Would you all just shut up?
Having been a silent reader of far too many pages of this discussion, I have to agree with this proposal. The horse is dead and I don't see the point in flogging it any further.
Would you all just shut up?Having been a silent reader of far too many pages of this discussion, I have to agree with this proposal. The horse is dead and I don't see how even a sadist could find any further pleasure in flogging it.
Some of us have tried to move on to a different but related topic, does that count?
Would you all just shut up?
I love you TriOmegaZero. ^.^
Would you all just shut up?I love you TriOmegaZero. ^.^
*sighs* Not listening to his advice, are we?
Hurm....contemplating more "Is BLAH evil?" threads,.......
"Is summoning succubi for a saxxy time evil?"
Hurrrrm.....
*sighs* Not listening to his advice, are we?Would you all just shut up?I love you TriOmegaZero. ^.^
I can appreciate a bit of humor and irony. TOZ made me laugh, and it lightened the mood greatly. Plus, honestly, I'm here for what was an interesting discussion that has spiraled somewhat in the recent page. I'm going to take a break and go get some food and maybe play some Fallout 3, and come back in a while.
Good discussions to you all. ^-^
EDIT:
Would you all just shut up?I love you TriOmegaZero. ^.^I love you too Ash.
If I wasn't married...I wouldn't be married. :D
See, TOZ is hilarious. That's why I love this guy. XD
I thought you said you wanted to move on, I think he was willing
I agree, although I am surprised that after providing a snippet of the litany of personal attacks, and then having them answered with further attacks there seems to be an eerie silence from parties that had a lot to say but moments ago.
Anyhow, Ash, sinking to base personal insults and attacks is completely unnecessary, kindly cease, your behaviour has ben pointed out as being offensive - that is not an invitation to simply add more insults.
Back on topic; yes summoning those things is Evil if the GM says it is.
There's also the matter of the [evil] desriptor.
Say what? In what way could using a clear and concise spell as written possibly infer to you that DM fiat is needed? I'm confused here because DM fiat would actaully be impossible unless the DM changed the rule.
That is still GM Fiat.
I thought you were saying the GM puts that statement in there, since the book does not spell everything out perfectly. If that is not what you meant then I misunderstood.
I thought you were saying the GM puts that statement in there, since the book does not spell everything out perfectly. If that is not what you meant then I misunderstood.
On the section covering alignment there is RAW nodding to GM Fiat... which is most interesting o.O
I thought you were saying the GM puts that statement in there, since the book does not spell everything out perfectly. If that is not what you meant then I misunderstood.
No worries.
Assuming a spell had to be made, it would be a Teleportation, or possibly Calling, like the old Succor spell.
Teleportation spells would require you to be in the plane too, if you are conjuring them from Hell (while you presumably are not there), then it would be a calling spell.
It's been mentioned that Planar Binding would work. It is calling. It was mentioned that Gate would work, it is also calling.
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.
If a wizard was to use planar binding or gate to rescue a Paladin from the Abyss, he is most certainly not conjuring him from the Prime Material plane.
If you are in Mexico, but are American and I send you a plane ticket home, you aren't Mexican, but where are you being flown from?
If the Wizard used Gate to rescue the Paladin from the Abyss, it would have an [evil] spell descriptor because the Paladin is being conjured from the Abyss. I don't see an exception to the rules if the one being conjured is not native to the plane they are being conjured from.
If you find such an exception, please link it so I can see.
Libris Mortis also says there are good undead, and never explicitly says that undead are evil. Even the fluff about the negative energy coming into the material plane being destructive is specifically noted as a mere theory. A fact most people seem to conveniently forget during these discussions.Liber Mortis is not that relevant. It was an optional 3.5 splatbook, not something part of the Pathfinder library. Not counting that book D&D through it's history has presented undead as generally evil. Liber Mortis was not part of it's core rules but a late coming optional extra.
I'm aware. However, if you recheck the post that you just quoted, we were talking about 3.x and the evolution of the "always evil" undead problem. And no, undead were not always innately evil. In fact, D&D went through about 4 incarnations (OD&D, AD&D, AD&D 2E, 3E) before the now Hasbro-owned WotC decided to make all mindless undead evil, and to start turning the good undead into positive-energy "shiny undead" which more or less went against everything that was pre-established fluff (creatures powered with positive energy are generally referred to as living).
I have little doubt that there is a connection to Hasbro's buyout and some of the changes that the BoVD instigated just before 3.5 came out. It looks especially conspicuous given the direction they have taken D&D since then, and the changes found in 4E. For example, they specifically made Angels not goodguys so that you could fight them more while saying you were a good guy. They also removed several alignments, so you're either LG, G, Neutral (Unaligned), E, CE. They also pushed the rule of cool for everything it was worth (dropped gnomes, brought tieflings - but not aasimar - as a PC race for example). Their Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide provides little information about different creatures or for actually building an running a believable world, and shifted the emphasis to something different.
In short, after the Hasbro Merger, D&D has been looking less and less like D&D in terms of how creatures, morality, and similar has been handled. In 3E (and pre-3E AFAIK) mindless creatures couldn't have an alignment. They were always Neutral. However, they COULD have a subtype, so stuff like Lemure devils were still treated as Lawful Evil Outsiders for anything that mattered (and it showed they were literally nothing more than a mindless glob of evil, and killing/destroying one actually has no more alignment considerations that chopping up a piece of already dead wood).
EDIT: Also, a bit random, but here's a fun D&D fact. Want to know the reason why Elves are immune to Ghoul paralysis even in Pathfinder today? Because the earliest incarnation of D&D was a wargame, and during their play the undead ghouls were spanking the higher value elves left and right due to their Paralysis ability. So they made elves immune to ghoul paralysis.
It has since stuck to this very day, and I've never actually seen a non metagame reasoning for this very peculiar exception. ^.^
I quoted pretty much verbatim a post that was aimed to me, and when I do it it's 'uncivil'
Here's the difference:
You were asserting a position that the evil spell descriptor made the spell morally evil by definition. This made it clear you had not actually referenced the rules on spell descriptors, but were making an assumption that the rules supported it.
I was surprised to see you and other posters argue passionately over something, when it appeared to me that you had not referenced what the rules said on the matter. I then made that statement based on the evidence I had seen, and to encourage you and others to reference the rules on this matter.
You then used the same wording to attack another poster (not me) who had assumed by "teleport" you meant the spell, not the subschool.
This was obviously an honest mistake (you said "yeah you are talking about the Teleport spell..." so you knew it was a mistake) I don't know if the other poster knew the rules for the teleport subschool or not, but those were not the rules that the other poster was referring to in their post.
Making the claim that they did not read the rules clearly wasn't based on evidence the rules weren't read (the poster referenced the spell rules correctly), which makes it uncivil, because you weren't trying to state a position based on evidence, you were attempting a counterattack.
Also, when two other posters "brofist" because they have the same opinion on something, it is not an attack on you, nor justification for attacks on them.
P.S.
Back on topic; yes summoning those things is Evil if the GM says it is.
So? Summoning those things is Good if the GM says it is. We all know that if the GM says so, the debate is over.
There's also the matter of the [evil] desriptor.
Isn't that what we've been debating all this time? Whether the descriptor refers to mechanics or mechanics+morality?
Isn't that what we've been debating all this time? Whether the descriptor refers to mechanics or mechanics+morality?
Sure, and the rules give guidance on Alignments, and leave the decision within the domain of the GM. Noting that there is an [evil] descriptor, said GM is fairly likely to connect the dot and apply the Alignment change - based on their interpretation, but certainly most likely in the average westernised GM (as opposed to being GM'd by General Butt-Naked in Liberia - real person, look him up) who would ok it and wonder what all the fuss was about.
So at the end of the day there really doesn't need to be any clear extra RAW, as it is clearly stated as being the GM's call; the onlyu sensible advice thus being - "check it with your GM, but don't be surprised if the answer is Evil".
Where the complaints in this thread seem to stem from is a 'but why?' debate, and a search for it to be proven to someone in the rules other than what is already written. Despite what the RAW says, despite what the Dev says, there is an instistence that restricting their whims and desires or simply saying 'no' is a massive imposition/fiat/rule 0.
If as a GM I think the cake is a lie, does eating that cake make you evil or chaotic? :P
Ultimately the GM can change anything they want in the game. That's called a house rule, and we all have them. In fact, there have been entire books published for the soul purpose of giving pre-built house rules (the Unearthed Arcana by Monte Cook is the iconic example, but the taint rules in Oriental Adventures and Heroes of Horror are also premade house rules).
Personally I like the idea of taint rules in a setting that supports the concept. In a generic setting it isn't exactly fitting, but it makes for a great time in a campaign where you have a lightside/darkside kind of thing going on, such as the Rokugan setting in the Oriental Adventures (where going into the shadowlands, certain spells, and certain effects can taint your character, and you have to use magic, jade/holy object to resist the taint).
I just don't think that the default setting should require this, which fortunately it doesn't. Core 3E/PF is much more versatile than that, and it is one of the reasons I love them so much.
But speaking of taint (not the rules because honestly the taint rules in both UA and Heroes of Horror aren't the most balanced in the world as presented), that could be a cool thing to play around with. Perhaps if certain spells or effects left a supernatural taint on you, so that if you repeatedly cast the spell, over time you would gain the alignment subtype associated with that descriptor. Or heck, maybe even the subtype for elements as well. A fire wizard would be that guy who uses fire magic so much he's gained immunity to fire and vulnerability to cold, or some such. Though there isn't an acid or electricity creature subtype so maybe not.
Anyway, I'ma have some evil-cake and reflect on this ideas. ^.^
Isn't that what we've been debating all this time? Whether the descriptor refers to mechanics or mechanics+morality?Sure, and the rules give guidance on Alignments, and leave the decision within the domain of the GM. Noting that there is an [evil] descriptor, said GM is fairly likely to connect the dot and apply the Alignment change - based on their interpretation, but certainly most likely in the average westernised GM (as opposed to being GM'd by General Butt-Naked in Liberia - real person, look him up) who would ok it and wonder what all the fuss was about.
So at the end of the day there really doesn't need to be any clear extra RAW, as it is clearly stated as being the GM's call; the onlyu sensible advice thus being - "check it with your GM, but don't be surprised if the answer is Evil".
Where the complaints in this thread seem to stem from is a 'but why?' debate, and a search for it to be proven to someone in the rules other than what is already written. Despite what the RAW says, despite what the Dev says, there is an instistence that restricting their whims and desires or simply saying 'no' is a massive imposition/fiat/rule 0.
None of those guidelines have anything to do with the spell descriptors. The spell descriptors have their rules, alignment has its rules, and both are pretty clearly defined (though the alignment rules are seemingly paradoxical by being clearly defined by defining little, but it works because it defines the basic concepts of each alignment, and then allows you to judge based on this key concepts what any given thing is). We're discussing the rules, not GM preference.
See, I could say in my games than X is Y even if the rules don't say so. If I spring this on my players, I'm a bit of a douche, and if I note that this is a house rule up front, or discuss making it a house-rule with them, then it's just another house rule.
However, discussing what a GM could change about the system doesn't really do anyone very much good because a GM can change anything. A GM could decide that people don't gain XP points and level when he feels they should (surprisingly common house rule), or that people don't gain levels at all or have some sort of earlier level cap (E6 games are famous for this). Or he could decide that in his world angels are the bad guys who sealed up all the gods, and the demons and devils are rebel angels who want to free the creator gods with the help of the PCs.
But none of that is actually in the rules. House rules, rules, house rules, rules, etc. Treantmonk, WPharolin, I, and some others are discussing the rules, the implications of those rules, and so forth. If we are speaking of house rules, we note it.
However, I'd like to point out that you basically jumped into this conversation, insulted a bunch of people, told them they were wrong, generalized them and associated them with various musical subcultures, insinuated they were out of touch with reality, made a poor argument about it, got angry when it was noted as a poor argument and detailed why, and then basically said "well it doesn't matter what the rules say on the matter because the GM can do what the GM wants".
I think that is what bothers me about your posts on the subject. If you wanted to engage in a discussion with us, you're more than welcome to, but please leave it to actual debating and concept and idea sharing.
|
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.
'A samurai does not truly know what it is to be a samurai until he has been a ronin three times.'
IMO, a Paladin who refuses to risk losing his superpowers to do what needs to be done doesn't deserve them anyway. Courage in the face of hard choices and a willingness to sacrifice are part of the job.
When I'm the GM, the gods, even the LG ones, aren't dicks. If you needed to use an evil tool to get the job done, that's what atonement is for. If you sat on your butt and said, 'Oh, not helping. My special powers are worth more to me than your life.' you had no idea what a paladin was in the first place.
Playing a paladin without doing the right thing, even if it might mess with your code, is like playing a barbarian and never raging because you don't like the AC penalty. The possibility of falling and requiring atonement *is part of the class.* If you didn't want to deal with that sort of thing, and just chose 'paladin' because you like the Smite mechanics, that's not role-playing, that's min-maxing, and you should have played a fighter.
Until you have crossed the line, and become viscerally aware of its meaning and purpose, the line is purely theoretical, and your 'choice' to not step over it, without merit. It's not worth a bee's fart in a blizzard to make a 'moral choice' to not do something *you never wanted to do anyway.*
Without a fall, there can be no redemption. It's a pretty friggin' dull 'hero's journey' if you end up the same person you started out as, and learn absolutely nothing along the way.
|
Hello Paizophiles,
i got a philosophical question here: is summoning devils/demons/evil outsiders an evil act by and of itself? The wizard in my group is inclined to summon evil creatures to do his bidding (mainly fighting other evil creatures).
He is of LN alignment and argues that these monsters are not actually existing (pure energy) and he has total control over them and they are fighting other monsters of the same kind.
I am interested in the Pros and Cons. Go, argue.Thanx in advance.
p.s. The player gets the impression, that evil outsiders are far more versatile and powerful and diverse than good outsiders (a ruther powergamerish opinion) and is oblivious to the paladin´s objections.
As a DM, my ruling would depend on intent.
|
|
I long ago came up with an idea for 'fiendish amphsvermii,' or 'the two-headed tapeworm from hell.'
Whenever one summoned extraplanar creatures, one had a smallish chance to also call up some uninvited parasites, and, in the case of celestial or elemental creatures, these little critters were mostly harmless or short-lived (and vanished with their host/symbiote). In the lower planes, however, there was a particularly pernicious species of parasite that had evolved means of remaining on whatever plane they found themselves upon, and anyone summoning fiends or fiendish-template animals had a chance of causing an outbreak of these critters, who would recognize when they were on another plane, and squirt some larvae off into the surroundings.
Their unique nature allowed these larvae to remain behind, becoming 'native outsiders' of wherever they ended up hatching, and thus spread their species across the planes.
And so, because of these parasites, summoning fiendish creatures ran the risk of causing a nasty outbreak of fiendish amphyvermii, which might not be enough to warrant an [evil] tag, but did at least provide *some* justification for summoning lower-planes-creatures being strongly discouraged.
|
This is because you assume the casting of the spell 100 times equals 1 murder in balance.
It doesn't. Even if it didn't, the intent does matter. Casting an aligned spell isn't an either or situation, it's a lump sum situation. Yep, you get a tiny bit of bump of good, and then a bunch of evil because the intent was to do it to cover up a murder.
It's bargain basement time in the alignment olympics when it comes to this stuff. If the spell aligns with the intent, you get a bigger boost, otherwise the intent and spell conflict.
Yes - I agree that intent matters... and if the intent is much more of an influence on the final 'moral alignment' of the 'act' as a whole than the 'power source' of the spell, then the net result is pretty much the same as saying the [alignment] descriptor of the spell isn't what counts when it comes to the action involving that spell being an [alignment] act or not.
Or, in other words, casting an [alignment] spell isn't an inherantly [alignment] act at all - it all depends on what you do with that spell.
Of course if there are real, known, consequences to casting [alignment] spells (such as your [alignment] 'toxic waste' concept) in the game world then that swings the intent of the caster a lot closer to the alignment of the spell in the first place - he knows casting [alignment] spells increases the ambient [alignment] in the world... and does so anyway. It's a concept I quite like, and is a better explaination for why [alignment] spells would happen to count as [alignment] acts than 'just because' (which is pretty much the worst answer to any query...). It's not there in the Core book though.
Only if you think that life is an MMO, in which case you have been doing faction grind for too long and probably need to turn off your WoW account and go outside for a while.
I think I'm too old to even understand that sentence... ;)
Alignment is a state of being, if I am good, I will do good acts. Should I choose to undertake an Evil act, my alignment has probably shifted - in RPG's we track that shift after the fact, however IRL you would have shifted to Evil (or been transitioning) well before the Demon summonings would have started occuring.
Which again quickly falls down when you look at it, IMHO. This round I summon a devil - now I'm suddenly Evil. Next round I summon an angel - now I'm suddenly Good again... That makes little sense to me.
The other way of doing what you suggest is to enforce alignment with a DM-hammer - the whole 'your character would never do that' routine which, again IMHO, is pretty much the worst way to attempt to play the game. Taking away player freedom to control their characters is a bad thing.
Questions of motive, and subsequent redemptions come later... thats a WHOLE different subject, and has little/nothing to do with the purchase of indulgences.
A system where simply casting a certain spell shifts your alignment, however large or small that shift may be, is a system where there's a simple mechanical substitute for actually going out and acting in a manner consistent with that alignment in order to achieve it.
To my mind that is very similar to the concept of indulgences - donate X amount to the church and you're forgiven Y sins in advance for Z amount of time. I mentioned 'horror' because that's, ultimately, where such a system led (despite attempts to tighten things up by the church's powers-that-be): knights on crusade would be granted indulgences forgiving any and all sins they commited whilst on crusade - or, in laymen's terms, they were given a license to rape, murder, and steal to their hearts' content, safe in the knowledge that their immortal souls would still get to heaven.
Alignment in Pathfinder relates directly to where a character's immortal soul winds up when they die. Any system which allows characters to buy (or spellcast) their way out of their just desserts in the afterlife opens the same sort of floodgates as the whole concept of indulgences did in real world history.
So, if casting [alignment] spells is an [alignment] act, and performing and [alignment] act means that you are yourself [alignment], then you can get away with the simplest of 'deathbed confessions' after a life of evil and still avoid the toasty warmth of an extended stay in the bad place...
Without something like mdt's approach there's nothing in the game to indicate casting [alignment] spells are [alignment] actions. Some spells may be pretty hard to avoid being actions of certain alignments - an [evil] spell which slowly tortures its victim to death is going to be hard to roll into a good-aligned act, for example.
The Summon Monster spell-chain really isn't one of those spells - you have control at all times, and the default action (attack your enemies) is the same no matter what you summon - be it an angel, a devil, or my little celestial pony.
At worst, without house-ruling things, summoning [evil] creatures to do good deeds could be a stupid act, but not an [evil] act. It could be dumb because the devil could pop back home after the spell's run its course and mention your name to his infernal pals or, if you word an instruction poorly, may subvert your intent 'by accident'. But if being stupid was the same as being evil, then there wouldn't be many paladins around who hadn't already fallen... ;)
All, as always, IMHO, natch! :)
As to the planar binding a paladin in hell...
The spell gains the [Evil]/[Good] tag based on what you bind, not what world it happens to be on. If demons invade the positive energy plane, and you bind one by it's name, you don't suddenly have a [Good] spell because he's on a good plane, you get an [Evil] spell because the creature you are summoning/binding/etc has the[Evil] tag.
The palladin, unless he fell big time after getting there, does not have the [Evil] subtype, and therefore binding or gating him in does not gain the [Evil] tag on casting.
When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.
So please stop the strawman argument about it being evil to summon a non-evil creature from hell.
As to the planar binding a paladin in hell...
The spell gains the [Evil]/[Good] tag based on what you bind, not what world it happens to be on. If demons invade the positive energy plane, and you bind one by it's name, you don't suddenly have a [Good] spell because he's on a good plane, you get an [Evil] spell because the creature you are summoning/binding/etc has the[Evil] tag.
The palladin, unless he fell big time after getting there, does not have the [Evil] subtype, and therefore binding or gating him in does not gain the [Evil] tag on casting.
So please stop the strawman argument about it being evil to summon a non-evil creature from hell.
When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.
See the subschool. We've already covered this, and Treantmonk has linked his citations for this claim.
When I'm the GM, the gods, even the LG ones, aren't dicks. If you needed to use an evil tool to get the job done, that's what atonement is for. If you sat on your butt and said, 'Oh, not helping. My special powers are worth more to me than your life.' you had no idea what a paladin was in the first place.
As a side note, Clerics are already forbidden from casting spells that oppose their gods alignment. Page 41:
A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell description.
Gods are "dicks" by your logic. They do prevent their direct mortal servants from using tools that are opposed to their alignment. A cleric with a Good alignment or serving a Good deity cannot summon any creature that would make the spell have the evil descriptor.
I think this thread has gone on long enough.