being a mercenary or an assassin. Killing a demon is just that - killing a demon (given the literal nature of what a demon is, killing them is as justified as killing in self-defense).
Arguing that all killing is evil by the rules is semantics too, since only the evil alignments mention it, it must be evil. Which is nonsense. Who/what you kill and why you kill them and how you kill them vary much matters.
TL;DR: killing is all alignments based on who/what, why and how.
While planar binding does indeed allow you to "trap and bind" outsiders, there's nothing preventing you from simply talking to outsiders you'd be friendly with in the first place.
I hate to keep challenging you here James (seriously! My apologies), but this statement really needs some clarification!!!
The simple possibility is that you simply got Planar Binding and Planar Ally confused. They are similar spells with similar names, but have different flavor and mechanics.
I can think of 3 things preventing you from doing what you describe with a Planar Binding spell; The first is the mechanics of the spell (vs the spell Planar Ally), the second is the flavor text of the spell (vs the spell Planar Ally), the third is balancing the power of Planar Binding vs Planar ally.
When it comes to the mechanics, Planar Binding says you lure an outsider into a trap, it will attempt to escape using a Will save and its SR, and if it fails you can hold it or bargain with it for its freedom. According to these mechanics, if you have no trap, there is no conversation, because the outsider you called got away.
Planar Ally has no trap, so mechanically it would be the spell you've described in your example, not Planar Binding.
When it comes to the flavor text, Planar Binding is pretty harsh
Casting this spell attempts a dangerous act: to lure a creature from another plane to a specifically prepared trap, which must lie within the spell's range. The called creature is held in the trap until it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom.
There is no "unless they are a good creature and you are a good character and you just want to hire them" exception noted.
The flavor text of Planar Ally however, matches your example again.
When it comes to balance, if Planar Binding can be used as the text describes, but can also be used to simulate a Planar Ally spell, then it makes the latter a redundant spell why have Planar Ally at all then?
Finally, lets not forget the flavor of the classes themselves. There is a reason one spell is for Wizards and the other for Clerics.
Clerics call friendly outsiders with Planar Ally, chat and then exchange services and goods in good faith.
Wizards play a more dangerous game of trapping and then making deals with the outsiders in exchange for their freedom. These distinctions aren't just important to balance, they are important to flavor.
Treant, what in Planar Binding prevents you, after having trapped and talked to the outsider, from just letting it go if it doesn't want to help? You can try to bargain / bribe the entity. That doesn't mean you can't just let it go if it proves recalcitrant. Which, it seems to me is what JJ was getting at. You have the option to attempt to compel it, not the requirement to do so.
|
'Scorecard morality' is a really bad model IMHO...
For example: a character spends 364 days a year casting [good] descriptor spells, and doing good deeds. Then, each year on his birthday, as a special 'treat' he rapes, murders, and eats a small child (not necessarily in that order). With scorecard morality he's probably still classed as being 'good', because he had the brownie points to spare (the evilz he earns once a year are offset by all his good acts).
In any rational human sense, of course, such a character is a unrepentant evil monster - a serial killer - and definitly evil.
Of course, the DM could set the amount of evilz earned for that once a year act as so high that no amount of goodly brownie points could ever offset it... but then that excludes the possibility of a genuinely repentant formerly evil character who has turned to the ways of good, and results in characters which do nothing by good acts, yet are forever 'evil' because of something stupid they did in their youth.
Scorecard morality doesn't take repentance into account at all... DM fiat can... but then we're back to square one anyway - it's all a DM call.
Intent has to have some effect on the morality of an action: if 'brand X' shoes happen to be made by child slave labour then most people won't brand you 'evil' for buying brand X shoes if you knew nothing about how they were made. The same thing really should apply to spells in the game...
... So, for casting [alignment] spells to really be considered an [alignment] act, then there has to be a clear-cut and obvious (or even just universally known) cosmological impact to doing so. If every [evil] spell increases the ambient background evil in the world, and you know it, then sure, casting [evil] spells is an evil act. It may be a little like urinating in your community's only water supply - a little means you're just an inconsiderate dick, a lot is a health risk to everyone around you...
As far as I'm aware, there's no such cosmological impact, and certainly no game mechanics impact, when casting [alignment] spells in the Core book... maybe there should be?
... So, for casting [alignment] spells to really be considered an [alignment] act, then there has to be a clear-cut and obvious (or even just universally known) cosmological impact to doing so. If every [evil] spell increases the ambient background evil in the world, and you know it, then sure, casting [evil] spells is an evil act. It may be a little like urinating in your community's only water supply - a little means you're just an inconsiderate dick, a lot is a health risk to everyone around you...
This is how I treat it in my games, you're basically spraying toxic waste (granted, some of it may be good aligned toxic waste) when you cast aligned spells, even elementals (you're spewing essence of Fire for example). Too much in one spot, and you get a localized aligned area (takes decades) but it happens.
I'm rather fond of my chaotic evil villain that in a whole campaign never once harmed a single being. Okay, so he was carelessly driving the world to apocalypse, but for him it was fun. Nobody needed to die along the way! He had allies perfectly willing to do all that in his stead. To him, actual killing was distasteful and pointless. He wanted to ruin existence in style.
on a side note-
This gives me an interesting idea...What if casting spells actually altered your character (more than just the alignment spells affecting your alignment)?
Hmmm,
Perhaps some outward signs of elemental toxicity syndrome? Red marks for fire, green fingernails for earth, white hair for air, blue lips for water?Maybe eyes changing color to red, or black, or sky blue or white.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Treant, what in Planar Binding prevents you, after having trapped and talked to the outsider, from just letting it go if it doesn't want to help? You can try to bargain / bribe the entity. That doesn't mean you can't just let it go if it proves recalcitrant. Which, it seems to me is what JJ was getting at. You have the option to attempt to compel it, not the requirement to do so.
Here's his analogy:
It's no more evil, really, than convincing a friend to drive you to the airport, even though that drive might take several hours out of his day.
If, on the other hand, when your friend refused, you locked him in your basement and kept him there until he agreed with you... THAT would be evil.
The analogy does not work, because mechanically, the trapping happens first, and the outsider isn't an envoy of your deity as they are with Planar Ally.
To make this analogy work, you kidnap a stranger and lock him in your basement, then you try to convince him to drive you to the airport in return for his freedom. THAT is how Planar Binding works.
It's not the negotiating part that is in dispute, you can clearly offer greater rewards than freedom, doing so gives you a bonus on the check. Planar Ally and Planar Binding both have a negotiation aspect.
The difference is that in Planar Ally, a greater deity sends you an envoy to negotiate with, in Planar Binding, you kidnap and trap them first, then the negotiation begins.
Let's face it, once in that position, it's unlikely that whomever you called is very happy with you. This lines up with the flavor text in the spell. You wouldn't normally have any hope of negotiating in good faith with someone you just kidnapped. However, as the spell states, you are negotiating for their freedom. Yes, you can add money, promises and whatever else you like, and these add-ons provide bonuses to your negotiation, but that doesn't change the reality that you are negotiating with someone who is for all intensive purposes, locked in your basement, against their will.
You don't get to have the negotiation first and then afterwards choose to forego the trap part because he wasn't consensual. You don't get to do this for the reasons I posted above.
The spell just doesn't work that way, nor is it intended to. Click the link I had in the last post, that is from the core book.
So here's how it works: You lock a stranger in the basement, they try to escape and fail, then you ask them to drive you to the airport.
If that stranger is an evil guy, the spell gets the evil descriptor, if he's a good guy, it get's the good descriptor.
The question remains, if that stranger was good, did you just a perform a good action?
And a GM also determines whether or not something is an evil act, a good act or whatever.
You really aren't using the GM Fiat argument in a rules discussion are you?
Actually I was using the rules on the matter.
Judging alignment is strictly left in the hands of the DM. There is no system of evil points/good points/etc.
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.I was sure we were discussing intent or you would not have asked James J for a quote earlier.
Actually first we were talking the cold hard rules, as Mr Jacobs' position gives his voice a bit more weight in things. As he was saying 'this is that' when it really is 'in my campaigns I play it that this is that'. That was the first bit.
The second was that PF expressly removed the only mechanical act of an alignment from the core rules (channeling positive/negative energy either via turn/rebuke, spontaneous cures/inflicts, or casting certain spells) and iirc added wording like the above which I quoted.
Their printed stance in the core rules seems to be that it is entire up to the GM and that they are not making any system for it. There are no 'evil points' and in fact 'evil acts' are not mechanical terms but rather GM adjudications.
Thus the stance that [alignment] descriptor spells are acts of that alignment is not only unfounded, but contrary to the system of leaving it in the GM's hands.
Now some GMs, like Mr Jacobs, can elect to make many...
I think the only thing we really agree on is that the rules don't say exactly what is evil.
I think your stance is the book does not say it so it aint so, and that is a very logical stance to take.
My stance is that in every story/adventure I have read summoning evil things and necromancy has been evil. On top of that certain classes are restricted from these actions and their inherent badness. Even more one of the flavor guys has said it is evil.
RAW I can't says X is evil, but going by past history I can get a good idea of what was intended to be evil.
Do I think that just because the game intends for X to be evil that a GM must follow that idea? Nope, but I do think that to argue against it as an intended stance on alignments is mind boggling though.
That same thing I said. Spells are not "Evil" it the action you do with it is or is not. It is a GM call. The "Evil”,” Good" "Lawful", & "Chaos" are just descriptors that describe the spell energy and how it interacts with targets. Just like “Acid”, “Cold”, “Electricity”, &”Fire”.
Actually casting the spell is evil or good if it has a descriptor. Whether it outweighs your intended action is up to the GM though.
Conjuring demons to save a town:The use of the spell is an evil act, but I think saving the town is a good act so it would outweigh the use of the spell. That does not mean casting the spell is not evil.
I hate to keep challenging you here James (seriously! My apologies), but this statement really needs some clarification!!!The simple possibility is that you simply got Planar Binding and Planar Ally confused. They are similar spells with similar names, but have different flavor and mechanics.
The trap does not really matter. You can use the binding spell to bring the ally here, and convince it to help or force it to help.
PS:I do think both spells should have been one spell, and the option to force or ask nicely would determine the alignment.
PS:I think he meant to say Binding which is why he mentioned trapping it.
Planar Binding is outsider kidnapping. Plain and simple it is a trap.The good outsider was off saving people and/or their souls instead of defending someone from some nastiness those poor innocents are left on their own and now suddenly their protector is yanked away from his duty into a specially prepared cage.
Now people are saying that the person who does this vile thing to this paragon is going to say 'well know that I've got your attention let's be friends'.. meanwhile whatever important work they were doing has been lost, they've been abducted, and this is a good thing?
That's the absolute height of absurdity and trying to turn a blind eye to things here,
James
Yeah. I could say the same thing about the draft back in the day, but that didn't stop the government from doing it. I don't think they really cared if it interupted your plans. A 911 call might interupt somebodies nap but the fire department and / or police still come. It's part of the job, just like the draft was part of being a citizen. I suspect outsiders are in the same boat. I wouldn't be surprised if they have people ready to go out on calls.
You've cast Planar Binding / called 911 and they came. Now they have to decide if the call is justified. You can plead your case and try to get help or you can be an @ss and demand it. It's rude as all get out but are you going to call up an outsider for trivial stuff? Are you going to risk it? You have them in a trap that they can eventually break out of. You do not have to keep them in it unless you want to. It's not hard to understand. I'm not saying it's going to make them happy. The priestly Planar Ally is more of a request from a fellow employee. Cops, and I suspect angels, are happier helping out a fellow officer.
As for the inconvenience, yes you may have interupted them but that instantaneous trip back takes some of the sting out. And, if it's important they may decide you need the help.
A slightly different view. Ymmv.
Yeah. I could say the same thing about the draft back in the day, but that didn't stop the government from doing it. I don't think they really cared if it interupted your plans. A 911 call might interupt somebodies nap but the fire department and / or police still come. It's part of the job, just like the draft was part of being a citizen. I suspect outsiders are in the same boat. I wouldn't be surprised if they have people ready to go out on calls.
You really don't know your history. The Draft was highly unliked by everyone drafted. Most people protested. Who says the Govt is Lawful Good at all times?
People say they won't vote for any politician who brings it back curently.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trap does not really matter. You can use the binding spell to bring the ally here, and convince it to help or force it to help.
I think the trapping matters. The core rules agree that the trapping matters.
If a friend invites me over for coffee and asks me to drive him to the airport, I'm likely to say yes. If he offers me payment, all the better. That's how Planar Ally works.
If a stranger kidnaps me and locks me in his basement, and promises to let me go if I drive him to the airport, I'm once again likely to say yes.
However, I'm saying yes for different reasons, and will view the second example as a victimization. He might apologize for abducting me, treat me really nice, and even pay me for my time, the reality is that I was victimized the moment I was kidnapped against my will. That's how Planar Binding works.
Planar Binding requires a trap. The requirement of the trap is so important with Planar Binding that the core rules say so twice, once under the spell, and again in the section on binding outsiders. Here's there wording specifically, "The binder must create a trap." (emphasis mine)
The link I posted above shows how the core rules differentiate Planar Binding and Planar Ally specifically, separate from the spell descriptions, for just this kind of understanding. Here's the link again: (In fairness, it's actually me agreeing with him, but that sounded really dramatic no?)
When you cast Planar Binding, the method is very clear. The outsider is trapped against their will first. Then you negotiate, using their freedom as one of the bargaining chips.
There is no way to Planar Bind a good celestial with Planar Binding, within the requirements of the spell, that doesn't involve victimizing a creature that is the epitome of good. The spell descriptor when used to trap a good celestial is [good], but I think it's an uphill climb to say that the spell descriptor is what defines the morality of this action.
Yeah planar ally would be like you calling for backup and the sargent on duty sending who he thinks you need. its having help sent not trapping your help.
Yeah. I could say the same thing about the draft back in the day, but that didn't stop the government from doing it.
The government isn't trying to pretend that the draft is "good". Beneficial, "patriotic", or whatever; yeah. But not good.
I don't think they really cared if it interupted your plans. A 911 call might interupt somebodies nap but the fire department and / or police still come. It's part of the job, just like the draft was part of being a citizen. I suspect outsiders are in the same boat. I wouldn't be surprised if they have people ready to go out on calls.
A 911 call can't even compare. You opt into emergency response knowing full well what responsibilities come with the job. Angels haven't opted to do anything. Just because an angel is good and they fight evil doesn't make them in any way obligated to help you. Planar Binding is enslavement.
You've cast Planar Binding / called 911 and they came.
Huh?? No. This is more like if you had set a trap for your neighbor, imprisoned him in your basement, and then forced him to bargain with you; favors in return for freedom. 911 is a job with responsibilities that you consent to when you take the job. There is no comparison.
consent
Powerful word.
Yeah. I could say the same thing about the draft back in the day, but that didn't stop the government from doing it. I don't think they really cared if it interupted your plans. A 911 call might interupt somebodies nap but the fire department and / or police still come. It's part of the job, just like the draft was part of being a citizen. I suspect outsiders are in the same boat. I wouldn't be surprised if they have people ready to go out on calls.
You really don't know your history. The Draft was highly unliked by everyone drafted. Most people protested. Who says the Govt is Lawful Good at all times?
People say they won't vote for any politician who brings it back curently.
I'm older than you. It wasn't history for me. I teach history though, so, I assure you, I know all about it. And yeah, it was unpopular. Didn't stop a lot of boys from doing their duty. That was the point of the comparison. Don't worry about it coming back and upsetting your day. There is no draft mechanism in place and war has gotten more complex. The current system works better for now.