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.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.
The only problem is that there isn't a grater ray of enfeeblement.
Considering that using an item is a good/evil act a person not of that alignment would feel uncomfortable using such an item. Virtually every spell with an alignment descriptor would influence a person subtly, even if you are already evil casting an evil spell would arguably shift your personality over time with repeated use.
It should be mostly a roleplay consideration, having good/evil spells shift alignment is only a silly thing if your character makes such decisions trivial.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
And they sparkle.I wasn't even thinking twilight, so thanks for assuming I'm a teenaged girl.
Sorry, that whole "good vampire" genre is one huge collage of stink. I don't differentiate between that one and the other dozen or so other books that have fallen in the 'nice vampire' genre.
Thankfully neither does Paizo. Not a rules thing, just a they don't do lame thing.
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.
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.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.
Ok, so I'm curious - if "Always Evil" means that most monsters of that kind are evil, what does "Usually Evil" mean? Also, what about Evil Outsiders and Dragons?
As far as I'm aware, the only exceptions to evil members of monster races flagged as "always evil" are exceptions constructed under Rule Zero (aka GM Fiat, Plot Necessity, or Fooling Players 101). Granted, since Rule Zero exists, technically everything is RAW (in the frame of reference of a particular GM's game). That said, I've been given to understand that relying on Rule Zero for justification of the validity of a point in a forum discussion (which by its very nature is almost certain to include people from different gaming groups, and therefore different Rule Zero derivations) is considered somewhat bad form.
As far as the question of the use of a magical item to produce a spell effect tied to a spell with the [evil] descriptor is concerned, in my own games I feel that while each distinct instance of such an act is evil to some degree, there are other factors that could pertain that mitigate or negate the evil effects of the spell being cast. Also, I firmly believe that higher-level spells with the [evil] descriptor are ... more evil ... than lower level spells with the [evil] descriptor. In conjunction with that, I think that the degree to which a character's alignment should be effected by casting [evil] spells should very based on character level and spell level, as well as other factors. That is, a first level character would get a more significant impact from casting a lvl 1 [evil] spell than a 12th level character would, and I don't think that I would allow repeated castings of a low-level spell to substantially alter the alignment of a high-level character unless the castings were accompanied/complemented by other alignment-shifting actions.
Ok, so I'm curious - if "Always Evil" means that most monsters of that kind are evil, what does "Usually Evil" mean?
Unfortuneately, when they made the beastiary, they continued to use the alignment terminology found in the 3.5 monster manual without defining it in the bestiary itself. Absent of any direct changes, the 3.5 rules must still be in effect. So always means 95% or higher and usually means 50% or more.
Also, what about Evil Outsiders and Dragons?
Chromatic dragons can be good aligned, but outsiders have a specific callout in the book. (Here's the rest of the text I quoted before, but didn't find relevant at the time.)
Only in the case of relatively unintelligent
monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are
almost never anything other than neutral) and planar
monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those
listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind)
is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.
As far as I'm aware, the only exceptions to evil members of monster races flagged as "always evil" are exceptions constructed under Rule Zero (aka GM Fiat, Plot Necessity, or Fooling Players 101). Granted, since Rule Zero exists, technically everything is RAW (in the frame of reference of a particular GM's game). That said, I've been given to understand that relying on Rule Zero for justification of the validity of a point in a forum discussion (which by its very nature is almost certain to include people from different gaming groups, and therefore different Rule Zero derivations) is considered somewhat bad form.
Except that it isn't rule zero because the rules specifically state that (almost) any monster can be of any alignment.
Unless you're actually going to argue that a player can't roll up a kobold paladin because "kobolds are always lawful evil".
Sorry, that whole "good vampire" genre is one huge collage of stink.
*looks over at his "Angel" box set.*
There's always exceptions. ;)
I think that Ambrus is the only one advocating not playing a character's alignment...
Wow... That's not what I was saying at all.
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.
+1. This is in line with what I was advocating.
|
It certainly is rare, but lawful good vampires exist.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.
The Bestiary also notes that those listed alignments are not absolute.
Also, Classic Horrors Revisited touches on intelligent undead having the capacity for goodness in a sidebar under the Walking Dead chapter, so there, in-universe precedence.
The "good/non-evil monster/undead/orc/whatever = EMO ANGSTY SPARKLY TWILIGHT REFERENCE" meme needs to die in an ant mound.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think that Ambrus is the only one advocating not playing a character's alignment...Wow... That's not what I was saying at all.
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.+1. This is in line with what I was advocating.
There is little if any real game consequences to using spells with the evil descriptor. Very few people plot out alignment anymore.
I do think players should pay attention to them because they make for fun/ interesting role play queues. As a GM I let my players worry about alignment but a 'good' player who continually dips into evil spells is definitely going to get a raised eyebrow.
I think that Ambrus is the only one advocating not playing a character's alignment...Wow... That's not what I was saying at all.
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.+1. This is in line with what I was advocating.
Heh, sorry Ambrus - it was not my intent to misrepresent! In fact, what I meant by "advocating" is not "advocating" (so I was incorrect in my use of words) but rather "pointing towards", as in, you gave an example in which a character after changing his alignment didn't act according to his alignment.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Also, Classic Horrors Revisited touches on intelligent undead having the capacity for goodness in a sidebar under the Walking Dead chapter, so there, in-universe precedence.
"Capacity for goodness" == lawful good? ehhh no.
Maybe you have a soft spot in your heart for little old ladies and occasionally help them across the street, but you eat living intelligent beings to survive.
The good/non-evil monster/undead/orc/whatever = EMO ANGSTY SPARKLY TWILIGHT REFERENCE meme needs to die in a fire.
I can deal with "You are a vampire who was formerly a good person and constantly struggles this evil which you have become."
I can even deal with labeling this creature neutral because it tries to be selective about who it kills.
But he said "Lawful Good" vampires. Which is neither of those.
Personally, I can't stand this whole pop culture trend of "Vampires can be good"... it grates on my nerves. You are more than welcome to adopt it in your game. Thankfully, I don't think we will ever see anything along those lines from Paizo.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anything that makes the game world smaller (X is always Y) or limits options for compelling storytelling, I don't really care much for.
Anything that makes being good *easy,* such as always knowing that you are in the moral right to kill X without ever stopping to consider the consequences of your behavior, I consider to be weakening and cheapening the whole point of calling yourself good.
Good shouldn't be easy, or sloppy, or careless, or mindless.
It shouldn't always be hard, either. Every minute of every day doesn't have to be yet another contrived moral or ethical dilemna. A paladin (or other good character) shouldn't feel like the entire game is 'out to get them' or an endless parade of quandaries designed to strip them of their class abilities or 'make them fall.'
But, sometimes, there should be choice involved. Maybe even an uncomfortable decision, or a crisis of faith, or a moment of doubt, or a willingness to sacrifice.
The decision to be good shouldn't be meaningless.
It should be a journey, not a foregone conclusion.
As always, add IMO, to the end of every sentence that starts with a capital letter. :)
|
|
Also, Classic Horrors Revisited touches on intelligent undead having the capacity for goodness in a sidebar under the Walking Dead chapter, so there, in-universe precedence."Capacity for goodness" == lawful good? ehhh no.
Maybe you have a soft spot in your heart for little old ladies and occasionally help them across the street, but you eat living intelligent beings to survive.
Or the blood of animals.
The good/non-evil monster/undead/orc/whatever = EMO ANGSTY SPARKLY TWILIGHT REFERENCE meme needs to die in a fire.I can deal with "You are a vampire who was formerly a good person and constantly struggles this evil which you have become."
I can even deal with labeling this creature neutral because it tries to be selective about who it kills.
But he said "Lawful Good" vampires. Which is neither of those.
Or you can have a vampire that fights against its unnatural hungers and uses a strict code of honor/conduct/faith to accomplish just that.
Don't like it, don't use it, but FFS the "YOUR FUN IS WRONG" crap on these forums is damn tiresome.
Don't like it, don't use it, but FFS the "YOUR FUN IS WRONG" crap on these forums is damn tiresome.Couldn't agree more. It's late and I guess I'm cranky.
In any case, the point wasn't that lawful good vampires were the norm. Using the 95% evil rule that means about 2.55 would be neutral and 2.5% would be good in regards to the good evil axis. And roughly .8 of a percent would be lawful good. This is assuming even distribution. Of course, being connected to the negative energy plane would have some influence so it's probably distributed more like 4% neutral and 1% good with maybe 10% of the good ones being lawful. That would mean 1/1000 vampires would be lawful good.
He has to exist statistically, but most people who spent their entire lives hunting down vampires would never meet a lawful good one.
Of course, this side conversation was a complete missing of my point. Tacticslion asked:
are the undead actual manifestations of the remnants of the soul of the dead?
The answer is: mindless undead are just the body. The soul has moved on. Incorporable undead are the soul. Intelligent undead still have their soul.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The whole "Bad *vampire/werewolf/whatever* turned good" trope is vastly overplayed in popular media. Right now there are more movies/ shows that involve 'nice' vampires than actual evil ones... essentially vampires are not evil anymore.
People who like classic vampires don't like this whole watered down vision of armies of 'good' vampires.
Not trying to criticize your game-play but essentially that is in a nutshell why many gamers don't care for the whole trope.
What 95% evil rule?
You're right! It's 98%. How silly of me. It's the rule for what "always chaotic evil" means from 3.0 that's never been specifically changed.
That being said: that changes my math a bit (a lot): 1.8% would be neutral. 0.2% would be good. 10% of those would be lawful. For a total of 0.02% being lawful good. That is roughly 1/5000 would be lawful good.
The whole "Bad *vampire/werewolf/whatever* turned good" trope is vastly overplayed in popular media. Right now there are more movies/ shows that involve 'nice' vampires than actual evil ones... essentially vampires are not evil anymore.
People who like classic vampires don't like this whole watered down vision of armies of 'good' vampires.
Not trying to criticize your game-play but essentially that is in a nutshell why many gamers don't care for the whole trope.
I'd like to know how one can define 1/5000 as being "armies." Heck, I've never even used a good vampire in a campaign. But I've always been aware of the statistical possibility for the existence of one. It's written right into the monster manual for crying out loud. At the rate they would exist, you could search a lifetime and never find one. In fact, you have the same chance of being struck by lightning IRL as someone who's actively looking for a lawful good vampire in Golarion has of ever finding one in their entire lifetime. I fail to see how that's world breaking.
Fun with Statistics
Eh, in-canon it actually seems even less likely than this. I'd say more, but I don't want to give the same spoiler I've done already.
Of course, this side conversation was a complete missing of my point. Tacticslion asked:
are the undead actual manifestations of the remnants of the soul of the dead?The answer is: mindless undead are just the body. The soul has moved on. Incorporable undead are the soul. Intelligent undead still have their soul.
Thanks! Clear-cut and to the point.
Anything that makes being good *easy,* such as always knowing that you are in the moral right to kill X without ever stopping to consider the consequences of your behavior, I consider to be weakening and cheapening the whole point of calling yourself good.
Upon rereading my post about moral quandries, it does look like I'm advocating that it should be easy... I'm not. However what I'm claiming is more like...
It shouldn't always be hard, either. Every minute of every day doesn't have to be yet another contrived moral or ethical dilemna. A paladin (or other good character) shouldn't feel like the entire game is 'out to get them' or an endless parade of quandaries designed to strip them of their class abilities or 'make them fall.'
Effectively, in-canon, unless there are good reasons to presume otherwise, people have more than enough justification to kill most orcs or goblinoids or other similar creatures they have based off of history. The world as written is often a hard, unpleasant place and many are the accidental casualties taken in the name of "safety". It doesn't make all those who do them evil... it just means they haven't attained our level of sensibilities, yet. That said, if all characters are doing is looking to spill blood... yuck.
Good shouldn't be easy, or sloppy, or careless, or mindless.
...
But, sometimes, there should be choice involved. Maybe even an uncomfortable decision, or a crisis of faith, or a moment of doubt, or a willingness to sacrifice.The decision to be good shouldn't be meaningless.
It should be a journey, not a foregone conclusion.
Often, this. +1... usually. Sometimes it's fine that it's a foregone conclusion... but yes, mostly I agree with this.
Generally, I'd say I side with Set and Mikaze, over all.
The whole "Bad *vampire/werewolf/whatever* turned good" trope is vastly overplayed in popular media. Right now there are more movies/ shows that involve 'nice' vampires than actual evil ones... essentially vampires are not evil anymore.People who like classic vampires don't like this whole watered down vision of armies of 'good' vampires.
Not trying to criticize your game-play but essentially that is in a nutshell why many gamers don't care for the whole trope.
Sorry, Dennis, but I personally disagree. For one, from what I can most of the time, the over-saturated vampires (or similar) are evil, or, at best, morally ambiguous. There are a few overly-hyped cases... but these are not the norm.
Number two: there are many instances in myth and legend where what is normally considered an "evil" creature instead is a helpful or semi-benevolent force. While most of these have been relegated to the realm of the vile, that's primarily due to the clash of paganism with Roman-Christian culture... in more than one instance what was seen as evil (and pagan/barbaric) now was seen as useful, helpful, or even unambiguously good in older legends. Certainly not all, I grant.
Number three: Game vampires are nothing like myth vampires.
* Original myth vampires (IIRC) are: a) spirits who haunt the living and slowly devour their life until their bodies are dug up and their bones disturbed and/or disrupted or b) what we would call "mystical, intelligent zombies" (and occasionally a guardian of their family - not evil).
* Post-Bram Stoker vampires are: capable of sucking blood, have huge strength, are effectively immortal, drink blood, can turn into a large dog (a mastiff), and can't stand strong smells (like garlic), many kinds of water (moving bodies, holy, running, etc, but not fog, rain, or other atmospheric water), sunlight, and holy symbols and are killed in a large number of ways very similar to humans. They have some minor telepathic abilities. They have no ability to summon animals, to turn into vapor, don't need a coffin (per se) and can't drain life force (outside of draining blood) - and certainly not by slapping you around.
* Modern vampires are: sexy, sexual, sensual, powerful, and everything you want to be, only usually evil. Also they have a wide array of powers and abilities that range from the highly dubious to the "that kind of makes sense", depending on the audience. There really is no single uniform definition for vampires any more.
* Game vampires are their own creature, and they don't really fit into any of the above molds. They are closest to modern vampires - which makes sense, considering the game is pretty modern - but they also hold strong elements from Bram Stoker's stuff too. And stuff that nothing but weird movies attribute to them. And the ability to drain your levels. By slapping your face. Wieeeeeeeeerd. In fact, outside of the level drain, vampire spawn are really the closest of the vampire kinds to Bram Stoker's concept.
Besides - I don't think anyone here is calling for "armies" of "good" vampires. But one or two doesn't hurt.
Anyway... that's my view. Hope it helps!
EDIT:
I'd like to know how one can define 1/5000 as being "armies." Heck, I've never even used a good vampire in a campaign. But I've always been aware of the statistical possibility for the existence of one. It's written right into the monster manual for crying out loud. At the rate they would exist, you could search a lifetime and never find one. In fact, you have the same chance of being struck by lightning IRL as someone who's actively looking for a lawful good vampire in Golarion has of ever finding one in their entire lifetime. I fail to see how that's world breaking.
I think he's referring to the thing in Twilight where I think two armies of vampires clash against one another over Bella... for some reason... or something. I don't know. I've just seen reviews of the movie.
stuff about vampires in a lengthy spoiler
Don't forget that the way vampires are treated in the media is a cyclic trope. as tv tropes says "Vampires cycle between soulless predatory monsters and angst-filled romantic woobies"
"Omitted" is just exactly that. It doesn't mean you inherit previous edition stuff.
They kept the verbiage exactly the same but stopped printing the nice precise number with it. What number would you rather I use for my math?
edit:
I think he's referring to the thing in Twilight where I think two armies of vampires clash against one another over Bella... for some reason... or something. I don't know. I've just seen reviews of the movie.
Don't bother. If you have any interest at all in the concept of twilight just watch the first two season of Buffy the Vampire slayer. It's the concept done properly (and years earlier. Although it's not like a vampire and human falling in love was a new idea then either.)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
They kept the verbiage exactly the same but stopped printing the nice precise number with it. What number would you rather I use for my math?
There is no math.
"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."
They vary as you require them.
I wasn't referring to the armies of crappy shows/ movies/ books about good vampires, not any specific genre.
They kept the verbiage exactly the same but stopped printing the nice precise number with it. What number would you rather I use for my math?There is no math.
"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."
They vary as you require them.
Which is what I said in the first place, so why are you arguing about this and wasting my time?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Which is what I said in the first place, so why are you arguing about this and wasting my time?They kept the verbiage exactly the same but stopped printing the nice precise number with it. What number would you rather I use for my math?There is no math.
"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."
They vary as you require them.
You said there was some 95% rule. I wanted to know where you got it from.
Edit: I was letting it drop then you posted your numbers and percentages as if it was codified into the rules that a certain percentage are there.
You said there was some 95% rule. I wanted to know where you got it from.
You started this argument long before that. Read up the thread.
Tacticslion asked about undead and souls. I answered him and added that intelligent undead, being intelligent, can rise above their connection to the negative energy plane and be good since they still have their soul. And also added that this would be very rare.
Your response was
There are no lawful good sparkly vampires in Paizo's game rules
I responded to that with the quote you just used, which says that the alignment restriction for a monster is pretty much meaningless, and you've been arguing that lawful good intelligent undead being possible isn't raw ever since. Even though your own use of the quote just now is an admission that it is!
So either I've convinced you it is, or you knew it was all along and just wanted to argue. Take your pick.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I was going to just let it drop then you started in with numbers from ancient game systems which gave me a serious WTF moment.
Since you seem mixed up a bit "What 95% rule?" is a question, not an argument.
Good people do and enjoy doing good things. A good person who does evil regrets it, sees evil done and hates it, has evil done to them and despises it. Good people present themselves as good people.
Evil people do and enjoy doing evil things. An evil person who does good regrets it, sees good done and hates it, has good done to them and despises it. Evil people present themselves as whatever is suitable for their purposes.
Neutral people are not particularly enamored with either. Neutral people think all this squabbling over alignment is sad because extremes should be avoided. Neutral people either present themselves as trying to bring the edges together through a means of their own devising, or just would rather be left the **** alone.
The complexity only comes through lying to yourself, regardless of intention, reason, or lack thereof concerning what you really want. Lying to yourself is a very common way of dealing with guilt about doing something that you despise. Revealing the lie renews the guilt and pain of the aforementioned despicable act, and in the case of good people, the lie itself may do this for a greater shame. Revealing hidden things is terribly dramatic, and makes for compelling storytelling.
@RD Saying the evil wand has no evil effect on good people is boring. Using evil things for good purposes promotes balance, and is inherently neutral.
You haven't convinced me of anything. I still think 'good' vampires are a lame, played out concept. But as Mikaze says, to each his own.
I was going to just let it drop then you started in with numbers from ancient game systems which gave me a serious WTF moment.Since you seem mixed up a bit "What 95% rule?" is a question, not an argument.
Except you haven't just been arguing their lame. You've been arguing they're against RAW.
...There are no lawful good sparkly vampires in Paizo's game rules
...Thankfully neither does Paizo. Not a rules thing, just a they don't do lame thing.
..."Capacity for goodness" == lawful good? ehhh no.
Maybe you have a soft spot in your heart for little old ladies and occasionally help them across the street, but you eat living intelligent beings to survive.
You said intelligent undead can't be good by RAW, you are wrong. Instead of admitting it you're trying to reframe what you've been saying.
And focusing on the 95% thing is completely missing the point. If I wanted to give an accurate number I would have used even distribution of my calculations. My actual point was that it affects the game world so little that arguing against it is so petty as to be childish.
Let me back up my interpretation with the appropriate rules quote:
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.Emphasis mine. By the time he's neutral, his baby-killing days are over. He's not up to baby-saving yet (that would be good), but his new alignment significantly hinders his desire to do wholly evil acts.
so if I save 5 babies a week and kill 1?
how about save 20? 100? 1000?|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Except you haven't just been arguing their lame. You've been arguing they're against RAW.
No, you've been arguing abut rules. I made a single comment about *rules* and never said a single thing about rules since then. Well beyond asking you to clarify the 95% bit you pulled from history.
It's funny, one of the quotes you pulled even says "it's not a rules thing".
You said intelligent undead can't be good by RAW, you are wrong. Instead of admitting it you're trying to reframe what you've been saying.
Actually I said there are none, and there are not. They do leave the possibility that one might exist, but they do not actually have any intelligent undead in the rules.
Random additions to OP discussion:
Evil beings can, with joy, try to manipulate and corrupt good (spells/energy/people/et al) for their own ends, or for Evil in general.
The reverse isn't true.
So, yeah, I can see a bad guy using a good wand, trying to mask his own evil (selfish act). I wouldn't have it work, but he probably should try (assuming his Spellcraft and Knowledge skills were poor).
(I even remember some 1st ed. modules where BBEGs regularly took 'Pro. Evil' because of all the demon summoning they did or because of the 'allies' they had.)
In the mirror case, I couldn't see a good guy doing unselfish acts regularly with an evil wand. Nor could I see a good character using 'Pro. Good'. Ever. (Mind control aside, I suppose) Using evil for good should only be out of desperation, not out of 'practicality'.
(As per Planescape: Torment's end scenes, if an action is 'practical' there's a good chance it's evil. Think about it...)
I also don't see evil people (outside of Clerics/Anti-Paladins) actually promoting evil so much as self. Some just have a fiercer/distrustful view of how the world works, and are doing what's 'right' in order to 'succeed' (whatever that means to them) by doing these evil things 'that anybody would do if they could' or 'before it gets done to me'. They're more likely callous than gloating, and they do evil because it rewards them, not because they 'like' it.
This makes an interesting mechanic in PF because what does an evil person who knows he's acting 'right' (according to his world view) think when the Paladin says "Hey, you're a tad evil, buddy."
Does he think the Paladin's lying? (Probably. Because 'everybody' lies to get what they want. Paladins just mask it better/have everyone fooled.)
There are no alignment mechanics outside of which spells effect which beings. It has to be DM controlled, and that shouldn't be a matter of tally marks and rolls, but rather discussion and RPing. There's no other way to adjudicate all the possibilities, and it's more fun too.
Thanks again for the interesting discussion (at least for those not yapping at each other... sigh)
JMK
|
|
Random additions to OP discussion:
Evil beings can, with joy, try to manipulate and corrupt good (spells/energy/people/et al) for their own ends, or for Evil in general.
The reverse isn't true.
So good people, in your setting, do not attempt to convert / redeem / proselytize to / 'save the souls' of those that fail to live up their tenets, or that they consider to be engaged in immoral or risky or wicked behaviors (like listening to rock music or playing D&D or wearing black or having the sex), and turn them towards good?
It would be a strange, strange (and kinda dark and Taliban-y) setting where only evil people try to convert people to their side, while good people settle for just killing anyone who doesn't live up to their standards...
Random additions to OP discussion:
Evil beings can, with joy, try to manipulate and corrupt good (spells/energy/people/et al) for their own ends, or for Evil in general.
The reverse isn't true.So good people, in your setting, do not attempt to convert / redeem / proselytize to / 'save the souls' of those that fail to live up their tenets, or that they consider to be engaged in immoral or risky or wicked behaviors (like listening to rock music or playing D&D or wearing black or having the sex), and turn them towards good?
It would be a strange, strange (and kinda dark and Taliban-y) setting where only evil people try to convert people to their side, while good people settle for just killing anyone who doesn't live up to their standards...
The key part of the quote is "for their own ends", and the verbs in question, then later contrasted with the 'unselfish acts' of the good person. Of course good tries to redeem evil, but not through manipulation/corruption. (in theory... reality's a bit murkier...)
Evil works for itself, not for evil's sake.Good works for good's sake, not for itself.
So yes, good folk work to turn people toward good (and away from D&D :P), but given the real world examples you gave, I wouldn't call those 'good' causes except in the sense that those people 'think' it's for good and 'good' for the person they're addressing.
As for good people using evil methods (as would be the 'reverse' I mentioned), even if for a greater good and not oneself, I don't see that being an option. Ends don't justify the means and all that.
(Again, real world murky and full of murder and deception for 'moral' causes. Keeping to philosophical 'truths' of fantasy world.)