Do you have something in the rules to backup your claims, or do you just plan to waste my time that could be better spent listening to someone that actually has an argument?
Classic avoidance, whenever you get called out you take this line.
Anyhow, the descriptor is CLEARLY in the Rules, you just choose to ignore it as it doesn't suit you. Fine, go ahead, houserule it away, but don't try and claim it isn't there.
You can try and paint up excuses until you go blue in the face about why it's 'ok' to summon Devils and Demons, or play with undead, but thats not how the game works with regard alignments now is it?
Similarly, where are YOUR citations Ash?
You seem quick to ask them from other people, but I would like you to start providing some, except we know you actually CAN'T, so I expect a further trite and venomous dismissal and attempt to feign moral outrage instead of you being able to go ahead and substantiate a position on Summonings NOT being Evil.
I await the tired old pack mule argument of the "Summoning Elementals doesn't make me an Elemental" fairly shortly.
IN SHORT: Do you have something in the rules to backup your claims, or do you just plan to waste my time that could be better spent listening to someone that actually has an argument?
At its best it is nothing more than a notation that the GM is the final arbiter, at its worst it is an enabler for the worst traits a GM can have.And what YOU seem to forget is that whether you can squabble with the GM and try force through a justification with them as a person, the GM is not just an arbiter of the rules, he is also the representative of the Heavenly host overseeing the characters, he is Mt Olympus, he is teh one turning people into pillars of salt, he is the harsh Norse Gods judging actions - and not all of these Gods are there to be benevolent, some are downright Capricious.
GMs aren't gods. The moment a GM realizes this, they have gained a boost to GMing experience forever. Humility is a virtue and prevents us from becoming blind with our own pride and stupidity. The GM is more akin the physics. He's the forces that make the world go 'round. He is the one that facilitates the story, adjudicates disagreements, and acts as the referee. He is not Zeus, Odin, or Jesus Christ, now or ever.
What does this even have to do with anything you've been arguing about. You're somehow insulted that I think the rules should be worth something on their own merit, or that I don't think GMs like myself should hide behind Rule 0 for making poor choices, or as an excuse to not bother learning how to play the game they're running?
If you don't like that 'guff', go play an RPG that doesn't have Clerics/Wizards (or only has them as NPC's).
Why don't you go ahead and just insult my Mama and get it over with already? I've been playing D&D for 11 years, since 3E came out with the D20 system. It's been working pretty well for me since then, and I really enjoy tweaking the rules (IE - House rules, variant options, etc).
Exactly what are you trying to say with your pantheon commentary?
He is the one that facilitates the story, adjudicates disagreements, and acts as the referee. He is not Zeus, Odin, or Jesus Christ, now or ever.
Yet those Gods play an ACTIVE ROLE IN THE CAMPAIGN WORLD.
That is a rather SIGNIFICANT detail you don't seem to be keen on grasping as it doesn't suit you.
IF you don't want the GM to be acting on their behalf then may I recommend bringing in an extra player whos sole job it is in the game is to play 'Heavenly host'?
IF NOT, then that job belongs to the GM.
IF you don't want the involvement of Gods, and just want a 'mortals only' campaign, then its time for you to throw out the Oracles, Clerics, Witches, etc as defined by the game. You can still be a Cleric or Oracle, but not one blessed by the Divine and otherworldly.
PS - I am still awaiting all your citations... should I go get a coffee or will I need to come back in a year or something? I expect they wont be along soon either way.
Classic avoidance, whenever you get called out you take this line.
You're insisting that there is something there that isn't. The burdon of proof logically falls on you, just as if you were trying to claim that scientifically there are purple fairies that spread water onto flowers in the spring.
Anyhow, the descriptor is CLEARLY in the Rules, you just choose to ignore it as it doesn't suit you. Fine, go ahead, houserule it away, but don't try and claim it isn't there.
You're being ignorant now. I have noted the Evil descriptor several times throughout this thread, and I have quoted the rules governing the evil descriptor, and what the evil descriptor means based on the information in the rules, including their interaction with spells and effects, how they interact with alignment (such as protection from X spells), limitations of spell list availability and so forth. Not once does it actually say that using a spell of a particular subtype is a particular act. You are making that part up, and I have cited this in my previous posts.
You can try and paint up excuses until you go blue in the face about why it's 'ok' to summon Devils and Demons, or play with undead, but thats not how the game works with regard alignments now is it?
According to the rules that I've seen, yes, yes it is. It's not so much a matter of excuses. It (the discussion) a matter of grayscale, circumstances, and now and the simple non existence of your claims.
Similarly, where are YOUR citations Ash?
I've posted them. Thus far in this thread alone I have posted the citations on Good, Neutral, and Evil acts, and have referenced in detail the portion of the rules which discusses the descriptors for spells and effects.
You seem quick to ask them from other people, but I would like you to start providing some, except we know you actually CAN'T, so I expect a further trite and venomous dismissal and attempt to feign moral outrage instead of you being able to go ahead and substantiate a position on Summonings NOT being Evil.
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says, the spell fails.
A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.
No where does it say that casting an aligned spell makes you more or less aligned towards that. However it does mean that the spell interacts with alignments, can be detected as a certain alignment, can bypass or be blocked by certain effects, can overcome certain regenerations, and other such things that the aligned spells can do.
IN SHORT: Do you have something in the rules to backup your claims, or do you just plan to waste my time that could be better spent listening to someone that actually has an argument?
Do-de-doo.
Yet those Gods play an ACTIVE ROLE IN THE CAMPAIGN WORLD.
That is a rather SIGNIFICANT detail you don't seem to be keen on grasping as it doesn't suit you.
IF you don't want the GM to be acting on their behalf then may I recommend bringing in an extra player whos sole job it is in the game is to play 'Heavenly host'?
IF NOT, then that job belongs to the GM.
Ever hear of a thing called an NPC? You're beginning to frighten me, and I think that you should seek psychiatric help. At no point does the GM actively become any of the characters in the story that he is dealing with. If they did, then they should definitely avoid running any adventures written by Paizo. Eeesh, imagine someone who thought they were in fact Mammy Graul! The horror. >.<
IF you don't want the involvement of Gods, and just want a 'mortals only' campaign, then its time for you to throw out the Oracles, Clerics, Witches, etc as defined by the game. You can still be a Cleric or Oracle, but not one blessed by the Divine and otherworldly.
Exactly what are you talking about?
PS - I am still awaiting all your citations... should I go get a coffee or will I need to come back in a year or something? I expect they wont be along soon either way.
Already cited, and re-cited, because I'm a LG guy. Your turn.
Please cite where in the rules it states stabbing passers by in the head is an evil act.
In the meantime, you might want to examine the extract from the core rules and GMG here, which cover off alignment quite well. Sadly they don't paint a very good picture for your argument. Similarly the Devs have also chomed in and labelled casting [evil] spells an Evil act, so I guess I win.
I can cite stuff, you can't, so playing by your rules I won.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules
With regards the Gods, I just have to accept that you are now trying to be vague on purpose, as they are clearly involved in the game on so many levels.
Bye now.
Please cite where in the rules it states stabbing passers by in the head is an evil act.
In the meantime, you might want to examine the extract from the core rules and GMG here, which cover off alignment quite well. Sadly they don't paint a very good picture for your argument. Similarly the Devs have also chomed in and labelled casting [evil] spells an Evil act, so I guess I win.
I already have cited it, but to re-iterate again for those in the audience.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Stabbing a passerby in the head is likely hurting and possibly killing them. The attempt was unprovoked, so it is not a neutral act of harming or killing because the person was presumably innocent or otherwise not warranting assault and slaying by you. According to the rules, this would be an evil act.
On a side note, one of the Devs also pushed to have mindless undead be made Neutral or given an Int of 3 to justify their Always Evil alignment. Likewise, devs strictly note that whatever they post on the forums is not 100% accurate and is merely a personal call. James Jacobs is very careful to note how he runs his game, and that it is not always exactly as Pathfinder is written.
Devs also have conflicting accounts on things. There have been plenty of cases where they said something works one way, only for another dev to say it works another, and for it to be different in the FAQ when it is answered, etc, etc. I'm working with the rules here and what they say.
I can cite stuff, you can't, so playing by your rules I won.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules
With regards the Gods, I just have to accept that you are now trying to be vague on purpose, as they are clearly involved in the game on so many levels.
Bye now.
How old are you?
EDIT: I'm curious. What do you mean by being "vague"? Exactly where was I vague? Did I not discuss gods as NPCs for some length in my last post or so? Exactly what is it that I'm being vague about? What is the point you are trying to make? What does your rambling about gods have to do with anything that I've been saying?
And it could have been made to be less or even non-exploitable if Andy Collins wasn't a bad writer.
OK. That I'm not worried about either way. Collins, that is. He isn't writing for PF.
No, by necessity, being clearer in what can and can not be done leaves things more concise. To can't be the other way because that would be a contradiction.
No. Something that is concise is both clear asnd short / precise. Being clearer about what can and can not be done in Planar Binding (or most anything lese) will not make something more concise. The word count necessary to make it clear guarantees that.
This is a heavily loaded statement your making with nothing to back it up. So I'll ask that you provide reasons for why you believe clarity within complexity cannot exist.
I didn't say clarity can't exist in complexity. Just that complex isn't going to be concise. You seem to be equate clear and concise (at least that's how I read it -- feel free to correct me). They are not the same. The law is often clear (after you wade through it) but it is not concise (both clear and succinct). Clear and complex, maybe, concise no.
I don't think that is true. But to save space we could start by removing alignment from the book, recombining the emotion spells into a single spell, having the polar ray spell put back into the Freezing Sphere spell, and returning to 3.x weapon sizing (which not only took up less word count but was in every way a superior system). That's just for starters.
To save space we could gut the game too. I like alignment, because it requires choice. It serves as a notification to players about how what they are doing is being percieved. It's buried deep in the game and it wouldn't be the same game without it. Despite the issues with it.
No. An element of a game that is non-quantifiable isn't in any way usable. You must know what a thing is in order to use that thing.
A lot of interaction is not easily quantified. If you eliminate any chance and cut out interaction that can't be "quantified" I'm sure everything will be manipulable.
DM decisions can have mechanical effect. But non-quantifiable decisions can have non-quantifiable effects (in a game). In others words non-quantifiable effect only have a narrative effect. In the case of Planar Ally that effect is Mother-May-I.
It impacts the game and effects the mechanical outcome (what you can get out of the spell). Being unable to precisely predict outcomes is a virtue, not a vice. Keeps the game interesting.
Yes I would love to eliminate Rule 0. It needs to die by fire. I am saying this both as a DM and a Player.
Sounds more like an ideological position. Especially the fire :) I don't agree. DM fiat and Rule 0 are there to keep the game playable, adaptable and shorter than a set of encyclopedias.
So now I have led you to the chapter on alignment and yuo have now read it, it should be abundantly clear why summoning is an Evil act. Look at the good alignments, look at the evil ones, and do the math.
Anyhow, Ash, I can see by the bitter and personal attacks you continue to launch that you are desparate to change the topic to avoid being further shown up as wrong.
The GM is as much 'The Gods' as he is any other NPC he controls and runs, and must reflect their values if he is doing his/their job - that includes calling you out on bad (Evil) behaviour. Don't like that, play an MMO.
OK. That I'm not worried about either way. Collins, that is. He isn't writing for PF.
True. But then the point can be shifted for pathfinder as well. They could have done a better job writing Wish. That said, I'm going to stop using wish as an example now since it is off topic.
No. Something that is concise is both clear asnd short / precise. Being clearer about what can and can not be done in Planar Binding (or most anything lese) will not make something more concise. The word count necessary to make it clear guarantees that.
I see no reason for that to be true. Why should well written spells require bloated word counts?
I didn't say clarity can't exist in complexity. Just that complex isn't going to be concise. You seem to be equate clear and concise (at least that's how I read it -- feel free to correct me). They are not the same. The law is often clear (after you wade through it) but it is not concise (both clear and succinct). Clear and complex, maybe, concise no.
Clarity doesn't necessitate concision. You are correct about that. But the reverse is not true, concision does necessitate clarity. It's kinda like how rectangles aren't always squares but squares are always rectangles.
To save space we could gut the game too. I like alignment, because it requires choice. It serves as a notification to players about how what they are doing is being percieved. It's buried deep in the game and it wouldn't be the same game without it. Despite the issues with it.
The reason we are having this discussion is because alignment is vague, easily interpreted to mean whatever people want it to mean, and has strange repercussions that don't add anything to the game.
I've said this before but fictional morality doesn't do anything that actually morality can't. I just don't see the purpose. (Note: I haven't used alignment in 14 years and the game is the same without it.)
So now I have led you to the chapter on alignment and yuo have now read it, it should be abundantly clear why summoning is an Evil act. Look at the good alignments, look at the evil ones, and do the math.
Anyhow, Ash, I can see by the bitter and personal attacks you continue to launch that you are desparate to change the topic to avoid being further shown up as wrong.
Wasn't it you that made a sweeping statement that was insulting to a wide variety of people based on choice of music and thought and tossed around the name Satan?
However, no, I don't want to change the subject. I want to continue. I'm still waiting. I've spelled out (with quotations and bold text even!) my half of it, and here you are "classically avoiding" actually showing your evidence. Just telling me to read what I had already cited and posted on this thread before you even reared your cute little ninja-pants in the discussion, and said "go figure out why you're wrong". In a debate, that's basically known as a "cowardly forfeit". In a discussion, that's called rude. If life, that's called lame.
The GM is as much 'The Gods' as he is any other NPC he controls and runs, and must reflect their values if he is doing his/their job - that includes calling you out on bad (Evil) behaviour. Don't like that, play an MMO.
What is it with you and these gods? What gods? Whose gods? Do you realize that there is exactly 0 instances in the books that mention gods doing anything at all to characters? Gods in D&D aren't even infallible, and a lot of them are cooky. Heck, there are gods in D&D that have the Death Domain and sport Paladin followers (Wee Jass springs to mind, and Clerics of St. Cuthbert and Helm can both animate the dead if they feel it is needed).
I'm not talking about gods. I don't know why you are. Likewise, you're right. A GM is as much gods as he is any other NPC. That is to say, not at all. He decides how they play out in the game, but at no time is the GM ever that NPC, nor should he be. You're getting into some very creepy and disturbing territory akin to something written by Jack Chick. No good can come of this.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
We can see here that acts of altruism, respect for life, and concern for sentient beings. They make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
The main emphasis of evil is killing, but includes hurting and oppressing others. Some specifically pursue evil for its own sake.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Neutral characters have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. They are justified by using evil methods to fight evil enough to remain neutral, but don't display enough goodness to actually shift towards goodness.
Now hypothetically, a Lawful Neutral wizard sees a building that has become an inferno due to dry weather and an overturned oil lamp. Not even the decanters of water the village got are putting it out, and he finds someone is trapped inside. He summons a Hellhound who is immune to fire to take his bag of holding and go forth and rescue the person by placing them safely in the bag and then bringing them back out. The hound of compelled to obey him, and rescues the woman.
The rules say he used dark magic but that does not actually count as an evil act. In this case he used a spell with an Evil descriptor in a way that was altruistic, respectful of life, concerned for a sentient creature. Furthermore he has made a personal sacrifice (one of his prepared spells) to save her for apparently no reason other than to protect her life, while the Neutral thing would have been to just stand on the sidelines lacking the commitment to get involved. By the rules and by logical reading of those rules he has in every way acted as a good character. Even if you were to house rule that casting an [Evil] descriptor spell is an evil act - as killing is exceptionally emphasized as being - it must be a neutral act at the least, because in both cause and effect it has been nothing but good. In the same way that a Paladin does not fall for killing in a way that is not evil (see justified, a neutral act), the Wizard must remain at least Neutral.
Interestingly, if the wizard had summoned a Fiendish creature with fire resistance to do the same, the creature would actually be a Lawful Neutral fiendish creature because of how the Summon Monster I-IX spells function. So he's summoning a fiend that's not even evil. Mind boggling, isn't it? :D
In short, there's nothing in the descriptions of good or evil AT ALL that say or suggest that casting a particular spell is innately good or evil. In fact, all the alignment rules discuss at all is basic fundamentals of each alignment, and discuss the common patterns of characters who exhibit them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Explain to me this: WHY would it necessarily have an Evil Desriptor? WHERE does it state such a restriction?
Where does it state such a restriction: Right HERE
Look under "Spell Descriptors" then under "Evil" right where you would think it would tell you what makes a spell get the "evil" descriptor.
Casting a spell that rescues a Paladin from the Aybss will conjure him from an evil aligned plane, which, by the rules, would make the spell an [evil] descriptor spell, but certainly not an evil spell.
By the way, that Paladin was saving orphans who were stolen by demons. I wonder if the DM should force the Wizard to turn evil for casting that spell, then the Paladin could smite his savior.
It astounds me how many people are passionately arguing on this thread who haven't even bothered to look up the section in the rules on the [evil] spell descriptor, like the rules are immaterial.
True. But then the point can be shifted for pathfinder as well. They could have done a better job writing Wish. That said, I'm going to stop using wish as an example now since it is off topic.
They could have completely re-written the game. And we'd still be waiting on it. The game has inherited some issues, but after 37 years it's still my rpg of choice. *sigh* I'm getting old. OK, lets forget about Wish.
I see no reason for that to be true. Why should well written spells require bloated word counts?
It depends on what you want the spell to do. If it's straight forward (say Magic Missile) it's fairly easy to do. If it's effects are powerful and far reaching, less so. Complexity breeds word count, whether you're saying what a spell does or what it's limits are.
Clarity doesn't necessitate concision. You are correct about that. But the reverse is not true, concision does necessitate clarity. It's kinda like how rectangles aren't always squares but squares are always rectangles.
If you want a concise Planar Binding, and you want it to do / allow everything the current one does it's not going to be possible. The DM fiat language is there in place of numerous prohibitions / restrictions needed to preserve game balance and define the spell. If you want it completely laid out it is going to be much, much longer and as such no longer concise. Or much different.
The reason we are having this discussion is because alignment is vague, easily interpreted to mean whatever people want it to mean, and has strange repercussions that don't add anything to the game.
I agree with you up to the "don't add anything to the game". It's about choice and consequence. It's tied into religion, the gods, magic and behavior / morality in the game. It is vague to avoid massive word count increases and keep the game flexibile and playable.
I've said this before but fictional morality doesn't do anything that actually morality can't. I just don't see the purpose. (Note: I haven't used alignment in 14 years and the game is the same without it.)
It adds clarity if the DM bothers to use / enforce it (although it will differ from DM to DM). Modern morality is situational and lacks standards that are absolute. In a fictional setting with beings of absolute good and evil absolutes are needed. And see, rule 0 is useful; it's worked for you for 14 years :) The game needs flexibility to accomodate different play styles. I'm not one of these "bad/wrong/fun" types. I think as long as you're playing and enjoying the game with a group that likes the style you are doing it right.
Explain to me this: WHY would it necessarily have an Evil Desriptor? WHERE does it state such a restriction?
Where does it state such a restriction: Right HERE
Look under "Spell Descriptors" then under "Evil" right where you would think it would tell you what makes a spell get the "evil" descriptor.
Casting a spell that rescues a Paladin from the Aybss will conjure him from an evil aligned plane, which, by the rules, would make the spell an [evil] descriptor spell, but certainly not an evil spell.
By the way, that Paladin was saving orphans who were stolen by demons. I wonder if the DM should force the Wizard to turn evil for casting that spell, then the Paladin could smite his savior.
It astounds me how many people are passionately arguing on this thread who haven't even bothered to look up the section in the rules on the [evil] spell descriptor, like the rules are immaterial.
Yep. Thanks Treantmonk. *brofist*
Also, I didn't realize the planar thing earlier which makes a ton of sense, and also creates and interesting situation. If a Paladin got tossed to hell via a planeshift or prismatic spray spell or some such, you could totally rescue him via Planar Binding, Gate, or a similar spell, but yanking the LG guy with the LG Aura out of Hell would totally be a Lawful EVIL spell.Funny. I wonder if people think that anyone wrongfully trapped in hell shouldn't be rescued like that. If I was following the rules in the alignment section, the moment the Paladin said "No we won't return him from the unjust hellish tormenting of the plane where he will be killed, twisted and warped into a servant of the hells forever, because that would be wrong to cast a spell that pings [Evil]", I think I'd have to ask him to turn over his Paladin license.
It astounds me how many people are passionately arguing on this thread who haven't even bothered to look up the section in the rules on the [evil] spell descriptor, like the rules are immaterial.
Assuming a spell had to be made, it would be a Teleportation, or possibly Calling, like the old Succor spell.
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.
The Paladin is not from an Evil Aligned plane, he is in an evil aligned plane - he is FROM the Prime Material Plane. If you are in Mexico, that doesn't make you a Mexican.
Teleport does not have the [evil] descriptor, and neither would this.
Ninja - sorry Ash, you got dudded again.
It depends on what you want the spell to do. If it's straight forward (say Magic Missile) it's fairly easy to do. If it's effects are powerful and far reaching, less so. Complexity breeds word count, whether you're saying what a spell does or what it's limits are.
I don't believe that complexity breeds word count. As a writer I've found that to be a handy excuse young writers use to avoid taking the time to think about it more critically. When you write a spell you should bloat the hell out of it. Then, you continue to take away until there is nothing left that can be taken away. Then you re-write the spell from scratch and do it again and try to remove unnecessary words.
Many complex spells are like this already. It is only a rare few poorly written ones that have this problem.
If you want a concise Planar Binding, and you want it to do / allow everything the current one does it's not going to be possible. The DM fiat language is there in place of numerous prohibitions / restrictions needed to preserve game balance and define the spell. If you want it completely laid out it is going to be much, much longer and as such no longer concise. Or much different.
The DM fiat language isn't needed though. There is already a provision about retaliation for abuse of bound creatures. On top of that committing evil or breaking laws have their own consequences as well. There are enough built in stipulations that a DM safety net isn't needed because abuse prevention is already inherent in the spell.
I agree with you up to the "don't add anything to the game". It's about choice and consequence. It's tied into religion, the gods, magic and behavior / morality in the game. It is vague to avoid massive word count increases and keep the game flexible and playable.
I don't see what it adds to the game aside from head aches and damage reduction. We know all to well that religion can exist without alignment because...it does.
It adds clarity if the DM bothers to use / enforce it (although it will differ from DM to DM). Modern morality is situational and lacks standards that are absolute.
In 16 years I've never seen anyone use alignment to prevent or enforce anything that couldn't have been handled easier without it.
And see, rule 0 is useful; it's worked for you for 14 years :)
I've never used rule 0. Not ever. Every change I have ever made to the game has been a group decision with the consent of my players. I impose none of my views on my group and I do not make any decisions arbitrarily.
It astounds me how many people are passionately arguing on this thread who haven't even bothered to look up the section in the rules on the [evil] spell descriptor, like the rules are immaterial.Assuming a spell had to be made, it would be a Teleportation, or possibly Calling, like the old Succor spell.
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.The Paladin is not from an Evil Aligned plane, he is in an evil aligned plane - he is FROM the Prime Material Plane. If you are in Mexico, that doesn't make you a Mexican.
Teleport does not have the [evil] descriptor, and neither would this.
Ninja - sorry Ash, you got dudded again.
teleport does not cross inter planar boundaries either. Cast teleport in hell on any creature and you are not conjuring from an evil aligned plane. They are just being moved around it.
It astounds me how many people are passionately arguing on this thread who haven't even bothered to look up the section in the rules on the [evil] spell descriptor, like the rules are immaterial.Assuming a spell had to be made, it would be a Teleportation, or possibly Calling, like the old Succor spell.
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.The Paladin is not from an Evil Aligned plane, he is in an evil aligned plane - he is FROM the Prime Material Plane. If you are in Mexico, that doesn't make you a Mexican.
Teleport does not have the [evil] descriptor, and neither would this.
Teleport does not work across planes. Not even greater teleport.
If you are in Mexico and I call you from Mexico, you are coming from Mexico. If you are coming from Iceland, then you wouldn't be coming from Mexico. If you come to the United States, and then someone in Switzerland calls you from the United States, you are being called from the United States.To actually transport them back to the material plane, you would need a Calling spell. Planar Binding would work if they're an aasimar, or if being on another plane makes you qualify as an outsider for the purposes of summoning and calling spells - the most likely one being gate - you are calling a creature from that plane, making the spell [Evil] subtype. A Chaotic or Good cleric literally cannot call someone out of hell (I guess it's beyond their jurisdiction) but a Wizard (LG, NG, CG, N, LN, CN, LE, NE, CE), Neutral, Lawful Neutral, Neutral Evil, or Lawful Evil cleric could.
Teleport does not work across planes.
It astounds me how many people are passionately arguing on this thread who haven't even bothered to look up the section in the rules on the Conjuration school of magic, like the rules are immaterial. Had they done so, they'd have seen that Teleportation is a sub-school of Conjuration, and furthermore in this PARTICULAR case we were talking about making a new spell, do keep up. I would be coming from Mexico, but I do not come from Mexico... context yeah, it's everything.
Teleportation: a teleportation spell transports one or more creatures or objects a great distance. The most powerful of these spells can cross planar boundaries. Unlike summoning spells, the transportation is (unless otherwise noted) one-way and not dispellable.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Conjuration
Sounds just like what we need to get the Paladin his one way ticket home.
Added in with the debunking it having an [evil] descriptor looks like we are safe.
Sorry again Ash, you might want to just stay down eh?
Sorry again Ash, you might want to just stay down eh?
Is there a reason you feel the need to be so condescending? Your post doesn't have any revelations or gifts from heaven in it. You aren't clever. You are just having a discussion. There is no need for the level of arrogance you have displayed. Be civil.
Teleport does not work across planes.
It astounds me how many people are passionately arguing on this thread who haven't even bothered to look up the section in the rules on the Conjuration school of magic, like the rules are immaterial. Had they done so, they'd have seen that Teleportation is a sub-school of Conjuration, and furthermore in this PARTICULAR case we were talking about making a new spell, do keep up. I would be coming from Mexico, but I do not come from Mexico... context yeah, it's everything.
Teleportation: a teleportation spell transports one or more creatures or objects a great distance. The most powerful of these spells can cross planar boundaries. Unlike summoning spells, the transportation is (unless otherwise noted) one-way and not dispellable.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Conjuration
Sounds just like what we need to get the Paladin his one way ticket home.
Added in with the debunking it having an [evil] descriptor looks like we are safe.
Sorry again Ash, you might want to just stay down eh?
I think you need to keep up. We were talking about the teleport spell, not the teleport subschool. BTW, do you realize how rude your comments are, or are you purposefully trying to look like a jerk?
Teleport does not work across planes.It astounds me how many people are passionately arguing on this thread who haven't even bothered to look up the section in the rules on the Conjuration school of magic, like the rules are immaterial. Had they done so, they'd have seen that Teleportation is a sub-school of Conjuration, and furthermore in this PARTICULAR case we were talking about making a new spell, do keep up. I would be coming from Mexico, but I do not come from Mexico... context yeah, it's everything.
Teleportation: a teleportation spell transports one or more creatures or objects a great distance. The most powerful of these spells can cross planar boundaries. Unlike summoning spells, the transportation is (unless otherwise noted) one-way and not dispellable.
You said Teleport. Teleport is the name of a spell. Greater Teleport is the greater version of that spell. Neither of which can cross planar boundaries. Plane Shift can cross planar boundaries, but you cannot be on the Material Plane and call them back home using this spell, and it would require you to plane shift to hell (which you cannot Plane Shift directly to the Paladin) which would risk your life and the Paladin's life to attempt the rescue, where you would have to then find the Paladin and use another Plane Shift to get back to the material plane.
In short, there is no spell that allows you to just teleport someone off another plane; but you can definitely call them to your plane. If you call them to your plane, they come to your plane. If it's their home plane, they lose the extraplaner subtype, meaning they are not subject to banishments - and not being summoned are not vulnerable to dispel magic for being back. Welcome home lost Paladin.
There is no need for the level of arrogance you have displayed. Be civil.
Really?
I quoted pretty much verbatim a post that was aimed to me, and when I do it it's 'uncivil', and you feel inclined to point it out, yet for all the personal attacks blatantly aimed in my direction you felt no need to ask the same question?
How odd.
I think you need to keep up. We were talking about the teleport spell, not the teleport subschool. BTW, do you realize how rude your comments are, or are you purposefully trying to look like a jerk?
Yeah you are talking about the Teleport spell because you hadn't made the realisation about the subschool until it was pointed out. You saw one word and jumped on it thinking you had 'checkmate', unfortunately had you read the post I was replying to you'd have worked out your error.
The discussion was around 'finding a way to get the Paladin out of Hell', not the spell Teleport. There's a difference.
No need to call me names just because you feel annoyed at being embarrased, I didn't call you names.
Please, try to be civil.
|
Interplanetary Teleport
School conjuration (teleportation); Level cleric/oracle 9, sorcerer/wizard 9CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components VEFFECT
Range personal and touch
Target you and touched objects or other touched willing creatures
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none and Will negates (object); Spell Resistance no and yes (object)Paizo Peripheral
This content is from material published by Paizo Publishing, LLC, but is not part of the Pathfinder Core Rules.
DESCRIPTION
This spell functions as teleport, except there is truly no range limit and you do not need to have seen your destination, though you must have a solid grasp of which world you wish to travel to (“the third planet from the sun” is an acceptable destination, but “a habitable world near that bright star” is not). If you have a specific location on a planet in mind, you arrive there without a chance of failure; otherwise you arrive at a location that would not immediately be life-threatening. If no such safe landing zone exists on the world, such as someone attempting to travel into the sun without the proper precautions in place, the spell simply fails.
Section 15: Copyright Notice - Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Ultimate Magic
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Ultimate Magic. © 2011, Paizo Publishing, LLC; Authors: Jason Bulmahn, Tim Hitchcock, Colin McComb, Rob McCreary, Jason Nelson, Stephen Radney-MacFarland, Sean K Reynolds, Owen K.C. Stephens, and Russ Taylor.
:)
There is no need for the level of arrogance you have displayed. Be civil.Really?
I quoted pretty much verbatim a post that was aimed to me, and when I do it it's 'uncivil', and you feel inclined to point it out, yet for all the personal attacks blatantly aimed in my direction you felt no need to ask the same question?
How odd.
I think you need to keep up. We were talking about the teleport spell, not the teleport subschool. BTW, do you realize how rude your comments are, or are you purposefully trying to look like a jerk?Yeah you are talking about the Teleport spell because you hadn't made the realisation about the subschool until it was pointed out. You saw one word and jumped on it thinking you had 'checkmate', unfortunately had you read the post I was replying to you'd have worked out your error.
The discussion was around 'finding a way to get the Paladin out of Hell', not the spell Teleport. There's a difference.
No need to call me names just because you feel annoyed at being embarrased, I didn't call you names.
Please, try to be civil.
I wasn't calling you names, I was trying to work out weather you realized how offensive you were getting or if you were purposefully trying to anger people. I know which it is now.
Sorry again Ash, you might want to just stay down eh?
Getting a bit personal are we?
Your at the point if you are getting personal attacks on the internet, that you will say I disagree, out of spite, instead of logic.
With all the 'brofist' bromace Ash has been spitting out, and streams of continuous personal attacks Ash has made over and over in this thread, I would have to say I am pretty late to the 'personal attack' party.
How come you didn't say this to Ash? Just curious?
Why is it you feel that one comment is worthy of censure, but the far more extreme and and ongoing abuse by Ash is acceptable?
|
|
There is no need for the level of arrogance you have displayed. Be civil.Really?
I quoted pretty much verbatim a post that was aimed to me, and when I do it it's 'uncivil', and you feel inclined to point it out, yet for all the personal attacks blatantly aimed in my direction you felt no need to ask the same question?
How odd.
I think you need to keep up. We were talking about the teleport spell, not the teleport subschool. BTW, do you realize how rude your comments are, or are you purposefully trying to look like a jerk?Yeah you are talking about the Teleport spell because you hadn't made the realisation about the subschool until it was pointed out. You saw one word and jumped on it thinking you had 'checkmate', unfortunately had you read the post I was replying to you'd have worked out your error.
The discussion was around 'finding a way to get the Paladin out of Hell', not the spell Teleport. There's a difference.
No need to call me names just because you feel annoyed at being embarrased, I didn't call you names.
Please, try to be civil.
Shifty, your posts are full of sarcasm and being defensive.
It seems like you are no longer trying to find truth, but to simple win.|
|
Sorry again Ash, you might want to just stay down eh?
Getting a bit personal are we?
Your at the point if you are getting personal attacks on the internet, that you will say I disagree, out of spite, instead of logic.With all the 'brofist' bromace Ash has been spitting out, and streams of continuous personal attacks Ash has made over and over in this thread, I would have to say I am pretty late to the 'personal attack' party.
How come you didn't say this to Ash? Just curious?
Why is it you feel that one comment is worthy of censure, but the far more extreme and and ongoing abuse by Ash is acceptable?
So your justifying personal attacks and being defensive because someone else did it to you first?
I wasn't calling you names, I was trying to work out weather you realized how offensive you were getting or if you were purposefully trying to anger people. I know which it is now.
No you started with an insult, called me rude, and then used the word Jerk.
Are you purposefully trying to look like a liar?
I'm not calling you names, I am trying to work out weather you realized how dishonest you were looking or if you were purposefully trying to fib.
Now, if you'd actually like to keep on topic and cease jumping on the attack bandwagon, we can actually converse about the topic.
Nice find on the spell by the way Black Lotus.
So your justifying personal attacks and being defensive because someone else did it to you first?
Correct. Ash continued, post after post, to attack and continue to avoid issues raised. So in the end a comment was made back to him.
So again I ask you, why are you only looking to censure one party when continuous direct attacks have been made by the other?
EDIT: Their are much more interesting threads on the forums than getting into a flame war with you. Good bye.
|
|
So your justifying personal attacks and being defensive because someone else did it to you first?Correct. Ash continued, post after post, to attack and continue to avoid issues raised. So in the end a comment was made back to him.
So again I ask you, why are you only looking to censure one party when continuous direct attacks have been made by the other?
I don't look at bro fists when someone says something in a way that he agrees with.
That's like quoting something and just replying '+1'From what I seen all party's were getting defensive, and as a result were no longer seeking after truth but to win the argument.
The reason i choice to speak to you was it seemed that you were being the most sarcastic, and the most defensive.
Teleport does not have the [evil] descriptor, and neither would this.
You did not say the Teleportation subschool. You did not even say the Teleport subschool, the Teleportation school, the teleport school, or teleportation spells. You said "Teleport does not have the [evil[ descriptor. Frankly, neither does the Summoning or Calling subschool, except in the case where they are bringing creatures with an alignment subtype or from a plane with an alignment subtype.
Incidentally, neither of which teleportation spells do.
I am reacting to what you said. If you meant something else, it is on you to clarify, not assume people are going to read your mind when you say X and meant Y.
:)Interplanetary Teleport
School conjuration (teleportation); Level cleric/oracle 9, sorcerer/wizard 9CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components VEFFECT
Range personal and touch
Target you and touched objects or other touched willing creatures
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none and Will negates (object); Spell Resistance no and yes (object)Paizo Peripheral
This content is from material published by Paizo Publishing, LLC, but is not part of the Pathfinder Core Rules.
DESCRIPTION
This spell functions as teleport, except there is truly no range limit and you do not need to have seen your destination, though you must have a solid grasp of which world you wish to travel to (“the third planet from the sun” is an acceptable destination, but “a habitable world near that bright star” is not). If you have a specific location on a planet in mind, you arrive there without a chance of failure; otherwise you arrive at a location that would not immediately be life-threatening. If no such safe landing zone exists on the world, such as someone attempting to travel into the sun without the proper precautions in place, the spell simply fails.
Section 15: Copyright Notice - Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Ultimate Magic
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Ultimate Magic. © 2011, Paizo Publishing, LLC; Authors: Jason Bulmahn, Tim Hitchcock, Colin McComb, Rob McCreary, Jason Nelson, Stephen Radney-MacFarland, Sean K Reynolds, Owen K.C. Stephens, and Russ Taylor.
The funny thing about this is it's greater teleport with a safety net. It still can't traverse across planes, and seems to only be concerned with traveling to different planets in your own plane, which you can already legally do with greater teleport. The only real difference is greater teleport won't stop itself if sending you to that one thing you thought was a planet was actually a star or some other hazardous condition that would harm you.
For this reason, generally traveling to other planets prior to this spell required either an excessive amount of divination and planning prior to heading out to another planet or region of your universe, or being a lich so you can just play Russian Roulette with your greater teleports and reform in 1d10 days if you screwed up. :P
Shifty, your posts are full of sarcasm and being defensive.
It seems like you are no longer trying to find truth, but to simple win.
Which is interesting when you point that out, because I keep copy/pasting the replies of others as my posts.
So thats like saying these people are looking in a mirror and then complaining they are getting faces pulled at them. Go back and have a look at the texts...
The comment about the Conjuration/Teleport school was simply treantmonks reply word for word with Evil removed and Conjuration put in... so why when Treantmonk said it there was no complaint, yet when I simply REPOSTED it then it became an issue?
It astounds me how many people are passionately arguing on this thread who haven't even bothered to look up the section in the rules on the [evil] spell descriptor, like the rules are immaterial.
Sound familiar?
EDIT: Their are much more interesting threads on the forums than getting into a flame war with you. Good bye.I like your original were you apologized . It was a mature way to turn the conversation back to Logic and truth seeking.
After I stepped back it felt too much like I was trying to provoke him. Thanks anyway.
|
|
Shifty, your posts are full of sarcasm and being defensive.
It seems like you are no longer trying to find truth, but to simple win.
Which is interesting when you point that out, because I keep copy/pasting the replies of others as my posts.
So thats like saying these people are looking in a mirror and then complaining they are getting faces pulled at them. Go back and have a look at the texts...
The comment about the Conjuration/Teleport school was simply treantmonks reply word for word with Evil removed and Conjuration put in... so why when Treantmonk said it there was no complaint, yet when I simply REPOSTED it then it became an issue?
It astounds me how many people are passionately arguing on this thread who haven't even bothered to look up the section in the rules on the [evil] spell descriptor, like the rules are immaterial.
Sound familiar?
I tried to help get this convo back on track, but it seems to far derailed for that to happen.
I might check on this topic later.Black Lotus.
With all the 'brofist' bromace Ash has been spitting out, and streams of continuous personal attacks Ash has made over and over in this thread, I would have to say I am pretty late to the 'personal attack' party.
How come you didn't say this to Ash? Just curious?
Why is it you feel that one comment is worthy of censure, but the far more extreme and and ongoing abuse by Ash is acceptable?
Because I have no insulted you. I have not gotten personal with you. The closest thing I have done to acting offensively towards you was cite what you had already done, or mimic your condescending comments in italics, and then immediately note that it was satirical and to make a point about your communication.
Otherwise, it could have something to do with your attitude, manners, and the way you are attempting to go about this debate which in itself reflects horrendously upon you, and compounds the appearance of a problem.
Correct. Ash continued, post after post, to attack and continue to avoid issues raised. So in the end a comment was made back to him.
So again I ask you, why are you only looking to censure one party when continuous direct attacks have been made by the other?
In each case I never insulted you. I noted that you were attacking the conversation from poor angles (insulting people based on musical preferences and spouting about Satan like some sort of insane self-appointed authority figure). I asked several times for you to explain your insistence on making GMs out to be gods. I then noted that people and their RPGs were separate and that your words scared me because it seems legitimately psychotic to me to say that the GM is in fact the NPCs that he is controlling during the game (as disturbing as suggesting that I am my PC), and suggested mental help if that was the case (but as I noted I was having a hard time following your erratic and seemingly random posts, so I asked again for your to clarify, and you said I was dodging the topic).
Let the truth be known.
Because I have no insulted you. I have not gotten personal with you.
How is that lining up with...
In a debate, that's basically known as a "cowardly forfeit". In a discussion, that's called rude. If life, that's called lame.How old are you?
What does your rambling...
You're beginning to frighten me, and I think that you should seek psychiatric help
You're being ignorant
or do you just plan to waste my time that could be better spent listening to someone that actually has an argument?
Put down your condescending, illogical, and spiteful drivel, and join the grownups
And that was a quick minute of your posts.
No, nothing personal in all that.
And people wonder why I might be defensive after putting up with that over and over...
In the meantime, let us discuss something a bit more on topic. If you were to take the information we have gleaned during this thread - specifically the fact the rules do not call out casting a spell as being an act of Law, Chaos, Good, or Evil - what sort of interesting character concepts can this open up to us?
A few off the top of my head would be the Malconvoker type spellcaster who seeks to turn the infinite hordes of evil against themselves for the cause of good (this was a fun archtype in 3.5); or the goodly necromancer like the one from Diablo II that I mentioned earlier, who used undead and necromancy to fight demons and save the world from Hellish invasion.
What other interesting ideas can we come up with that could be used to build and interesting character?
After I stepped back it felt too much like I was trying to provoke him. Thanks anyway.
Well thats sure how it seemed. It looked very much like a thinly veiled attack, yet of that wasn't the case then my apologies.
With the quick extract of what Ashiel has been dishing in post after post I am perhaps a little passionate and defensive... then again if you were subject to those continuous and needless personal attacks, wouldn't you be?
In the meantime, let us discuss something a bit more on topic. If you were to take the information we have gleaned during this thread - specifically the fact the rules do not call out casting a spell as being an act of Law, Chaos, Good, or Evil - what sort of interesting character concepts can this open up to us?
A few off the top of my head would be the Malconvoker type spellcaster who seeks to turn the infinite hordes of evil against themselves for the cause of good (this was a fun archtype in 3.5); or the goodly necromancer like the one from Diablo II that I mentioned earlier, who used undead and necromancy to fight demons and save the world from Hellish invasion.
What other interesting ideas can we come up with that could be used to build and interesting character?
The witch that sends nightmares to the evil and the corrupt to show them the error of their ways, or frighten them to death if that fails...
After I stepped back it felt too much like I was trying to provoke him. Thanks anyway.Well thats sure how it seemed. It looked very much like a thinky veiled attack, yet of that wasn't the case then my apologies.
With the quick extract of what Ashiel has been dishing in post after post I am perhaps a little passionate and defensive... then again if you were subject to those continuous and needless personal attacks, wouldn't you be?
In the past I would and have been. But I'm trying to learn to get up and walk away from the keyboard. I can't control other peoples actions, only mine.
Because I have no insulted you. I have not gotten personal with you.How is that lining up with...
In a debate, that's basically known as a "cowardly forfeit". In a discussion, that's called rude. If life, that's called lame.
I engage in a lot of debates. I'm passing on information. You will not do well engaging in the activities which I noted, because as I said that if you effectively refuse to answer the debate you have forfeited - lost - without having any honor or the ability to admit you cannot provide anything. In a typical discussion that is very rude. If people see you take this action in life, it is seen as very lame (or perhaps poor would be a word more to your taste?).
How old are you?
During our conversation, I legitimately wondered if you were perhaps thirteen or otherwise very young as to have no debating or conversational etiquette, and it would explain your difficulty with logical progression. If you are in fact young, then it makes it easier for me to understand certain parts of this conversation.
What does your rambling...You were
–adjective
1. aimlessly wandering.
2. taking an irregular course; straggling: a rambling brook.
3. spread out irregularly in various directions: a rambling mansion.
. I asked what does it have to do with the discussion. A legitimate question.
You're beginning to frighten me, and I think that you should seek psychiatric help
As noted before, it was frightening me. You were saying that the GM is in fact the NPCs rather than playing them. That suggests a deep attachment that I have only seen as a bad thing, and often noted as a dangerous psychological quirk when dealing with RPGs, and makes me think of some form of Schizophrenia. I was being honest, and if you do believe the GM is indeed the NPCs as you were saying, I stand by my advice to seek mental assistance.
You're being ignorant
Telling someone they are ignorant is not an insult. It means they do not know, and you were blatantly saying things that were not true, so either you were lying or you did not know. I assumed the latter, because ignorance implies that you were not lying but were merely mistaken. If you believed ignorance to be insulting, then you are ignorant to the meaning of ignorant and should educate yourself. I recommend Dictionary.com.
or do you just plan to waste my time that could be better spent listening to someone that actually has an argument?
You were not engaging in any actual argument. You were repeatedly saying one thing over and over again and refusing to provide any sort of citation or evidence other than yur opinion. I asked if yu were going to continue not making an argument, or waste our time. I stand by that question. Again, it was not an insult, but a legitimate - on topic - question.
Put down your condescending, illogical, and spiteful drivel, and join the grownups
And this was written in italics, to illustrate the type of condescending tone you were using. In context the full quote was:
[i]Put down your condescending, illogical, and spiteful drivel, and join the grownups who are capable of reading and examining philosophy and logic patterns.[i]
See, now did that solve anything? No. Let's be civil.
You are now spreading misinformation, or are not understanding the satirical parallel to your first post and your condescending statement about people needing to stop listening to Death Metal/Emo CDs and come back to reality.
And that was a quick minute of your posts.
No, nothing personal in all that.
Absolutely. You either misunderstood, misquoted, or misrepresented everything that I had said. I have explained it all at length, so that you may be more aware of the situation.
Let us return. I'm still waiting for you to cite the place where it says in the rules that casting an aligned spell is an assured act of that alignment, as I have not found anything in either the Alignment rules nor the descriptor rules that say so.
Because I have no insulted you. I have not gotten personal with you.How is that lining up with...
In a debate, that's basically known as a "cowardly forfeit". In a discussion, that's called rude. If life, that's called lame.I engage in a lot of debates. I'm passing on information. You will not do well engaging in the activities which I noted, because as I said that if you effectively refuse to answer the debate you have forfeited - lost - without having any honor or the ability to admit you cannot provide anything. In a typical discussion that is very rude. If people see you take this action in life, it is seen as very lame (or perhaps poor would be a word more to your taste?).
How old are you?During our conversation, I legitimately wondered if you were perhaps thirteen or otherwise very young as to have no debating or conversational etiquette, and it would explain your difficulty with logical progression. If you are in fact young, then it makes it easier for me to understand certain parts of this conversation.
What does your rambling...You were–adjective
1. aimlessly wandering.
2. taking an irregular course; straggling: a rambling brook.
3. spread out irregularly in various directions: a rambling mansion.. I asked what does it have to do with the discussion. A legitimate question.
You're beginning to frighten me, and I think that you should seek psychiatric helpAs noted before, it was frightening me. You were saying that the GM is in fact the NPCs rather than playing them. That suggests a deep attachment that I have only seen as a bad thing, and often noted as a dangerous psychological quirk when dealing with RPGs, and makes me think of some form of Schizophrenia. I was being honest, and if you do believe the GM is indeed the NPCs as you were saying, I stand by my advice to seek mental assistance.
You're being...
I thought you said you wanted to move on, I think he was willing to...
The witch that sends nightmares to the evil and the corrupt to show them the error of their ways, or frighten them to death if that fails...In the meantime, let us discuss something a bit more on topic. If you were to take the information we have gleaned during this thread - specifically the fact the rules do not call out casting a spell as being an act of Law, Chaos, Good, or Evil - what sort of interesting character concepts can this open up to us?
A few off the top of my head would be the Malconvoker type spellcaster who seeks to turn the infinite hordes of evil against themselves for the cause of good (this was a fun archtype in 3.5); or the goodly necromancer like the one from Diablo II that I mentioned earlier, who used undead and necromancy to fight demons and save the world from Hellish invasion.
What other interesting ideas can we come up with that could be used to build and interesting character?
Hmmm, interesting. It would definitely be an effective weapon against an evil tyrant. It would be especially interesting if you had the nightmare be relieving the acts of evil that the target committed, only with him being on the receiving end. Effectively making him re-live the pain and suffering that he has caused in his ways. In the meantime, this would be an excellent way to prevent a BBEG from gaining spells or being at full capacity to resist arrest or retribution.
Very interesting indeed. ^-^
EDIT:
I thought you said you wanted to move on, I think he was willing to...
I do, but I want my name to be clear. There's a chance that there was a legitimate lack of communication, and that he simply didn't know. Otherwise, he was trying to besmirch my good name, and I reserve the right to clarify or otherwise defend myself in such a case.
Anyway, I like the idea for the Nightmare spell. :)
I don't believe that complexity breeds word count. As a writer I've found that to be a handy excuse young writers use to avoid taking the time to think about it more critically. When you write a spell you should bloat the hell out of it. Then, you continue to take away until there is nothing left that can be taken away. Then you re-write the spell from scratch and do it again and try to remove unnecessary words.Many complex spells are like this already. It is only a rare few poorly written ones that have this problem.
And I believe it does. That doesn't mean it is always necessary or that it couldn't be reduced. Still, the simple fact is that complexity increases the amount of words needed to define something. I'm not a young writer, although I've taught a lot of them, and their are times when being too brief obscures more than it reveals. The point of writing what is essentially a technical piece is to use the words necessary, no more, no less. As for spell complexity; most aren't.
The DM fiat language isn't needed though. There is already a provision about retaliation for abuse of bound creatures. On top of that committing evil or breaking laws have their own consequences as well. There are enough built in stipulations that a DM safety net isn't needed because abuse prevention is already inherent in the spell.
It isn't needed to spell out retaliation, it's needed to put a cap on what can be done; what is allowable, without spending a page or two listing what you can and can't have them do. The rest of the spell is about technique more than abuse prevention. Like a lot of complex issues, it's left to the DM to be final arbiter rather than a wall of text which would, no doubt, leave some loopholes uncovered.
I don't see what it adds to the game aside from head aches and damage reduction. We know all to well that religion can exist without
alignment because...it does.
Yes, religion exists in real life without alignment. Alignment is a game convention that helps provide a basis of knowledge about something which doesn't exist in real life. Without taking huge amounts of time and requiring years of study. A religions, or NPCs, alignment is short hand for their world view. Useful shorthand at that.
In 16 years I've never seen anyone use alignment to prevent or enforce anything that couldn't have been handled easier without it.
And I have. Different experiences.
I've never used rule 0. Not ever. Every change I have ever made to the game has been a group decision with the consent of my players. I impose none of my views on my group and I do not make any decisions arbitrarily.
The fact that you've played for 14 years without alignment says you have. Alignment is RAW, playing without it is Rule 0. The fact that you have done so consensually with your group doesn't change that. The fact that your group is in agreement is excellent. It certainly makes life easier.
*edit* By the way, I appreciate the fact that we've been able to have our differences without insult or anger. It's refreshing. And our posts are long enough as it is :D
What other interesting ideas can we come up with that could be used to build and interesting character?
Outside of pragmatist heroes who view particular means as more efficient, or Ironic heroes who want to fight fire with fire, i'm not 100% much is gained.
Granted, there's always crazy people.
But more to the point, most alignment spells directly affect their targeted opposite alignments, otherwise they buff or specifically harm folks who are not of the proper alignment who try to use them.
Furthermore, not all things that are harmful have the evil descriptor, and not all things that are helpful have the good descriptor. Cure and Inflict spells come to mind as examples.
Now, that's not to sa corner cases don't happen (such as the case of summoning Devils to fight Demons) but that's normally as a result of varialbility in the rules.