Wands make you evil?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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?

Shadow Lodge

That's an excellent grey area. Very nice.

In my opinion, the action matters more than the spell in this case. Using a wand to heal someone probably isn't evil, though it could be such as in Prometheus's case.

On the other hand, infernal healing appears to be infusing the target with a devil's blood so they may benefit from their natural healing traits.

infernal healing wrote:
This uncommon spell is granted by Asmodeus. It uses the blood of a devil to grant a creature a fiend's ability to quickly heal wounds for one minute.

That's not so nice.

So even though he's not performing the ritual or whatever, he is inflicting someone with something rather corrupt.

I'd probably rule that the first use of such a thing would have no impact. "It seemed like a good idea at the time." But after seeing what it does to the target, repeated uses of it should impact alignment.

IMO, anyway...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd say, as with so many parts of the game, that it's up to the GM. (Leaving so much up to the GM is what helps our rulebooks from being thousands of pages longer than they are, really.)

When I'm the GM, I'd still say it's an evil act to use an [evil] spell from a wand. Maybe not as [evil] as actually preparing or casting it, though.

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?


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Thanks for the input, James, McBobbo.


a very good question and you picked about the only spell whose effects would make this questionable.

Most spells with the evil descriptor have obviously evil effects, so casting Rape Kittens from a spell or wand makes little difference. But this is just a healing effect, plus there are no flavor descriptions of anything wicked happening, just you gain fast healing like that of a devil.

so an excellent gray area, though personally I'd still say using the wand is a evil action. I wouldn't force an alignment shift certainly, unless they used the whole thing in one sitting, but I'd ask the player to start think about how using a vile item might start to effect them.


if 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.


On the one hand, you are directly benefiting from the Evil acts that went into producing the wand.

On the other hand, what is done is done, and you still may be able to do some good with it... that always works out in history and fantasy...

I say Evil is Evil, and wand staff scroll, item, etc. is just a detail.


I would rule that the use of the wand would, in fact, make the good aligned character evil. While I would explain it as the action of using the wand, knowing the spell that the wand cast, was the evil action. From a non-RP standpoint I would just explain that I don't want to allow a loophole around the use of the evil spells by good characters.

Shadow Lodge

yukongil wrote:
But this is just a healing effect, plus there are no flavor descriptions of anything wicked happening, just you gain fast healing like that of a devil.

Do we disagree, or did you not see the part about devil's blood?


[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]

Shadow Lodge

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

if 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.

Yes, if such a spell exists, that would be rather elegant. Except that it should, in all fairness, present the opposite problem for an evil character's uses of it.


mcbobbo wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

if 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.

Yes, if such a spell exists, that would be rather elegant. Except that it should, in all fairness, present the opposite problem for an evil character's uses of it.

and an even better idea would be to drop both and just bring back the vigor line from the 3.5 spell compendium.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

It's really up to the GM of that given siutation.

However, as a GM I have come across many moral situations. I would agree with Mcbobbo that using it as a reaction would not necesarily change their alignment, but after repeated use and knowing what they are using.

The person who is running a good aligned cleric in my campaign knows that is how I work, so whenever he comes across an evil object he wants to destroy it for his goddess, even to the dismay of the other characters. But because of my previous rulings as a GM, he is more apt to role-play the moral aspects of his character. By making the tough decision of making it affect their alignment, the GM reinforces their character's nature.


Ambrus wrote:
[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]

That is what the math seems to add up to.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Ambrus wrote:
[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]
That is what the math seems to add up to.

On the other hand, assuming that we're using alignment to influence actual behavior and not merely as a game mechanic, it would actually turn such a BBEG good. I don't think he'd want that to happen. But it might make for a unique redemption path. Accidentally, by way of using good magic, when faced with no other option.

OOH! Imagine an evil villain rehabilitation program! Instead of making license plates, they use wands to heal the sick and pitiful. Some of the good rubs off on them, and it's a societal double-win.

:D


Ambrus wrote:
[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]

That's one of the main problems I have with alignment in Roleplaying games. If you're good or neutral using an evil spell/item or doing an evil act makes you evil, but rarely is the converse true for evil characters.

Of course that's pretty much true in real life as well. You could saving a dozen people from a burning building, donate millions of dollars to charity, and be the nicest guy that anyone's ever meet, but you kill one baby...

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Shadow Lodge

GravesScion wrote:


Of course that's pretty much true in real life as well. You could saving a dozen people from a burning building, donate millions of dollars to charity, and be the nicest guy that anyone's ever meet, but you kill one baby...

The beauty of the 'black and white' alignment system, though, is that this wouldn't ever happen. The contradictory actions would be ruled 'out of character', hopefully by a consensus of the entire table, and simply wouldn't materialize in the game world.

Ergo, better than real life. Aka 'fantasy'...


mcbobbo wrote:


On the other hand, assuming that we're using alignment to influence actual behavior and not merely as a game mechanic, it would actually turn such a BBEG good. I don't think he'd want that to happen. But it might make for a unique redemption path. Accidentally, by way of using good magic, when faced with no other option.

OOH! Imagine an evil villain rehabilitation program! Instead of making license plates, they use wands to heal the sick and pitiful. Some of the good rubs off on them, and it's a societal double-win.

:D

Until the DM makes meteors kill everyone that is.


mcbobbo wrote:
it would actually turn such a BBEG good. I don't think he'd want that to happen.

It'd only happen if he went overboard with the good stuff. If he ever started feeling (gasp) guilt about his evil deeds, he'd simply have to cast a sufficient number of protection from good spells to rid himself of the troublesome guilty feelings. All things in moderation.

GravesScion wrote:
That's one of the main problems I have with alignment in Roleplaying games. If you're good or neutral using an evil spell/item or doing an evil act makes you evil, but rarely is the converse true for evil characters.

That's largely because most only consider the negative ramifications of good characters using evil spells/items. But if we accept that such things can viably shift alignments by virtue of their evil nature alone, then the opposite must also be true. Which opens the door to all sorts of interesting (i.e. cheesy) good spell/item abuse by evil NPCs.

GravesScion wrote:
You could saving a dozen people from a burning building, donate millions of dollars to charity, and be the nicest guy that anyone's ever meet, but you kill one baby...

Eh. How many protection from evil spells is needed to wipe away the pesky stain on one's soul from a single baby killing? 10? 20? 50? No big deal; it's still less than an hour and 750 gp to cleanse one's soul. One just has to balance one's heinous baby murders with a commensurate number of "good" spells and one can remain comfortably Neutral indefinitely.

See, this is what bothers me about the notion that casting aligned spells can shift one's alignment regardless of how they're used; the results can lead to ridiculous scenarios. Shifting one's alignment shouldn't be as easy as casting a bunch of spells. I for one would be pretty peeved to be playing a paladin on the trail of a notorious serial killer only to discover the BBEG in his lair next to a pile of expended "good" wands and he being immune to my detect evil and smite abilities because he offset his evil deeds by casting good spells as needed.


Ambrus wrote:
Eh. How many protection from evil spells is needed to wipe away the pesky stain on one's soul from a single baby killing? 10? 20? 50? No big deal; it's still less than an hour and 750 gp to cleanse one's soul. One just has to balance one's heinous baby murders with a commensurate number of "good" spells and one can remain comfortably Neutral (and smite-proof) indefinitely.

I think the idea is that if he cast enough of those spells, he would no longer have the desire to keep killing babies.

IOW, casting good spells doesn't just make you APPEAR non-evil, it actively MAKES you non-evil.


AvalonXQ wrote:
I think the idea is that if he cast enough of those spells, he would no longer have the desire to keep killing babies.

Sure. But only if he casts too many "good" spells. He'd simply stop using the good spells once he's comfortably neutral and still able to enjoy his baby killing hobby. No need to go overboard with the good stuff; those wand charges don't pay for themselves after all.


yukongil wrote:
...so casting Rape Kittens from a spell or wand makes little difference...

I have nothing to contribute, but HOLY CRAP!


Ambrus wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
I think the idea is that if he cast enough of those spells, he would no longer have the desire to keep killing babies.
Sure. But only if he casts too many "good" spells. He'd simply stop using the good spells once he's comfortably neutral and still able to enjoy his baby killing hobby.

I disagree that there is any such point.

A neutral character cannot enjoy a baby-killing hobby. A character enjoying a baby-killing hobby is evil.

It's simply a question of line-drawing. You seem to want to allow him to keep his evil personality even while his alignment shifts to neutral; I disagree that that's possible (his personality would have significantly shifted by the time he made the alignment-shift to neutral).


Let me back up my interpretation with the appropriate rules quote:

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.

Shadow Lodge

AvalonXQ wrote:

I disagree that there is any such point.

A neutral character cannot enjoy a baby-killing hobby. A character enjoying a baby-killing hobby is evil.

It's simply a question of line-drawing. You seem to want to allow him to keep his evil personality even while his alignment shifts to neutral; I disagree that that's possible (his personality would have significantly shifted by the time he made the alignment-shift to neutral).

Yeah, this. Also such a character is assumed to want to be their alignment. Or, more precisely, their alignment is supposed to reflect the behavioral portion of their personality.

If you're evil, you like being evil. Otherwise you're not actually evil because alignment is a reflection of who you are. 'Playing within alignment' mostly just means picking a character concept and sticking to it.

Casting aligned magic changes the fabric of who you are. That's why it is aligned in the first place. To effect that change. It's a spell with an agenda.

So I think AvalonXQ has hit the nail on the head. You're looking at alignment as a choice. I see it more as a stat on the character sheet. Modifiable, sure, but the characters don't really know that. They're just focusing on who they are and who they want to be.


AvalonXQ wrote:
You seem to want to allow him to keep his evil personality even while his alignment shifts to neutral; I disagree that that's possible (his personality would have significantly shifted by the time he made the alignment-shift to neutral).

You've missed my point. I contend that the entire notion of shifting one's moral and ethical viewpoint simply by casting any number of spells with the alignment descriptor is ridiculous. If the casting of such spells don't produce any good or evil results in their casting (such as, say, saving an innocent life or slaying a villain) then they shouldn't have any effect at all on a character's alignment no matter how many are cast. Only a person's intentions and actions should have any impact on their alignment. Spells are merely tools, just as are weapons; it's what people choose to do with those tools which determines whether they're good, neutral or evil alignment-wise.


Ambrus wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
You seem to want to allow him to keep his evil personality even while his alignment shifts to neutral; I disagree that that's possible (his personality would have significantly shifted by the time he made the alignment-shift to neutral).
You've missed my point. I contend that the entire notion of shifting one's moral and ethical viewpoint simply by casting any number of spells with the alignment descriptor is ridiculous. If the casting of such spells don't produce any good or evil results in their casting (such as, say, saving an innocent life or slaying a villain) then they shouldn't have any effect at all on a character's alignment no matter how many are cast. Only a person's intentions and actions should have any impact on their alignment. Spells are merely tools, just as are weapons; it's what people choose to do with those tools which determines whether they're good, neutral or evil alignment-wise.

That's certainly a fair point.

The problem is that, in trying to make your point, you illustrated a loophole in the rules that's not actually there. The rules don't allow characters to shift from evil to neutral and still generally behave evil as if nothing has changed.

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.

Shadow Lodge

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i would consider casting infernal healing to save a save a dying innocents life a good act. the good intent supersedes the evil descriptor.

I think everyone is in agreement that a single use of the infernal healing spell shouldn't impact alignment. Repeated use, however, would display intent, even by your own standards.

I don't think they have to be separate. Each plays a role.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the wand."


Ravingdork wrote:

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?

Casting an evil spell from a wand instead of from you or a scroll does not make it any less evil. The GM can say the good outweighs the bad, but the use of an evil spell is alway an evil acts.


i agree with ambrus that it should be all about intent.

commiting evil acts and buying indulgences doesn't make you any less evil.

but i consider more than just a spell's descriptors in the act. if you were using infernal healing to help an innocent, or to help your companion in the name of good. i would consider it a good act. screw the fact that the spell has the evil descriptor.

if you are using a wand of protection from evil to act as an indulgence for your crime. i would rule that the indulgence fails because the divine forces beyond the cosmos would not make false penance so trivial. you would remain evil for the massive amount of evil sins you commited.

if taking the life of an otherwise defenseless, innocent child was the only way to save the world from destruction by a powerful evil force. i would consider this a good act as well.

using enchantment spells to make that comely elven lass become your personal sex slave against her will is never a good act. nor is it neutral. i would consider it evil because you are stripping away one's freedom to make there own decision in a major matter. and causing a great deal of trauma when the painful memories return.

i would allow repeated use of infernal healing for good purposes, as long as the intentions are pure. or else various anti hero archtypes couldn't be played.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

If if a Anti-Paladin casts Protection from Evil from a wand, does he lose his Anti-Paladin status? :-)

Edit: Replaced Blackguard with Anti-Paladin for clarity.


Matthew Morris wrote:
If if a Blackguard casts Protection from Evil from a wand, does he lose his Blackguard status? :-)

only if he uses it repeatedly with good intent behind each use. using it to help in a battle with another villian with the intent of proving himself better fit is an okay example of how it can be used.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Zexcir wrote:

It's really up to the GM of that given siutation.

However, as a GM I have come across many moral situations. I would agree with Mcbobbo that using it as a reaction would not necesarily change their alignment, but after repeated use and knowing what they are using.

Unless you are activating it blindly with UMD, you MUST know what spell is in a wand before using it, don't you?

Shadow Lodge

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
if you were using infernal healing to help an innocent, or to help your companion in the name of good. i would consider it a good act. screw the fact that the spell has the evil descriptor.

And that's a fine house rule, but you might want to look into the balance of certain spells as a result. Those descriptors might have been taken into consideration during design, and if so, removing them should probably have consequences.

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:


i would allow repeated use of infernal healing for good purposes, as long as the intentions are pure. or else various anti hero archtypes couldn't be played.

Repetitious corruption of another via devil's blood probably cannot be of 'pure' intention. That's a just-plain bad thing to do to someone who doesn't want to be a devil. In fact, they'd probably feel the evil in the spell wash over them and be unhappy about that.

Sometimes people do dirty things in the name of good. From my understanding of the alignment framework, though, that doesn't make them less evil. Take the crusades, the inquisition, Salem witch trials, etc etc etc.

Shadow Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
Unless you are activating it blindly with UMD, you MUST know what spell is in a wand before using it, don't you?

Now, THAT's an excellent point as well. Wouldn't such a wand probably be black, twisted, and dripping foul substances?


mcbobbo wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Unless you are activating it blindly with UMD, you MUST know what spell is in a wand before using it, don't you?
Now, THAT's an excellent point as well. Wouldn't such a wand probably be black, twisted, and dripping foul substances?

There is a 30% chance of that, yes.


i see no mechanical reason for infernal healing to have the evil descriptor. i would remove it and allow the option of angel tears instead of devil blood for those who don't want to be a devil.

we could rename it

infernal/celestial healing

extraplanar vigor

or whatever else you feel like.


Ravingdork wrote:
Zexcir wrote:

It's really up to the GM of that given siutation.

However, as a GM I have come across many moral situations. I would agree with Mcbobbo that using it as a reaction would not necesarily change their alignment, but after repeated use and knowing what they are using.

Unless you are activating it blindly with UMD, you MUST know what spell is in a wand before using it, don't you?

After you use it the first time you most likely know what it is.

If somehow your character did not know then I would not hold it against you.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i see no mechanical reason for infernal healing to have the evil descriptor.

Infernal healing is more powerful than regular healing but has the drawback of being specifically granted by an evil god. A more powerful effect is an excellent mechanical reason for a drawback. Flavoring the spell as being specifically granted by Asmodeus gives excellent support for the whole "dealing with the Devil".

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.)


AvalonXQ wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i see no mechanical reason for infernal healing to have the evil descriptor.

Infernal healing is more powerful than regular healing but has the drawback of being specifically granted by an evil god. A more powerful effect is an excellent mechanical reason for a drawback. Flavoring the spell as being specifically granted by Asmodeus gives excellent support for the whole "dealing with the Devil".

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.)

but that extra healing is balanced out by the extra time you have to wait. that extra time spent healing yourselves could give the enemy more time to ambush you. and it's not as rapidly stackable as CLW. to gain the full benefit, you are waiting 10 times as long to heal.

not every campaign gives you infinite uninterrupted time to heal up and rest.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i see no mechanical reason for infernal healing to have the evil descriptor.

Infernal healing is more powerful than regular healing but has the drawback of being specifically granted by an evil god. A more powerful effect is an excellent mechanical reason for a drawback. Flavoring the spell as being specifically granted by Asmodeus gives excellent support for the whole "dealing with the Devil".

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.)

but that extra healing is balanced out by the extra time you have to wait. that extra time spent healing yourselves could give the enemy more time to ambush you. and it's not as rapidly stackable as CLW. to gain the full benefit, you are waiting 10 times as long to heal.

not every campaign gives you infinite uninterrupted time to heal up and rest.

Being ambushed while healing is a corner case. Most people don't heal until the enemy threat has been cleared. You can't use corner cases as a balancing feature.

edit:The casting time is 1 round as opposed to a standard action(cure spells), which is really negligible when you are out of combat.

Shadow Lodge

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:


Infernal healing is more powerful than regular healing but has the drawback of being specifically granted by an evil god...
but that extra healing is balanced out by the extra time you have to wait. ...

I'm pretty sure there exist spell design rules that could measure that statement. Anyone know them off hand?


Reading all of these "does it make you evil?" threads, I have to say I agree with everybody.

Sigh,

There is a double standard here: doing evil makes you evil even if you don't want to be, and doing good *doesn't* make you good unless you really, really want to be. (Ie, repent and give up your wicked ways.)

The problem is there is no mechanic for dealing with this. Here is a suggestion:

First, any time you do something with an alignment tag (usually spellcasting) you gain a corresponding 'alignment point' and a alignment die, starting with a d20. Each time you gain a point the die type goes down (d20>d12, d12>d10, etc)

Upon gaining the point you roll the die and if the result is equal to less than your alignment points you gain the appropriate aura. Your alignment doesn't change you just gain the aura.

Example: Bob the nuetral has a wand of Summon Monster IV. He summons a hound archon (lawful, good). he gains 1 law point and 1 good point. he rolls a d20 for each and gets a 12, and 15. No problem.

Later, he summons a hell hound, he gains 1 evil point and a 2nd law point. He rolls d20 for evil (7) no problem; he rolls a d12 for law,(2) problem. He now gains the law aura.

Here is the bad part: when adjucating results for alignment/auras , always use the worst result possible. If Bob gets hit with a Chaos Hammer he is treated as Lawful (his aura), and if hit with an Order's Wrath he is treated as Neutral (his alignment). If Bob doesn't like this he can get some Atonement spells. One each for good and evil, 2 for the law points, and 1 for the law aura.

If Bob thinks that is too expensive he can stick to summoning elementals and mephits. Or he can officially change his alignment to lawful, with whatever that entails.

Comments?


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.


The Terrible Zodin wrote:

Reading all of these "does it make you evil?" threads, I have to say I agree with everybody.

Sigh,

There is a double standard here: doing evil makes you evil even if you don't want to be, and doing good *doesn't* make you good unless you really, really want to be. (Ie, repent and give up your wicked ways.)

The problem is there is no mechanic for dealing with this. Here is a suggestion:

First, any time you do something with an alignment tag (usually spellcasting) you gain a corresponding 'alignment point' and a alignment die, starting with a d20. Each time you gain a point the die type goes down (d20>d12, d12>d10, etc)

Upon gaining the point you roll the die and if the result is equal to less than your alignment points you gain the appropriate aura. Your alignment doesn't change you just gain the aura.

Example: Bob the nuetral has a wand of Summon Monster IV. He summons a hound archon (lawful, good). he gains 1 law point and 1 good point. he rolls a d20 for each and gets a 12, and 15. No problem.

Later, he summons a hell hound, he gains 1 evil point and a 2nd law point. He rolls d20 for evil (7) no problem; he rolls a d12 for law,(2) problem. He now gains the law aura.

Here is the bad part: when adjucating results for alignment/auras , always use the worst result possible. If Bob gets hit with a Chaos Hammer he is treated as Lawful (his aura), and if hit with an Order's Wrath he is treated as Neutral (his alignment). If Bob doesn't like this he can get some Atonement spells. One each for good and evil, 2 for the law points, and 1 for the law aura.

If Bob thinks that is too expensive he can stick to summoning elementals and mephits. Or he can officially change his alignment to lawful, with whatever that entails.

Comments?

While having hard rules for those interested in using alignment would be welcome. Alignment mostly adds headaches and arguments, while eating up space in the rulebook without adding much positive at all. Your system, while simple enough, only addresses spellcasting which means that spellcasters will be hit harder by alignment problems than non-casters. Removing alignment from the game seems to be a more elegant and easier solution, avoiding the hornet's nest.


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.

Shadow Lodge

Ringtail wrote:


While having hard rules for those interested in using alignment would be welcome. Alignment mostly adds headaches and arguments, while eating up space in the rulebook without adding much positive at all. Your system, while simple enough, only addresses spellcasting which means that spellcasters will be hit harder by alignment problems than non-casters. Removing alignment from the game seems to be a more elegant and easier solution, avoiding the hornet's nest.

And to hell with the balance issues, then?

Shadow Lodge

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
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.

Even so, I offer as a counter proposal that there are situations where healing over time is a benefit. Imagine casting such on a full-health tank, for example, in anticipation of the incoming damage. Can't do that with CLW.


mcbobbo wrote:
Ringtail wrote:


While having hard rules for those interested in using alignment would be welcome. Alignment mostly adds headaches and arguments, while eating up space in the rulebook without adding much positive at all. Your system, while simple enough, only addresses spellcasting which means that spellcasters will be hit harder by alignment problems than non-casters. Removing alignment from the game seems to be a more elegant and easier solution, avoiding the hornet's nest.
And to hell with the balance issues, then?

Balance issues? Such as?

1 to 50 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Wands make you evil? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.