|
It is generally accepted by most that casting [evil] tag spells regularly will have a negative impact on your alignment.
But what if my good-aligned character is using a wand of infernal healing?
He is not performing the evil ritual, calling on dark powers, or any such thing (that's already been done). He is merely saying a simple activation word aloud and healing an ally.
Therefore, I submit for discussion, that the wand wielder's alignment would be wholly unaffected (assuming he's not using it for evil purposes like massacring orphans with a wand of animate dead) and instead, it's the wand's creators that take the alignment hit (as they are the ones calling on and harnessing the powers of darkness).
What say you?
I'm on the side that says if you use something you know to be evil, it's an evil act. That you rationalize it for being for the greater good is just your way of dealing with/ excusing the evil you've done/ are contemplating.
Perpetrators of evil rarely, if ever, think of their act as being evil. It's normally those with external perspective who'll call it that. It's even more true in the real world than in PF/D20.
How many 'evil acts' a good aligned or neutrally aligned PC can perform before alignment change is brought into question is another issue entirely, however.
The rules don't allow characters to shift from evil to neutral and still generally behave evil as if nothing has changed.
The rules don't preclude characters from performing actions contrary to their alignments; they merely recomend a shift to an appropriate alignment if the dubious behaviour persists or becomes dominant. So there's certainly some gray area there in which characters might be performing both good and evil deeds; just like most people in the real world.
So hopefully you can acknowledge that, while you may not like the alignment rules as written, they don't actually have the absurd consequence you were attempting to argue they do.
Actually I've no issue with the alignment rules as written. What I have issue with is the notion that spells with alignment descriptors can change a person's alignment all by themselves. It trivializes the moral and ethical roleplaying issues with which characters should ideally wrestle while adventuring.
Has your good-aligned party performed some grim deeds while adventuring which they don't feel so good about; enough to perhaps push them into Neutral alignments? No problem! They can just wash away those pesky alignment issues with a few swigs of some "good" potions. They're cheaper by the dozen; buy em today!
alignment is loaded with headaches. and i beleive it should be dropped entirely. as well as any alignment exclusive mechanics that cannot be appropriately converted.
'detect alignment' should have been 'detect hostile intent'
|
And to hell with the balance issues, then?Balance issues? Such as?
First, an aside.
Anyway, there could be an issue with infernal healing being more powerful than non-aligned counterparts. I hope someone is crunching the numbers on it. It stands to reason that a non-aligned spell of the same power level wouldn't heal as well, because it has no drawbacks.
In off-topic rebuttal, I also offer the entire concept of a Paladin. But that's admittedly another matter.
I would apply the clerical inability to cast spells of an opposite alignment to everyone but give aligned spells no alignment impact. The true neutral wizard isn't going to drift towards LG because he casts protection from evil and chaos more than law and good so he shouldn't drift towards evil because he uses death knell to finish off unconscious trolls.
+1
|
|
What I have issue with is the notion that spells with alignment descriptors can change a person's alignment all by themselves. It trivializes the moral and ethical roleplaying issues with which characters should ideally wrestle while adventuring.
In turn, I think you're trivializing the issues with using those aligned powers.
Has your good-aligned party performed some grim deeds while adventuring which they don't feel so good about; enough to perhaps push them into Neutral alignments? No problem! They can just wash away those pesky alignment issues with a few swigs of some "good" potions. They're cheaper by the dozen; buy em today!
Even if this were the case, by RAW, it wouldn't be relevant. Atonement exists. There are multiple rules handling people wanting to 'change back'.
Though I do acknowledge the illogicality of the slider only moving in one direction - the unwanted direction. But that's acceptable to me.
i don't beleive alignment should be a straightjacket. but many people on these boards seem to think differently than i in that respect.
and paladins are one of my most hated straightjackets of all. i mean that entire subclasses have to be made to solve the issue.
why not just remove alignment entirely.
stop trying to merge flavor and mechanics into one form.
being ambushed while healing may seem to be a corner case, but infernal healing increases the window of which it can happen. and in my experiences with weekly william. we frequently get random encounters while we rest.
every set period of time has a chance of a random encounter. i beleive that based on the reccomended constitution scores and enhancements, the popularity of toughness and favored class hit points. that this healing is a little more easily interrupted by a random encounter than you realize.
and even though i am not personally weekly william, i do love the idea of random encounter tables every 30 minutes or so.
Actually it doesn't increase the chances. I assumed Infernal Wounding was 1 minute at least when you mentioned the ambush. Since it is 1 round as opposed to a standard action then there is no much difference in time. 1 round is 6 seconds so a standard action might be 4 seconds if a GM wanted to make up an official time for it.
alignment is loaded with headaches. and i beleive it should be dropped entirely. as well as any alignment exclusive mechanics that cannot be appropriately converted.
'detect alignment' should have been 'detect hostile intent'
Then it would be a mind reading spell, more like detect thoughts. I think that only things with alignment subtypes such as outsiders should really have to deal with it. Paladins should have a code of honor, and the core book should have suggestions about what is good/evil/etc, but the GM would have final say, and would be expected to give the player details on what might make him fall.
Actually I think a GM should go into detail anyway.
|
|
i don't beleive alignment should be a straightjacket. but many people on these boards seem to think differently than i in that respect.
and paladins are one of my most hated straightjackets of all. i mean that entire subclasses have to be made to solve the issue.
why not just remove alignment entirely.
stop trying to merge flavor and mechanics into one form.
That's off topic. But you might as easily say that classes are a straight jacket and play gestalt characters. Why try and merge flavor and mechanics in that way either?
IMO, the 'why' is because it's 'DnD'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And to hell with the balance issues, then?Balance issues? Such as?First, an aside.
** spoiler omitted **
Anyway, there could be an issue with infernal healing being more powerful than non-aligned counterparts. I hope someone is crunching the numbers on it. It stands to reason that a non-aligned spell of the same power level wouldn't heal as well, because it has no drawbacks.
In off-topic rebuttal, I also offer the entire concept of a Paladin. But that's admittedly another matter.
Alignment
Alignment is often either seen as a cumbersome shackle or used as an excuse for preforming otherwise undesirable actions while roleplaying. Couple that with the fact that many people will have differing opinions of what constitutes each alignment and you have a recipe for trouble. Mechanically there is little need for an alignment system and it can be easily removed from the game, for the most part anyway.
Characters do not need to list an alignment. Their player may act in whatever manner they feel best represents their character’s personality. Likewise, most monsters and NPCs will not list alignments. However, creatures of the following types will still have appropriate alignments: deathless, dragons, outsiders with aligned subtypes, and undead. Paladins will be treated as lawful and good aligned for the purpose of spells and effects that reference alignment, and clerics will be treated as the alignment of their deity under similar circumstances.
Paladins should still follow a set code of conduct as decided between the player of the paladin and the DM and clerics should still follow the tenets of their faith.
While this may seem to lessen the usefulness of many spells and abilities, with a few minor changes game balance is preserved. The paladin’s smite evil class feature is now a general smite which affects any character or creature with an intelligence score of 3 or higher which is acting in a manner, or is philosophically opposed, to the paladin’s core beliefs, doubling its effectiveness on clerics of evil faiths and creatures who are actually of the evil alignment (see above).
As far as the balance of infernal healing goes. I see it much like vigor, lesser from 3.5's spell compendium. It is a good healing spell, but not overpoweringly so. I'm pro-anything that lends to the survivablity of PCs and quick flow of gameplay. However, if it proves to be a problem it is easy to just quickly adjust the level of the spell or disallow it, at least until the game developers wish to get a bit more clear on the rules of alignment. With how vague they are now I don't think that alignment should be used as a limiting factor for anything.
thank you for ninjaing me ringtail. ringtail passed the point i intended much more elegantly than i ever could.
The only reason we're having this discussion is because RD is looking for a loophole to allow him to enjoy the extra benefits of infernal healing without the drawback that comes with it.
Though, oddly enough, the loophole you refer to is offered up by the very same thing which makes it necessary; one can simply offset the implied penalty of casting evil-aligned spells by casting a commensurate number of good-aligned spells.
This is not a criticism, BTW; RD's munchkin posts are very insightful and extremely useful in testing the boundaries of the system. I appreciate them.)
I find it rather insincere to claim appreciation while simultaneously using pejorative language.
In turn, I think you're trivializing the issues with using those aligned powers.
I'm not certain how I'm trivializing the spells themselves. Any spell can be evil if it's used to evil ends. But a spell shouldn't be evil if no evil is accomplished in its casting.
I think it's bad design to tie a spell's effectiveness to a philosophical notion; a spell should be made to stand, balance-wise, on its own. I take issue with the idea that it's okay to make spells more powerful than their level would suggest by slapping the evil descriptor on them.
Even if this were the case, by RAW, it wouldn't be relevant. Atonement exists. There are multiple rules handling people wanting to 'change back'.
You're right. Which is why I believe the mere casting of aligned spells should be kept out of it; it's too easy.
Though I do acknowledge the illogicality of the slider only moving in one direction - the unwanted direction. But that's acceptable to me.
Again, you're right. It would be illogical... if there were something in the rules that suggests that it works in only one direction; of which I'm currently unaware.
|
[irony]So, conversely, a BBEG could splurge on a handful of wands of protection from evil and then retire to the comfort of his dungeon's torture chamber to expend as many charges as is necessary to relieve any burden of guilt/evil weighing on his soul; thereby switching his alignment towards Good. It's RPG version of buying Indulgences.[/irony]
Word.
Options;
The Eagle Knights capture some Hellknights, and cast protection from law (a [chaos] spell) on them over and over until they go from lawful to neutral (and lose their Hellknight PrC abilities) and then a few more times to turn them chaotic.
The Hellknights capture some Eagle Knights and vice the versa.
These tactics can also be used to cause other alignment dependent individuals, such as monks, druids, etc. to lose their powers. (For instance, a NG druid can be forced to turn either chaotic or lawful, by casting [chaos] or [law] spells on her, causing her to become CG or LG, and, in either case, losing her druid powers.)
A kindly cleric of Sarenrae the Redeemer finds herself in a cave with a dozen goblin widows and orphans, and devotes the next couple weeks to casting protection from evil (a [good] spell) on them until they are cured of being evil. She can either stop there, or spend a few more weeks turning them all good. She can also redeem orcs, trolls, hillbilly ogres, zombies, gnolls, etc. in this manner, as well as cause that cleric of Asmodeus she knocked over the head to turn both chaotic and good (by casting alternating protection from law and protection from evil spells on him), and get totally rejected by Asmodeus. Entire tribes of redeemed gnolls, orcs, ogres, kobolds, goblins, etc. could be formed in this manner.
Someone who is sad that Ultima Online no longer exists, and misses the old days of player-killing and griefing, can sign up for Pathfinder Society, and have his neutral Cleric of Asmodeus cast infernal healing on Paladins who end up in the same party with him, to turn them into feat-less fighters.
Someone who wants to cast [evil] spells and not turn evil just has to bank up points of [good] spells, because the alignment mechanic has been reduced to 'cast X, turn X' and no longer has any moral or contextual relevance. Your neutral wizard cast animate dead? That's four levels of evil. Summon monster II to summon a celestial Goblin Dog or Hyena is a 2nd level [good] spell, and so he has to cast it twice to cancel out the animate dead.
Best of all, since it's the act of casting a [good] or [evil] spell that matters, and not your actions or intentions, you can sent those celestial animals to eat a bunch of nuns and orphans, and it it still counts as 'good.' Intent / results don't matter if you cast infernal healing or animate dead, after all, so, logically, it shouldn't matter if you use holy smite or holy word to kill a bunch of neutral people, if these guidelines are applied consistently. As long as the descriptor is what matters, and not the intentions or the results, go nuts!
Anywho, I'm still waiting for a ruling as to whether or not casting too many [fire] spells will turn someone into fire.
I think this is one of his "fun" post, as opposed to a serious one. The problem is that he does not always state when is not serious so it only helps give negativity to his reputation even when he is only proposing a thought exercise.
I think making Angels cry should be considered an [evil] act :-P
What if they're tears of joy?
i don't beleive alignment should be a straightjacket. but many people on these boards seem to think differently than i in that respect.
and paladins are one of my most hated straightjackets of all. i mean that entire subclasses have to be made to solve the issue.
why not just remove alignment entirely.
stop trying to merge flavor and mechanics into one form.
That's off topic. But you might as easily say that classes are a straight jacket and play gestalt characters. Why try and merge flavor and mechanics in that way either?
IMO, the 'why' is because it's 'DnD'.
i see classes as merely nothing more than packages of abilities intended to represent your character in mechanical terms.
i see no reason why a ninja has to be a japanese schoolgirl in black pajamas. it could be an middle eastern guy in a white cloak with a spring loaded dagger, it could be an assassin in service of the british secret service, hell, it could even be the malicious grandson of Thomas Edision and Nikola Tesla
i see no reason why a bard has to be a traveling performer, if i want my 'bard' to be a sickly little noble girl from a wealthy family with a higher education, so be it
i see no reason why a cleric and a priest have to be the same thing. cleric is a package of abilities, that priest could just as easily have the rogue package or even the magus package for all i care
|
|
i see classes as merely nothing more than packages of abilities intended to represent your character in mechanical terms.
This is a side topic. One more rebuttal and I'll stop... :)
i see alignment as merely nothing more than packages of behavior intended to represent your character in mechanical terms.
The point wasn't that I meant that classes should go away. My point was that certain mechanical constraints are a base assumption for the conduct of the game. You can houserule them, modify them, whatever you'd like, and I have no issue with that, but those aren't among that base assumption. Spells having an impact on alignment ARE in that category, as has been stated by Paizo many times over.
|
|
The Eagle Knights capture some Hellknights, and cast protection from law (a [chaos] spell) on them over and over until they go from lawful to neutral (and lose their Hellknight PrC abilities) and then a few more times to turn them chaotic.
I think you've interpreted it backwards. The caster gets the impact of the spell, not the target.
Best of all, since it's the act of casting a [good] or [evil] spell that matters, and not your actions or intentions, you can sent those celestial animals to eat a bunch of nuns and orphans, and it it still counts as 'good.' Intent / results don't matter if you cast infernal healing or animate dead, after all, so, logically, it shouldn't matter if you use holy smite or holy word to kill a bunch of neutral people, if these guidelines are applied consistently. As long as the descriptor is what matters, and not the intentions or the results, go nuts!
No one ever said that the actions and intentions didn't matter. Modifying your opponents position to make it easier to attack is poor form in the very least. So that's where I'll stop.
but i think behavior and personality should be decided by the player playing the character. not some random interpretation of 2 insignifficant words on a sheet of paper.
i beleive something along the lines pf L5R's 20 questions works a lot better than 2 words.
2 words are not the sum of a character's personality. nor should they be.
SET: Sorry, it sounds harsh! That's... not really my intent at all, but I'm not seeing how to reword it, so I just put notations after-the-fact.
Word.
Options;
The Eagle Knights capture some Hellknights, and cast protection from law (a [chaos] spell) on them over and over until they go from lawful to neutral (and lose their Hellknight PrC abilities) and then a few more times to turn them chaotic.
The Hellknights capture some Eagle Knights and vice the versa.
A kindly cleric of Sarenrae the Redeemer finds herself in a cave with a dozen goblin widows and orphans, and devotes the next couple weeks to casting protection from evil (a [good] spell) on them until they are cured of being evil. She can either stop there, or spend a few more weeks turning them all good. She can also redeem orcs, trolls, hillbilly ogres, zombies, gnolls, etc. in this manner, as well as cause that cleric of Asmodeus she knocked over the head to turn both chaotic and good (by casting alternating protection from law and protection from evil spells on him), and get totally rejected by Asmodeus.
Someone who is sad that Ultima Online no longer exists, and misses the old days of player-killing and griefing, can sign up for Pathfinder Society, and have his neutral Cleric of Asmodeus cast infernal healing on Paladins who end up in the same party with him, to turn them into feat-less fighters.
Set, while normally I like what I've read by you, in this case I think you're being either disingenuous (unlikely), or misunderstanding. It's not receiving the effects of the spells that change you - it's casting them. A cleric of Asmodeus can have protection from law cast on him all day long by a chaotic character and nothing happens... it's just a spell effect that applies to him. However, if begins abusing Ye Olde Wand of Protection from Law, he might start to have problems.
The way I look at this is that when you use alignment based spells, you actually tap into a fundamental element of the power being used... you actually have to 'touch' said element with your soul, thereby 'infecting' it slightly.
That's one reason there's a difference between a wizard who casts spells, and a commoner with spellcraft who makes weird gyrations and sounds with bits of disgusting things all over - the wizard actually performs magic with a portion of themselves (the meta-physical elements) while the commoner just imitates the physical elements without interacting with magic on any level.
But with things placed over you, you're not actually opening yourself up to the effects - you're having them draped on top of you.
Let's compare it to eating mud and covering oneself with it - two activities that are enjoyed around the real world today (and sometimes by the same cultures).
In one instance (that of covering oneself in mud or having someone cover you in mud), it might be great for camouflage in certain circumstances, useful in various religious or social rites, excellent decoration, and (if the right kind) healthy for the skin, if distasteful. In the other it'd taste bad and be healthy for the digestive tract... but again only if it's certain kinds of mud (and only in limited doses - like everything, use with moderation!). Those two kinds of mud are often very, very different. You don't want to eat the mud you wear, much like you don't want to wear the mud you eat. Usually. Sometimes they overlap, but that's much more unusual than utilizing either or both of those two customs.
What I'm saying is that magic is a substance. You can be "painted" with it (externally - by having the spell cast on you) and get some nice (external) benefits, while if you "digest" it (internally - via casting the spell) you gain (internal) "benefits" (i.e. alignment shifts).
Note: I'm not actually encouraging anyone to eat mud. Or paint themselves with it. Ew.
EDIT: totes ninja'd by McBobo. Well played, sir, well played.
ALSO: Shuriken Nekogami... I don't think anyone's claiming that alignment is only two words on the sheet. I think we're all claiming just the opposite. But it does constitute a valid restriction, because acting in ways that are completely opposed to one's alignment actually shifts your alignment. If you want an alignment you currently have, play it, or else lose it. Those two words come with a LOT of unspoken words and presumptions... and those unspoken elements are what the player agrees to when playing a particular alignment.
I think that Ambrus is the only one advocating not playing a character's alignment... and he's advocating that by using an NPC. That... isn't very effective. Also, an NPC will act as a GM has them act. So, while a GM could justify that X NPC does Y, he could also justify that every NPC caster* above 11th level has infinite wishes because that can be done in-game. No GM would really do so, however.
While comparing class and alignment is useful - both are game terms with rules behind them - it's also deceptive. Class shows what you can do... alignment shows what you have done or actually do.
*Actually, it doesn't even have to be a caster now. Nice.
but i think behavior and personality should be decided by the player playing the character. not some random interpretation of 2 insignifficant words on a sheet of paper.
...
2 words are not the sum of a character's personality. nor should they be.
+1
but i think behavior and personality should be decided by the player playing the character. not some random interpretation of 2 insignifficant words on a sheet of paper.
i beleive something along the lines pf L5R's 20 questions works a lot better than 2 words.
2 words are not the sum of a character's personality. nor should they be.
The book agrees:
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
Evil requires intent, or at least knowledge. At least on the part of an otherwise Good character. If the character knows nothing about how the wand was crafted, or the wicked rituals that might have gone into it, I, as GM would let it slide. Though I would probably give him a hint that something about it felt "wrong." If he did know, and he used it anyway, that's where the downward slide begins. Like taking blood money and using it to buy yourself something nice.
You can't keep using something you know came from a bad place and stay good. But then, you don't become evil immediately, either. It depends on the circumstances. Other than a paladin, I think a person can argue that a tool can be necessary up to a point. If it's the only healing available and somebody is dying, I can see it. Once removed from the situation, though, and once he is able to get something to replace it, he should. If not, I would start to question his motives.
A Neutral character would have a little more leeway. A tool is a tool to a Neutral character. Though even he can be corrupted, eventually.
but i think behavior and personality should be decided by the player playing the character. not some random interpretation of 2 insignifficant words on a sheet of paper.
i beleive something along the lines pf L5R's 20 questions works a lot better than 2 words.
2 words are not the sum of a character's personality. nor should they be.
The book agrees:
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
All that is true. But we still need these discussions in order to form, or re-affirm, our own internal guidelines on how we as GMs can use alignment, and the situations that challenge it, to propel a narrative.
GMs are people, too, and so also must be allowed their own consistencies and inconsistencies, in order to cultivate a style. Obviously, this works best when the GM and his players are all of a mind on what alignment represents. That's not always the case, but compromise is usually possible.
Ninja'd again by everybody. BUT! I posit that it's entirely due to baby-interference! Diapers called...
BUT! I posit that it's entirely due to baby-interference! Diapers called...
I believe diapers are evil.
BUT! I posit that it's entirely due to baby-interference! Diapers called...I believe diapers are evil.
In my opinion the *JEDI* are evil^!
(Eheheheh. Actually, diapers are GREAT. Just imagine what it would be like without them! *shudders*
^This is not really true.
Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that soiled diapers are evil.
Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that soiled diapers are evil.
They sacrificed themselves for the greater good of us all.
The only reason we're having this discussion is because RD is looking for a loophole to allow him to enjoy the extra benefits of infernal healing without the drawback that comes with it. (This is not a criticism, BTW; RD's munchkin posts are very insightful and extremely useful in testing the boundaries of the system. I appreciate them.)
I just wanted to point out that I don't play the game to "break it" or to otherwise make it un-fun for my friends in some other manner. I DO test the boundaries of the system (intellectually at least, almost never in an actual game).
I also wanted to clarify that I did not create this thread to "test the boundaries" for a change. It just popped into my head and I genuinely thought it would make a good discussion topic for everyone. Simple as that.
If I were doing my usual "test" I would have put it in the rules forum, rather than the general discussion forum.
It is generally accepted by most that casting [evil] tag spells regularly will have a negative impact on your alignment.
But what if my good-aligned character is using a wand of infernal healing?
He is not performing the evil ritual, calling on dark powers, or any such thing (that's already been done). He is merely saying a simple activation word aloud and healing an ally.
Therefore, I submit for discussion, that the wand wielder's alignment would be wholly unaffected (assuming he's not using it for evil purposes like massacring orphans with a wand of animate dead) and instead, it's the wand's creators that take the alignment hit (as they are the ones calling on and harnessing the powers of darkness).
What say you?
My personal opinion is that yes, it would be Evil.
it wouldn't change his ALIGNMENT in any fashion... but he should feel bad about using it.
Yes, the character did not perform the evil act, or ritual... he did not make the appropriate sacrifices and his soul is clear of all that...
however he essentially just PAID someone to do it FOR them. If you have a car that runs on the blood of children... is it an evil act to use it? you didn't BUILD it... You didn't fill the tank... But someone did. AND they made a hefty profit for doing so. On YOUR dime.
Profitable enough that he'll probably make another dozen of this 'evil' item and make MORE money.
It'd be like willfully buying things you know are made by slave labor... it's distasteful at the very least.
Now... If you kill an evil villian, and loot it off his body. Then a buddy gets hurt and you heal him... Nope. No guilt, No evil stigma attached (other then the devil blood stigma in the spell.) But if you walk into a shop and ask for a wand like that... then your pretty much supporting the process of evil.
One thing people should keep in mind is that not all evil acts are equal. Casting an [evil] spell to heal someone is only a slightly evil act. One could even argue that using the spell with a good and selfless intention makes it a neutral act. On the other hand, murdering an innocent in cold blood is an extremely evil act. I wouldn't punish a character for healing people with an [evil] spell.
What such spells do is serve as the "gateway drug" to more and more depraved actions. Some people will succumb to the temptation of rationalizing more severe transgressions, until they reach the point that they are willing to do things like murder innocents in cold blood. That's the point at which their alignment should shift toward evil. Casting spells like infernal healing shouldn't be enough, on their own, to change a character's alignment to evil, IMO.
|
|
SET: Sorry, it sounds harsh! That's... not really my intent at all, but I'm not seeing how to reword it, so I just put notations after-the-fact.
Set, while normally I like what I've read by you, in this case I think you're being either disingenuous (unlikely), or misunderstanding. It's not receiving the effects of the spells that change you - it's casting them.
Oh, I'm not at all offended by being disagreed with (especially so politely). If everyone agreed all the time, there'd be no reason for us to have language at all!
Let me counter with someone else's words, emphasis mine;
Frankly, the fact that some spells are tied to alignments is NEAT. It adds an interesting level of moral choice and philosophical tactics to the game. Do you use an evil spell to save an ally, knowing that using that evil spell might corrupt you our the ally? Or do you risk letting the ally go unhealed but untainted by evil?
I'm not inventing this concept, that having an [evil] spell cast upon you can corrupt or taint you. (Same with animate dead or create undead, which can turn the body and / or soul of a paladin into a CE life-hating monstrosity, so infernal healing isn't even breaking new sacred ground.)
This isn't a straw man or a misrepresentation. It may, however, be a reductio ad absurdum, if you don't *like* the idea of being able to change someone's alignment against their will with a 1st or 2nd level spell of the appropriate descriptor.
And, since the [evil] descriptor has no different text or mechanics than the [chaos], [good] or [law] descriptors, there is no game-mechanics reason (or even suggestion in the flavor text) that [evil] spells play by a different set of rules than spells with the other three alignment descriptors, so [chaos], [good] and [law] should be equally effective at causing someone to 'turn chaotic' or 'turn good' or 'turn lawful' if they cast them too often, or, as the quote above suggests, are targeted by them too many times.
Set, while normally I like what I've read by you, in this case I think you're being either disingenuous (unlikely), or misunderstanding. It's not receiving the effects of the spells that change you - it's casting them.
Oh, I'm not at all offended by being disagreed with (especially so politely). If everyone agreed all the time, there'd be no reason for us to have language at all!Let me counter with someone else's words, emphasis mine;
Frankly, the fact that some spells are tied to alignments is NEAT. It adds an interesting level of moral choice and philosophical tactics to the game. Do you use an evil spell to save an ally, knowing that using that evil spell might corrupt you our the ally? Or do you risk letting the ally go unhealed but untainted by evil?This isn't a straw man or a misrepresentation. It may, however, be a reductio ad absurdum, if you don't *like* the idea of being able to change someone's alignment against their will with a 1st or 2nd level spell of the appropriate descriptor.
And, since the [evil] descriptor has no different text or mechanics than the [chaos], [good] or [law] descriptors, there is no game-mechanics reason (or even suggestion in the flavor text) that [evil] spells play by a different set of rules than spells with the other three alignment descriptors, so [chaos], [good] and [law] should be equally effective at causing someone to 'turn chaotic' or 'turn good' or 'turn lawful' if they cast them too often, or, as the quote above...
I think your both right. The 'caster' of the spell is the one who is 'doing the deed'... and I've not seen anything saying you can effect other people's alignment with them (nor would I allow it in a game I ran...)
However Infernal Healing is a bit different. It specific SAYS the target gets 'tainted'
You anoint a wounded creature with devil's blood or unholy water, giving it fast healing 1. This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor. The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic, though this has no long-term effect on the target's alignment.
AND it specifically says you can't change the target's alignment with it.
Some thoughts:
-In PF/D&D, Good & Evil are tangible things, not just mental concepts/choices. Some monsters rise spontaneously from Good or Evil, while other 'normal' monsters are physically enhanced/corrupted by large amounts being present. (In fact, that's a common trope in modules.)
When you cast an Evil spell you are harnessing that tangible Evil, not just taking it into yourself, but putting it out into the world. This is an evil act, promoting not just the use, but the presence of Evil. Whether a good act done with that Evil act outweighs it is a DM question. Note that doing evil for good's sake is slippery slope that many great evil people in our history have taken, doing heinous things for 'good' reasons.
Imagine how much worse it'd be when Evil literally abides in your soul.
-Good & Evil are not blue team/red team opposites. Good people DO have a lot more restrictions in their behavior vs. evil people than evil people do vs. good. Good is the harder path, and more interesting to play for it.
-Killing an innocent baby to save the universe from a great evil is still an evil act, though (perhaps) justifiable. I say 'perhaps' because if you look at the Goodest of the Good, many of them (Jesus, Gandhi (at least as viewed through their reputations)) would rebuke such action. Deeper questions arise as to the worth of a universe that required a dead baby, whether to ignore the gambit and place faith in a greater Good/God to solve the dilemma, whether it was all a devil's sham to corrupt the potential baby-killer, et al. (As in, there is no easy answer here, but D&D/PF characters can easily have a level of faith barely achievable on Earth.)
That said, at the least the baby-killer should not rest easy with the 'practical' answer of making that trade.
Example from another universe where gods are tangible: Wonder Woman killed a villain who was using Superman to kill and destroy around the world. A villain, one who told her the only way to stop Superman was to kill himself. And it wrecked her somewhat bad, sending her into solitude for a year.
(Yes, she's not as cool as Batman, but how many people do you see him killing so more Gotham innocents don't die?)
When exactly does the ratio of those killed to those saved balance toward Good instead of Evil?
-Lastly, I love alignments. They work. Note, I don't let the players choose them. Sure those that need an alignment for their class can start with it, but it's their gameplay that determines it in the end.
(Every few levels they like to do Detect Evil on each other. Once, the wizard, who wanted to burn Nulb (a villainous town) to the ground (including the innocents, and as a long-term goal, not a whim) detected as Evil. That led to some interesting RPing, and some shock by the character herself. (The player understood, and sort of relished in the anti-Nulb throughline.)
Thanks for the interesting discussion, ya' all.
JMK
Oh, I'm not at all offended by being disagreed with (especially so politely). If everyone agreed all the time, there'd be no reason for us to have language at all!
Ah, good!
Let me counter with someone else's words, emphasis mine;
Frankly, the fact that some spells are tied to alignments is NEAT. It adds an interesting level of moral choice and philosophical tactics to the game. Do you use an evil spell to save an ally, knowing that using that evil spell might corrupt you our the ally? Or do you risk letting the ally go unhealed but untainted by evil?I'm not inventing this concept, that having an [evil] spell cast upon you can corrupt or taint you. (Same with animate dead or create undead, which can turn the body and / or soul of a paladin into a CE life-hating monstrosity, so infernal healing isn't even breaking new sacred ground.)
I can, actually, see your point, and certainly concede the above post. However I believe that the [evil] descriptor is there for multiple purposes... and certainly the corruption of something into an evil creature is inherently an evil act. The question, to me, becomes "Is there a difference between undead (like Allips or Shadows) who are inherently evil and the soul of the creature killed?" In other words - are the undead actual manifestations of the remnants of the soul of the dead? Pharasma's cult sees undeath as a blasphemy against the body, IIRC from her church's write-up, but I'm unsure about the soul. Nonetheless, I'll concede the point until such a time as I have proof.
This isn't a straw man or a misrepresentation. It may, however, be a reductio ad absurdum, if you don't *like* the idea of being able to change someone's alignment against their will with a 1st or 2nd level spell of the appropriate descriptor.
And, since the [evil] descriptor has no different text or mechanics than the [chaos], [good] or [law] descriptors, there is no game-mechanics reason (or even suggestion in the flavor text) that [evil] spells play by a different set of rules than spells with the other three alignment descriptors, so [chaos], [good] and [law] should be equally effective at causing someone to 'turn chaotic' or 'turn good' or 'turn lawful' if they cast them too often, or, as the quote above suggests, are targeted by them too many times.
Again, I can clearly see your point. Even building on it - some spells have one (or more) descriptor(s) when casting one way, but (an)other(s) entirely when cast a different one. Summon Monster II for example - summon a fiendish creature and it's evil, but summon a celestial and it's good. Does Atonement take on the descriptor of the alignment you cast it as? (It should.) However, even the spell that's specifically known for changing the target's alignment (Atonement) isn't guaranteed to work. It is, at best, a temptation toward that alignment that the character can choose or refuse at their will. There is a 3E ninth level good spell that forces an alignment change, IIRC, and, of course, there's the rather unpredictable Helm of Opposite Alignment, but over-all most spells with the descriptor don't modify others' alignments. They are good or evil because the act of performing the spell is somehow fundamentally good or evil.
To use the example of repeatedly casting a spell on someone else: could it work? Sure. Torture often works too, sadly (take Thron as an example). Desensitization works. Brainwashing. Expose someone to something enough, they get used to it. In this way such things most certainly could be used to justifiably presume the alignment change happens by repeated placement on another creature. Alternatively, repeated castings of hypnotism, or other mind-altering magic* could also work. Magically - and without magic - there are many ways to precipitate an alignment change. It's not so much "casting spell = cause them to change" in those cases, however, as it is "repeated exposure to certain moral/philosophical ideologies until such a point as to bypass the mental shields of said recipient so as to cause a change in their attitude or behavior". Very slight difference in wording, and possibly appearing to be naught but semantics, but actually rather important in making this have more verisimilitude. It's not "aligned magic creates X value" as it is "psychological change happens because that's how mortals work". Whereas casting the spell is "doing evil, therefore becoming evil" (or any alignment, really).
*Actually, I can't think of any others from PF at this time.
|
|
To use the example of repeatedly casting a spell on someone else: could it work? Sure. Torture often works too, sadly (take Thron as an example). Desensitization works. Brainwashing. Expose someone to something enough, they get used to it. In this way such things most certainly could be used to justifiably presume the alignment change happens by repeated placement on another creature. Alternatively, repeated castings of hypnotism, or other mind-altering magic* could also work. Magically - and without magic - there are many ways to precipitate an alignment change. It's not so much "casting spell = cause them to change" in those cases, however, as it is "repeated exposure to certain moral/philosophical ideologies until such a point as to bypass the mental shields of said recipient so as to cause a change in their attitude or behavior". Very slight difference in wording, and possibly appearing to be naught but semantics, but actually rather important in making this have more verisimilitude. It's not "aligned magic creates X value" as it is "psychological change happens because that's how mortals work". Whereas casting the spell is "doing evil, therefore becoming evil" (or any alignment, really).
*Actually, I can't think of any others from PF at this time.
And I get where you're coming from, as well, but I rather strongly believe that alignment is about choices, actions, and the consequences of those actions. (And that all three of these axes, choice, action *and* consequence, should be factored in. There is no choice to be evil in having infernal healing cast upon you, for instance.)
I believe that, if the game is to have good and evil (or chaos and law) to such a degree that there are angels and demons and whatnot, that good and evil should *mean something.* One shouldn't be able to 'accidentally' become good, or evil, without cheapening the entire concept of choice, free will and / or morality to irrelevance. It should always require choice, volition and either benevolent or malevolent intent, and not just happen passively.
Someone who grows up with a Paladin for a mom and a LG cleric of Sarenrae for a dad, in the goodest of good kingdoms, doesn't 'default' to good despite doing nothing good in his life, or caring a whit for others. Good isn't passive. Neither is evil. Someone who grows up Cheliax with a Hellknight for a mom and a LE cleric of Asmodeus for a dad, isn't 'passive evil' despite not caring a bit for his parents politics or philosophy. At some point, either of these kids will have to do something to 'earn their stripes' and become either good or evil, neither of them is going to become a paragon of either moral alignment by doing nothing to exemplify that alignment.
Then obviously making Fiends bleed must be a [good] act.I think making Angels cry should be considered an [evil] act :-Pif there is an infernal healing, what about a celestial healing?
just swap a vial of devil's blood for a vial of angel tears, there you go. now we can change it into a good act instead of an evil one.
problem solved.
What about when you're indulging the masochistic ones?
As for PF, alignment changing spells... Modify Memory?
Essentially you'd be using so many castings as to brainwash them into doubting their own nature. Impractical, but fun.
Sure, you can't do anything unbelievable or overtly against their nature, so you'd have to start gradually or work with things they can rationalize.
Evil to good.
"I must have given that homeless woman a g.p. because she had big ta-tas."
"Hmm, I must love kittens more than I thought." (After 2nd kitten rescue/feeding memory.)
Work in situations where he does good deeds for selfish reasons then slip in some not-so-selfish ones with the memory of pleasant feelings. At the least, he'll be confused and prone to reconsider his alignment. Reinforce with actual interaction with cute kittens, hot women who need assistance, etc. until shallowness can be extracted and altruism takes root.
Good to evil.
Well, that'd be too simple, though iffy, just crush their spirit with accidental manslaughter memories (and a memory of pissing off the priest in town they might atone to). Then, make them not so accidental. Include guilt in the memories, tinged with increasing joy. Break off other ties they have to rational or moral influences. Insert appropriate negative influence into life and link them sexually/monetarily to his well-being.
Just a thought.
It is generally accepted by most that casting [evil] tag spells regularly will have a negative impact on your alignment.
But what if my good-aligned character is using a wand of infernal healing?
He is not performing the evil ritual, calling on dark powers, or any such thing (that's already been done). He is merely saying a simple activation word aloud and healing an ally.
Therefore, I submit for discussion, that the wand wielder's alignment would be wholly unaffected (assuming he's not using it for evil purposes like massacring orphans with a wand of animate dead) and instead, it's the wand's creators that take the alignment hit (as they are the ones calling on and harnessing the powers of darkness).
What say you?
Here's how I see it (even though most tend to disagree with me). The [evil] descriptor shouldn't be viewed any differently from the [force] or [fire] descriptor.
If you cast magic missile on someone, are you now on the road from being chaotic good to chaotic force? If you cast fireball are you risking going from lawful good to fire good? No. IMHO the only consequence for casting a spell with the evil descriptor should be popping evil on detect spells for a short time after.
If you actually have to commit an evil act to cast the spell it's a different story, but here's the ultimate example of this thought to me. The spell contagion has the evil descriptor. Here's my two examples and you tell me which is really the evil one.
1. Someone seems to be about to attack me so I carefully aim a fireball, killing him and all his friends.
2. I cast contagion on him, giving him shakes. His dex being lowered so much makes him not want to attack.
"Is there a difference between undead (like Allips or Shadows) who are inherently evil and the soul of the creature killed?" In other words - are the undead actual manifestations of the remnants of the soul of the dead?
The old 3.5 flavor book for the golarion setting: The Great Beyond: a guide to the multiverse. has this to say on the subject:
Generally speaking, non-intelligent undead such as
zombies and skeletons possess no souls. ...
Intelligent incorporeal undead such as ghosts and
spectres are souls ...
Such beings as vampires and liches further exemplify the
condition, being possessed of their original mortal souls,
and still bound to a version of their corporeal form. ...
The possession of a soul implies nothing about a being’s
morality...
Mindless corporeal undead like zombies are just the animated body, mindless ghosts and such are the souls twisted through contact with the negative energy plane, and intelligent undead (both corporeal and incorporeal) also have a soul and connection to the negative energy plane, but since they are intelligent can be of any alignment.
It certainly is rare, but lawful good vampires exist.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Someone gave up a little piece of his soul to make this healing stick for you. Is that evil?
The whole 'evil' hook on this is a fun angle, but what, if any, game effect it has on your character is totally dependent on the table. Until Paizo releases the new 'Evilometer(TM)' Gamemastery accessory anyhow.
And I get where you're coming from, as well, but I rather strongly believe that alignment is about choices, actions, and the consequences of those actions. (And that all three of these axes, choice, action *and* consequence, should be factored in. There is no choice to be evil in having infernal healing cast upon you, for instance.)
I believe that, if the game is to have good and evil (or chaos and law) to such a degree that there are angels and demons and whatnot, that good and evil should *mean something.* One shouldn't be able to 'accidentally' become good, or evil, without cheapening the entire concept of choice, free will and / or morality to irrelevance. It should always require choice, volition and either benevolent or malevolent intent, and not just happen passively.
Someone who grows up with a Paladin for a mom and a LG cleric of Sarenrae for a dad, in the goodest of good kingdoms, doesn't 'default' to good despite doing nothing good in his life, or caring a whit for others. Good isn't passive. Neither is evil. Someone who grows up Cheliax with a Hellknight for a mom and a LE cleric of Asmodeus for a dad, isn't 'passive evil' despite not caring a bit for his parents politics or philosophy. At some point, either of these kids will have to do something to 'earn their stripes' and become either good or evil, neither of them is going to become a paragon of either moral alignment by doing nothing to exemplify that alignment.
Over-all, I'd agree. However, point of clarification which might make it seem like I disagree, but really is me arguing semantics for the purpose of clear communication between the two of us:
Often, functionally (depending, of course on where you live) there is very little visible difference in action or thought between those who embrace Christianity and those who do not. It all becomes rather murky, you see. Does that "alignment" go away? No. Instead, it's only in moments of great trial that said "alignment" is tested and revealed - in those moments when one who is dedicated will accept the probable martyrdom whereas one who is not will allow said faith to pass on into the world of the forgotten, while enjoying their new.
To pull a real-life example: the Roman purges of Christianity. Many of the Christians in Rome were converted "gentiles" - aka, not those of the Jewish culture - and as a result had no appreciable difference between themselves and the Roman culture around them, save for the deference to a singular deity instead of multiples. This did not cause them to free their slaves, didn't cause them to avoid the various locales dedicated to other deities, and didn't cause them to cease purchasing the cheaper meat from the temples dedicated to those other gods they didn't worship. In some eras there was persecution, but at other times there wasn't even a bit. They simply enjoyed life as Romans and functionally were identical to their neighbors, in many ways similar to modern Christianity, complete with minor hypocrisies and even occasional heresies twinned into every day life.
However, there came a breaking point, often very sudden, in which the climate completely changed. Some who claimed to be "aligned" with Christianity instead broke their faith, and left in order to become integrated into a life of ease. Others died for their beliefs. These people had been friends, neighbors, and colleagues. They had spoken, eaten, and sometimes even lived together. There was no outer difference between them... but an inner difference that eventually led to a differentiation of how they handled the stress points.
Further, it's possible to be changed. Some of those discussed above were faithful to the death. Others were faithful... almost to the death. They changed, eventually, but only after great tribulation, torture, and forceful effects. Still others were converted (away from their claimed and even lived-out faith) by threat alone.
In the reverse, in the Bible, there are some men that an apostle (a special kind of religious figure) comes across who were living like Christians, even though they'd never heard of Christ. This very much so seems to be like an "accidental" alignment: they had all the right elements and, when presented with the Truth followed it, but prior to that point had simply been living according to those elements without actually understanding them.
Now, I'm not actually disagreeing with you: in all the examples, there were points where they "earned" their "alignment". However there are people who live their entire lives without those water-shed points. They are born, raised, live, and die, and never have that moment thrust upon them where they are forced to "decide". Who are they? What happens to them? Do they not have an alignment simply because they can't be functionally differentiated from their neighbors, even if, in their hearts, both groups do the same things for different reasons?
Again, I'm actually not disagreeing with you! Alignment isn't passive. But sometimes, it appears that way, and it can simply be "passively" accepted without sharp, "watershed" points in which it is revealed to the outside world.
So, yeah, all that and I'm not actually disagreeing with you, so far, but nit-picking your word-choices! How silly!
So, to make a long story short ("TOO LATE!"), while alignment is active, and you have agency ("free will" in the parlance) in your own alignment via your actions, alignment is also active, in that it can actually take away your agency - you can be forced into another... and like it! Your actions will then follow that change and eventually confirm your alignment.
*I'm not entirely sure this happens in PF anymore, actually. Do you know? It's not a function of succubi, so much as just dying from negative levels, IIRC.
EDIT-BEFORE-POSTING: ONCE AGAIN, I AM NINJA'D BY ROUGHLY EVERYONE. NICE!
[spoiler=Relevant minor spoiler from Carrion Crown AP, don't read if you don't want to be spoiled]
It certainly is rare, but lawful good vampires exist.
Eh, they won't exist long. In Carrion Crown there is the opportunity to turn one particular vampire to good via atonement. And it works! They are lawful good! So they quickly seek to end their existence! What? But they are good again! So, if you stop them/convince them not to go through with it, what happens? They eventually return to chaotic evil and must be destroyed anyway. That... is awful.
Modify Memory!
You, <sir/madame> [choose appropriate] are a genius!
Wombatkidd, while I actually agree with you (I find certain alignment restrictions odd to say the least), but, by RAW IIRC, it's evil because "it causes undo suffering and misfortune in others". So it would be more merciful to kill them.
EDIT: Of course, that may be a legacy from an older edition, I'm not sure.
And they sparkle.
There are no lawful good sparkly vampires in Paizo's game rules and certainly none in my campaign. I'm all for house rules but this is one you can keep.Creating a Vampire
...
AL: Any evil.
I wasn't even thinking twilight, so thanks for assuming I'm a teenaged girl.
Actually there are. "Always evil" means mostmonsters of that type are evil. Just like it did in 3.5. There's not such thing as a monster race who are *all* evil.
The alignments listed for each monster in this
book represent the norm for those monsters—they can
vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of
your campaign.
It's not houseruling. I can't blame you for confusing "things in RAW I don't like" with "houserules" though. Happens all the time.
Wombatkidd, while I actually agree with you (I find certain alignment restrictions odd to say the least) RAW, it's evil because "it causes undo suffering and misfortune in others". So it would be more merciful to kill them.
Which makes sense since using the spell the way I described does the same thing as ray of enfeeblement(only more powerful). So ray of enfeeblement must have the evil descriptor too! *thumbs through the book* wait, what? ;)
Which is sort of my point, if the spell your casting with the evil descriptor doesn't require an evil act and does the same thing as a spell without it, why should your alignment enter into it?
Nothing says a chaotic cleric can't cast shield of law. Is that cleric risking becoming lawful by doing so? If you answered yes, then we disagree, which is fine. If you answered "no" then you might want to rethink how you treat the evil descriptor if you're treating the lawful descriptor differently.
Which makes sense since using the spell the way I described does the same thing as ray of enfeeblement(only more powerful). So ray of enfeeblement must have the evil descriptor too! *thumbs through the book* wait, what? ;)
Which is sort of my point, if the spell your casting with the evil descriptor doesn't require an evil act and does the same thing as a spell without it, why should your alignment enter into it?
Nothing says a chaotic cleric can't cast shield of law. Is that cleric risking becoming lawful by doing so? If you answered yes, then we disagree, which is fine. If you answered "no" then you might want to rethink how you treat the evil descriptor if you're treating the lawful descriptor differently.
Again, I agreeing: however the idea that disease is inherently an evil thing, therefore spreading it is wrong. Besides, if a lesser spell can do (effectively) the same thing, it would probably be a better choice for the non-evil by RAW. Also, I edited the above.