Being mind-controlled/magically forced to do something evil is different from actually doing it willingly. In the first case, you are not doing something evil, the one magically compelling you is. Even Paladins do not have any alignment or class penalties if they are dominated and forced to go on a murder spree. They don't even need an atonement.
I agree. Perhaps you misunderstand. I wasn't suggesting that the summon or bound angel was committing an evil act. I was noting that evil wizards probably love forcing them to do evil stuff, 'cause it gets their evil rocks off on all that evil irony. Being able to twist the will of those who would oppose him and do good, into preforming the very evil they hate so much.
So we have some sort of summoned good outsider. Something big and awesome. Dudeman has ordered it to flip some sort of doomsday switch (we're talking fantasy and morality here, so hypotheticals are entirely cool. Even the Dao asks the main character in BG II a hypothetical morality question in the beginning to judge his character). Maybe the summoned outsider is too strong for you to defeat, so you grab a wand of protection against good which you picked up off the bad guy's minions. You use the wand and surround yourself and the maguffin with a barrier against the summoned celestial, to save the day. You just used a magic item that was created with an [EVIL] spell. No where in the rules does it say that you have actually committed an evil act (Mr. Reynolds is getting back to us on that, I think). Do you fall?
|
So you agree that circumstances matter.
Yes, the orc could be born as not a orc.
While I'm usually not so fond of statements such as "it pinged evil so I killed it and that means I did a good thing" because they make us gamers look like inept morons, I do agree that we must accept that the Paladin has not committed evil because of the circumstances, or else the Paladin must fall the moment he slays the orc.On a side note, Paladins can have Neutral gods as well. So why did your god tell you to kill the orc? Also, when did your god tell you to do it? Do you have voices in your head? Perhaps a miniature giant space hamster who gives you the good word? If it is the latter, I commend you, and I would pledge my sword and my boot to your service. ;)
While growing up, was told that a big evil god made the orc race, so my god that is good and enemy of the evil god command us, his sheeps, to slay evil. He give us spells to recognize evil and good. We kill evil and stay good. So by logic, our god says that is ok to kill evil orcs.
In fact, there are plenty of NEUTRAL deities who can have Neutral GOOD clerics who cannot cast [EVIL] spells, even though 2/3rds of the NEUTRAL DEITY's clerics can cast those spells all the time. So obviously the deity has no issue with it, but the cleric cannot cast them (the cleric can prepare them but not cast them).
Precisely. Clerics are all about faith. You can't pray for definitive evil if either your deity or yourself is good. A good deity would not grant it, and a good character would not wish for it.
But characters are more flexible. If you had a neutral god and truly felt you needed that evil spell to do right, then you're character could shift to being neutral.
The deity isn't changing it's position though.
If you can't conceptualize right and wrong as anything more than shades of gray, then you are neutral. I'm not meaning that as an insult, but if you are locked into that perspective and, by your own admission, are frightened to view the world (even a imaginary one) with a different moral compass, then everything you roleplay will be neutral.
Again Ashiel, since text on the internet is easily misconstrued, I'm not meaning that like an insult. If I had a male player that got uncomfortable if playing a female- wouldn't rag on him for that. People are getting a little too hot and bothered and filled with testy philosophy.
It's a world where killing does not equate murder, you could actually watch someone's spiritual decay with what equates to a magical evil-detecting litmus test, and there are objectively good beings that will burn objectively evil things to death and remain good.
And yes, finally, its a world where an evil scroll is still evil and a good guy shouldn't use it, and a good cleric can't.
So if i save a child and the child grows to be Hitler, saving him was evil ?
If i planar bind an angel, and do a evil act with it, am i not doing two acts, casting the spell make me good, commanding evil acts make me evil. Outsiders that can be summoned are born to be summoned (or binded), it is their nature. What we do with them is the moral act.
Did you KNOW that the child was going to grow up to commit such evils unto the world? Godwin's aside, I would think that if you knew with certainty that he would grow up to be such a monster and you still saved him just because he was a kid, I would think you were indeed responsible for letting it all happen. If you saved him and didn't know he was going to murder thousands later on, then you did what you could at the time as best as you could.
As for the Planar Binding, you describe neutral. As you noted: "Casting the spell makes me good, commanding evil acts make me evil." The net result would be Neutral. That is the logical conclusion to this idea that repeatedly casting a spell with a descriptor somehow makes you more of that thing. Ergo as long as you are using good spells to do evil things then you are neutral, and as long as you use evil spells to do good things then you are neutral.
Now, if circumstances and intent are taken into account, then if you were binding the angel to serve your dark purposes you have done no good act. You have just preformed an act that leaves an aura of good in its wake.
Likewise, if we do not take intent and circumstances into account, then people can easily be tricked into committing evil and then suffer for it. If a town has caught a plague (which is actually my doing) and I bluff your Paladin into taking this bottle of medicine (actually a poison) and administer it to the patients of the town, you believe that you are doing good. You believe that this is medicine. You believe that I am telling the truth. However you actually poison the people. That is your action in this. You poisoned them. Now if circumstances are taken into account, you were duped. You didn't mean to poison them. You meant to heal them. You probably would have kicked my dirty rear for doing it too.
However, in a world with circumstances where there is only 0 or 1, you would have committed an evil act. I would of course have done so as well, but you would have also taken the morality hit, even though you didn't know. That is a world where action alone determines morality and not the intent and circumstances behind it.
No.
First I agree intent has everything to do with whether is is good or evil, but I do not think intent is a matter of circumstance.
To be a Good act the act cannot be evil in and of itself.
Nor can its intended consequences.
Hence it would be a neutral act. A paladin can commit a neutral act without falling. This is logical.
Swinging a sword is not evil in and of itself, neither is loosing an arrow or swinging your fist.
Correct. All are neutral. None hurt others. Not help others. They are neither evil nor good. It is effectively the same as tying your shoes.
Casting an evil spell or channelling negative energy is evil in and of itself so the act fails from the beginning but lets continue for completeness.
At least half of this is a lie. Channeling negative energy is not evil. This is demonstrate-able. Inflict wounds spells are not evil. They do not even have the [EVIL] descriptor. Enervation does not have the [EVIL] descriptor. Waves of Exhaustion does not have the [EVIL] descriptor. It doesn't even say channeling negative energy via the Cleric class ability is evil.
Likewise, we have yet to see actual rules (rules that have dated to 3E and still exist or do not exist in Pathfinder) that say that casting a spell with a descriptor makes you more of that descriptor. I have yet to see anything that says that casting a [GOOD] spell make you more good than casting a [FIRE] spell turns you into a fire elemental. Thus far, no one has actually quoted the rule they seem to be referencing, despite my asking repeatedly for this citation.
Next our intent cannot be evil.
Stopping an orc from killing an innocent is not an evil intent,
Stopping a ____________ from doing __________ which kills millions is also not an evil intent. We pass here.
Doing evil things for good reasons is still evil.
So the Paladin falls when he kills the orc.
I kill an orc to save an innocent.
I kill an orc in self defense.
I kill your wife because I can.
At one point I have killed. At one point it is evil. The only different is circumstances and intent. This is irrefutable.
Well I am not argueing that intet has no bearing, quite the contrary.
Planar binding could never cause a celestial to act against his alignment, read the spell.
Anyone who is summoning creatures to commit murder is evil, anyone who builds a doomsday device is evil, anyone who is summoning a creature to go on a killing spree is evil, and certianly anyone who is intending to set off a doomsday weapon is evil.Evil people cannot summon celestials using Monsters Summoning.
I have read planar binding. They can force the creature to submit with an opposed Charisma check. Impossible or unreasonable demands are not met, but it is not impossible for an angel to pull a switch, and unreasonable is to act without rationality, such as commanding the creature to commit suicide.
As for summoning creatures, a use magic device check can allow the caster to emulate a good alignment when activating a magic item. Likewise, if the guy goes around casting summon monster spells to summon celestials regularly enough, he'll stay least neutral by your arguments, because he is as good as he is evil. If this bothers you, then we have come to an understanding.
So if i save a child and the child grows to be Hitler, saving him was evil ?
If i planar bind an angel, and do a evil act with it, am i not doing two acts, casting the spell make me good, commanding evil acts make me evil. Outsiders that can be summoned are born to be summoned (or binded), it is their nature. What we do with them is the moral act.Did you KNOW that the child was going to grow up to commit such evils unto the world? Godwin's aside, I would think that if you knew with certainty that he would grow up to be such a monster and you still saved him just because he was a kid, I would think you were indeed responsible for letting it all happen. If you saved him and didn't know he was going to murder thousands later on, then you did what you could at the time as best as you could.
here is lies the problem, the child was innocent, you saved him, that was good, even if you know he is going to grow up to be a monster, protecting the innocent is good, harming the innocent is bad.
If you are one charged with protecting the innocent ( like the palidin you like to bring up) then you are obliged to protect the innocent and failing to protect the child would be gross violation of that moral duty.
According to you inaction means the Paladin gets a free pass. He decides that he's just going to not act. The child dies but not by his hand. By your own definitions, he has done nothing wrong. He has also saved the world by not saving the child and letting him grow up into a warmonger who will slaughter thousands. Likewise, knowing that the child would do so - such as due to some sort of magical destiny - and saving him anyway would mean the paladin himself has doomed the world. At this point, it's no different than placing a sword in a known murderer's hands and letting him free.
|
|
Likewise, if we do not take intent and circumstances into account, then people can easily be tricked into committing evil and then suffer for it. If a town has caught a plague (which is actually my doing) and I bluff your Paladin into taking this bottle of medicine (actually a poison) and administer it to the patients of the town, you believe that you are doing good. You believe that this is medicine. You believe that I am telling the truth. However you actually poison the people. That is your action in this. You poisoned...
That´s for the gods to judge. So is a DM´s call to make the decision. The game don´t says we can´t swins up in a waterfall, the game don´t say a human can´t eat dirt to not starve, the game don´t say farmer can´t grow crops in the walls of the cities. The game´s paradigm or social contract is defined by it´s players. An evil spell is evil, a blue gem is blue, what that means to us only we can tell.
Today having sex with a child is unlawful and even evil, yesterday wasn´t so. Things change, so is rather simple to accept that in Golarion things are as the game describes and people live happy.
Likewise, if we do not take intent and circumstances into account, then people can easily be tricked into committing evil and then suffer for it. If a town has caught a plague (which is actually my doing) and I bluff your Paladin into taking this bottle of medicine (actually a poison) and administer it to the patients of the town, you believe that you are doing good. You believe that this is medicine. You believe that I am telling the truth. However you actually poison the people. That is your action in this. You poisoned...That´s for the gods to judge. So is a DM´s call to make the decision. The game don´t says we can´t swins up in a waterfall, the game don´t say a human can´t eat dirt to no stave, the game don´t say farmer can´t grow crops in the walls of the cities. The game´s paradigm or social contract is defined by it´s players. An evil spell is evil, a blue gem is blue, what that means to us only we can tell.
Today having sex with a child is unlawful and even evil, yesterday wasn´t so. Things change, so is rather simple to accept that in Golarion things are as the game describes and people live happy.
Golarion doesn't interest me in this discussion. Nor does modern laws that vary from place to place. It is legal where I live to have sex with 16 year olds consensually, while in most places it is 18. Some people believe it is wrong, some people do not. However, it is a matter of laws. According to D&D, killing is an evil trait. Either circumstances matter or they don't.
|
|
Golarion doesn't interest me in this discussion. Nor does modern laws that vary from place to place. It is legal where I live to have sex with 16 year olds consensually, while in most places it is 18. Some people believe it is wrong, some people do not. However, it is a matter of laws. According to D&D, killing is an evil trait. Either circumstances matter or they don't.
Link to the page where D&D define good and evil please.
I am afraid it is quite easily refutable. The paladin should never intend to kill the orc, he should always intend to save the innocent, killing the orc is accedental to the most effecent means to the end of protecting the innocent or himself.
Let me putthis a differnet way.
paladin comes across orc, both draw their weapons and attack, the paladin hits the orc and does 12 point of damage reducing orcy to negative points. Orc falls, paladin moves along orc probably bleeds out and dies.
Paladin defended his life, used permissable force and orc died--- perfectly permissable.
Same battle occurs, paladin reduces orcy to 0 hp, orc pleads for mercy, paladin wacks him again. Attacking an almost helpless opponant not so kosher. Paladin and I have a talk.
Same battle paladin but instead of just wacking him paladin restrains him and then coup de grace's him..... yeah Pali is going to need an atonement spell, at least.
Now Mr. paladin comes across a hobgoblin nursery.... these hobgoblins are too young to be a threat to anyone, they are not attacking or if they are are not a threat (do zero damage). Paladin and and his buddies are on the run, can't take the kids with them and pretty much know that leaving them will only allow big mean hobgoblins to scourge the area at a later time. These hobgoblins are innocent, killing them is evil, if the pali does anything to them he falls hard, blackgaurd hard.
Everything you just mentioned entirely hinges on 2 things.
1) Intent.
2) Circumstances.
Which is my point. Thank you.
No causing the death of million is not a reasonable act to a good creature. planar binding simply cannot be used like this.
I don't think that he will stay nuetral becuase he is casting good spells to do grossly evil things, if he intends grossly evil things he is already evil and cannot summon good creatures anyway.
I think we are coming to a different conclusion as to the meaning of the next. The planar binding spell can specifically force a creature to do something against its will, just as a charm person spell can force someone to do something against their will (via an opposed Charisma check). One could say that it is not reasonable to do be forced to do anything that the mage asks, resulting in the spell being useless. However, the spell allows you to force service.
Unreasonable means to have faculty without reason. Not in accordance with practical realities. Exceeding the bounds by which can be accommodated. Going by the dictionary here.
As best as I can tell, enslaving outsiders and forcing them to do your bidding against their will is pretty much the #1 thing that planar binding is known for being good for doing. There is in fact nothing to stop an evil wizard from binding and forcing a good outsider to do things it doesn't want to do anymore than binding an elemental and making it do things it doesn't want to do.
Doing anything the wizard wants you to do could be construed as 1 and 3. It could be argued that it's entirely unreasonable of a demand that you do anything for the wizard at all, since he just yanked you here against your will.
I'm pretty much sold that it doesn't work like that. Given the fact one interpretation of the word results in the spell being useless for its primary use and theme, with the other interpretation of the word resulting in the primary theme and use being maintained and still being in accordance to the word; we must find the one that is the least conflicting.
Pretty sure the wording is there so that a GM has an out if the player does something stupid or jerk like. Such as binding a fire elemental and telling it to go for a swim, or binding an outsider and making your service "make everything on this piece of paper come true."
Planar binding is (primarily) for calling an outsider to your service to do something that they would or could do, just happened to not be doing at the moment. So call a lawful outsider to capture a criminal, a good outsider to heal someone, an evil outsider to kill something, etc.
You can make them do something outside of their typical nature, within limits. An evil outsider can be forced to protect someone, a good outsider to erase the memories of an innocent. That's what the +0 to +6 bonus on the cha check is for.
Note you actually don't have to make it a trap. You could just use planar binding vanilla style to call a good outsider and ask it for its help, offering a reward (and hopefully an apology).
You can't make them do something they cannot do. So you couldn't bind a good outsider cleric to use an evil scroll for you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If [Evil] is an evil act, then [Fire] is a fire act, so when do I turn into an elemental?
That's the biggest piece of BS I've read in a long time, and it's not the first time I've read it. It's a strawman. You are comparing apples and oranges. Here's a similar BS argument (Wookie Defense)...
Wookies don't live on Endor, Ewoks's do. But Chewbacca is on Endor, and he's a Wookie! Therefore, you must acknowledge that it is not Evil to kill Ewoks!
You are comparing apples and oranges. [Fire], [Earth], etc are all elemental subtypes. They have nothing to do with alignment. They are there for a similar purpose though, restriction of spells. For example, a class that gains a bonus on fire spells gains them for spells with the [Fire] subtype. A class that loses a caster level casting an [Acid] spell does so if he casts a spell with an [Acid] descriptor. They have nothing to do with alignment, but they do affect who can and can't cast them, and also other effects, such as environment (a fire spell being harder to cast in cold for example).
Now, the alignment tags are similar, but different. They have nothing to do with the elements, they have to do with alignment. They are not equal to the other sub tags, they are different, and have to do with alignment, not elemental effects. Two different types of rules, two different types of subtags. If you want to equate them, you are trying to state that each character has an 'elemental' alignment as well, which is BS and you know it. You're just trying to confuse the issue, and intentionally misreading the rules when you argue this. An Alignment subtag indicates what the spell is strongly aligned with on the alignment grid (just as an elemental spell is strongly aligned with an Element).
These two things are similar, but they are not the same, and trying to equate them is just idiotic. It's like trying to associate Blue with Acrid (Sight vs Taste). Both are similar, they are descriptors of a sense, but they are not equivalent, which is what you are trying to do.
Fortunately, a person can perform multiple and complex acts, if they couldn't, they'd be animals, and all neutral. A Paladin that casts the baby killer scroll to save a different kid is not performing a neutral act, he's performing two acts, one Evil, one Good. The Evil one is casting the spell (because it's an [Evil] spell), the good act is saving the kid. He could save the kid without committing an Evil act to do it, he could pay for a non-evil spell, could buy a non-evil scroll of a different spell to do the same thing. He's just taking shortcuts, and thus he earns a whap on the head from his deity for commiting an evil act to save time.
I love how some people argue he should just use the scroll, since the damage is already done. Good people don't use evil artifacts, they destroy them. They don't go 'Oh, well, the evil magus already sacrificed 2000 people to make this black skull that kills his enemies when he points at them, holds it aloft, and shouts 'Huzzah!', so since they're already dead, I'll just use it instead'. Any good character that did that and you'd boot their alignment down to Nuetral, or Evil, because the skull is inherently effing evil! and using it is an Evil act, every time, all the time. The scroll is the exact same thing as the artifact, it's Evil, every single freaking time it's used.
Dude, do you even know what you're talking about with the Wookie Defense? The wookie defense is really funny, but that's nothing like what I described. Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd give me some mechanical backing. A simple line stating that casting aligned spells is considered an act of that alignment. That'd be great.
On a side note, if a fire elemental takes levels in sorcerer and learns a cold spell, casting it isn't going to make it more cold. That's pretty much the exact thing we're talking about here. It's a subtype that is noted under subtypes as being used to determine how it functions within the system. For example, if you cast protection from law it will have an aura of chaos, regardless of the alignment of its caster. That's an example of an alignment-based mechanical effect that is associated with the subtype. Likewise effects that provide a resistance versus Good (such as Protection From Good) will protect against spells like Holy Smite, even if the caster of the spell is Neutral, because the spell is treated as that alignment for the purposes of game effects.
Everything else expressed has been a leap, and no one has actually pointed me to the quote that says that casting X makes you Y. I've been asking, and maybe if I keep asking then someone will answer it, or maybe Mr. Reynolds will run over to the SRD and start in on some new errata to add to the core rules to make it so. I dunno.
If you are playing homebrew there is no rule for that, in Golarion however it is that way. However on the whole subject of intent/circumstances that falls into the realm of GM decision since there are no definatives on the subject.
If you are playing homebrew there is no rule for that, in Golarion however it is that way. However on the whole subject of intent/circumstances that falls into the realm of GM decision since there are no definatives on the subject.
I was also under the impression there are no clerics without associated deities, even though the core rules and previous editions of the game have allowed clerics to worship pantheons or philosophical ideals.
Golarion is a campaign setting. The system is the core. Virtually every campaign setting I've seen always has exceptions and differences from the core rules. For example, Eberron allows clerics to cast spells opposed to their alignment, which allows evil priests to infiltrate and pose as good priests for games of intrigue. Meanwhile, in the Forgotten Realms you have to have a deity, period (even if you're not a cleric, according to the 3E FRCS, or else you're screwed).
Pathfinder is supposed to be the continuation of 3.5. There is a core before a setting is involved. The core Pathfinder handbook has little to nothing to do with Golarion, other than providing a list of deity names sampled from Golarion, similar to how the 3E PHB sported deities from Grayhawk, but nothing further.
Exactly which is why i said there is no rule for alignment spells changing alignment its up to your group and how much you think alignment shifts should factor into your game and play sessions.
Dude, do you even know what you're talking about with the Wookie Defense?
Yes, I do. The Wookie Defense is an attempt to cloud the issue and confuse the situation in an effort to win without having any substance to your argument.
I think it fits pretty darn well with what the [Fire] alignment argument is.
[Fire] is to [Good] what [Acid] is to [Electricity]. A descriptor. All are listed together, grouped together, and noted to determine how they interact with the rules, and how they are treated for game effects. Just as I noted, a resist energy (fire) will protect against fireballs, just like a protection from good guards someone from summoned celestials.
If you'd just quote me the piece in the core rules that says "casting X makes you X", that would solve this really fast.
EDIT: Anyway, I'm off to bed. I look forward to hopefully seeing that quote later today, perhaps.
simple line stating that casting aligned spells is considered an act of that alignment. That'd be great.
On a side note, if a fire elemental takes levels in sorcerer and learns a cold spell, casting it isn't going to make it more cold.
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
Here is explicit text that says you cannot cast apposed to your alignment. There is no similar text saying that clerics of a subtype (say ... fire) can't cast spells of their opposed subtype.
The argument isn't that a good cleric casting an evil spell makes him more evil. Though logical, that is subjective and story side.
The argument is a good cleric can't cast an evil spell because it's opposed to his alignment restrictions.
|
|
[Fire] is to [Good] what [Acid] is to [Electricity]. A descriptor. All are listed together, grouped together, and noted to determine how they interact with the rules, and how they are treated for game effects. Just as I noted, a resist energy (fire) will protect against fireballs, just like a protection from good guards someone from summoned celestials.
If you'd just quote me the piece in the core rules that says "casting X makes you X", that would solve this really fast.
EDIT: Anyway, I'm off to bed. I look forward to hopefully seeing that quote later today, perhaps.
If i am a Wizard, and i cast too much [Fire] spells, i will be a Fire Wizard (maybe even be attacked by water wizards). If i am a Wizard and cast too much [Evil] spells, i will be an Evil Wizard (maybe even be attacked by good wizards). What is the problem ?
Good morning my friends. It is another beautiful and glorious day for a conversation!
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.Some descriptors interact with alignment. There's nothing that specifically says that [evil] spells make you more evil, but then again, the developers do assume a basic amount of common sense and reading comprehension. There's nothing that says characters eliminate waste, either, but the developers still include outhouses and midden heaps in their adventures.
Thank you for providing something. Now when I read that line and it says "most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on", I have always taken that to mean mechanically. As in, the cleric's spell restriction being an interaction of alignment. Protection from Good protecting from evil creatures being an interaction of alignment. A neutral cleric casting protection from good and being targeted with a detect evil being an interaction of alignment.
As in, they interact with the mechanics of the game. Now the Alignment rules have the following to say.
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.
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 creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items.
...
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
...
Changing Alignments
Alignment is a tool, a convenient shorthand you can use to summarize the general attitude of an NPC, region, religion, organization, monster, or even magic item.
Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
So in the alignment section is goes into quite a bit of detail as to what alignment means, and how it interacts with the game, how the game interacts with it. It specifically notes that the effects of spells may be affected by alignment, but never suggests that casting spells is an aligned act, nor does it suggest that it somehow changes your alignment for doing so.
Now there is an out for those who are arguing that it does and that out is GM Fiat. See, the next paragraph says it's up to the GM to decide if something is in accordance with a character's alignment, which means that the GM could very well start making people Chaotic Neutral for eating with a spoon if he or she wanted to. GM-Fiat is not helpful, and technically the GM can do whatever he or she pleases as long as the players will put up with it; but as far as hard and fast rules go, there is nothing to suggest that there is a mechanic for "falling to the lawful side" for casting protection from chaos repeatedly.
The alignment section explains the interactions that spells have with alignment. It seems pretty far fetched to me that someone would take "interacts with A, B, C, Alignment, X, Y, Z, and so on" to mean that it changes your alignment, with the actual alignment rules explain that interaction specifically. That is a great leap from the rules.
=========
However, I'm a sport so I'll play Devil's Advocate for a moment and ignore everything that the ALIGNMENT rules say about spell interaction, and instead assume that casting spells with alignment descriptors is an aligned action and will turn you more and more to that alignment.
How many actions would you suggest to a new GM it would take casting a spell before someone's alignment changes? How many celestial badgers does a neutral wizard need to cast before he is a Good wizard? How many protections from Chaos does a neutral Cleric have to cast before they are a Chaotic cleric? Barring all other circumstances, how many proverbial "hail Mary's" does a wizard have to cast before he becomes a good guy instead of a neutral guy?
In the same vein, how many times does it take for a good wizard casting protection from good to become neutral and then evil? What would be YOUR recommendation? I realize it is up to GM-Fiat, but it does stress consistency in that Fiat within the rules, so the GM must be consistent. If casting protection from evil seven times does not change your alignment, then casting protection from good seven times should not either. That is consistency.
Now I realize that this may appear asinine. However, it is a legitimate question in the face of what is being argued. How many times does a character have to swing a holy sword before they go from being baby-murderingly evil to being a good-guy again? Sean K. Reynolds said that using a magic item that requires Evil spells or casters to create is an evil act. Thus, I want to know how long it takes for that Protection from Evil necklace, that holy sword, and that wand of holy smite to turn the Chaotic Evil fighter who is wielding them into a Chaotic Good fighter.
Even just some personal experience running it like this would be nice. Because I have never ran, or seen the game ran, where you can stand in a field summoning axiomatic badgers and become more lawful. The games I've always played in, and the way the 3E system was written, has always seemed to take a more intellectual path and actually examine the overall situation.
Alignment really isn't that hard if you take it as it is written. Drawing back to the topic of the scroll of questionable healing coming into possession by the party who could save the child from cancer, we consult the Alignment rules once again.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Since good characters and creatures protect innocent life, and are altruistic (that means putting others before yourself), respect life, and have concern for the dignity of sentient beings, we can see that healing the child with cancer is the obviously good path. You are even making a personal sacrifice (in this case you are destroying loot to save someone else, and you may even be putting the child's life before your personal preferences).
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. The guy who made the scroll that the party found after killing the big bad was definitely committing some evil acts during the creation or even casting of this spell because it required hurting and murdering an innocent life, purely for a matter of convenience. Grade A evil activity right here.
Not saving the child with cancer via the scroll means that you have compunctions against killing or letting the child die, but you lack the commitment to make the sacrifice to protect or help him. That would imply that you are neutral and not in fact good. If such a pattern continued, it would be more than fair for the GM to let everyone know that their characters are neutral rather than good.
It is very easy to weigh most situations using the alignment guide. Much of it falls to altruism and selfishness when it comes to good and evil. Such weighing means that, unlike your games, Paladins do not fall for killing bandits, or letting the bandits die if the can save their lives. Since killing is evil, and killing for convenience is evil, and motivations do not matter in your campaign, being a Paladin is a one-way street to fallsville unless you are not being honest. Because even killing in self-defense is a convenience, because it is easier to stab someone with a sword than it is to disarm them of their sword, grapple them, hogtie them, and end the fighting while being a pacifist (though enchanters and psionic characters with charming abilities may have more luck with this respect, or those with the Sanctuary spell).
On a side note, even in a game without such - what I honestly believe to be nonsense - rulings, I have played a Paladin who stabilizes and nurses her enemies whom she has defeated if they are alive at the end of combat. The idea is that kindness begets kindness. Not killing them gives them a chance to redeem themselves, and having been shown mercy, are more likely to show mercy because they will think back to being in the same situation and their lives spared. So even in a world where morality isn't X or Y and Paladins don't fall for choosing to deal lethal damage instead of nonlethal damage, you can still have a choice.
There is a difference between Evil spell is an Evil act and Evil spell turns you Evil.
How many Evil acts you have to perform before you change alignment? That depends on the GM, and the weight of those acts.
How many Evil acts does it take for a Paladin to fall? One. He still maintains his alignment, but he has broken his vows.
So a Good cleric can't cast Evil spells, even through a scroll. But it would take repeated Evil acts to change his alignment, and that's all up to the GM.
|
|
Good morning my friends. It is another beautiful and glorious day for a conversation!
Good morning.
So in the alignment section is goes into quite a bit of detail as to what alignment means, and how it interacts with the game, how the game interacts with it. It specifically notes that the effects of spells may be affected by alignment, but never suggests that casting spells is an aligned act, nor does it suggest that it somehow changes your alignment for doing so.
Nor it does say that it don´t, just as they don´t say where babies come from or that you can´t make fire under water.
How many actions would you suggest to a new GM it would take casting a spell before someone's alignment changes? How many celestial badgers does a neutral wizard need to cast before he is a Good wizard? How many protections from Chaos does a neutral Cleric have to cast before they are a Chaotic cleric? Barring all other circumstances, how many proverbial "hail Mary's" does a wizard have to cast before he becomes a good guy instead of a neutral guy?
As many times you think would be fun.
Not saving the child with cancer via the scroll means that you have compunctions against killing or letting the child die, but you lack the commitment to make the sacrifice to protect or help him. That would imply that you are neutral and not in fact good. If such a pattern continued, it would be more than fair for the GM to let everyone know that their characters are neutral rather than good.
As so would be if an evil character walks by a health and happy child. If he do no cast the spell he would be doing a neutral action. So the tendency is to every good and evil beings become neutrals with time.
On a side note, even in a game without such - what I honestly believe to be nonsense - rulings, I have played a Paladin who stabilizes and nurses her enemies whom she has defeated if they are alive at the end of combat. The idea is that kindness begets kindness. Not killing them gives them a chance to redeem themselves, and having been shown mercy, are more likely to show mercy because they will think back to being in the same situation and their lives spared. So even in a world where morality isn't X or Y and Paladins don't fall for choosing to deal lethal damage instead of nonlethal damage, you can still have a choice.
The rules don´t say that, show where they define altruism, or redemption or opression. The meaning of all that action come from what the players and DM think they mean. You just stating what they mean for you.
Ever hear of a dictionary? Words don't just mean what people think they mean. They generally are used to express something specific. See, if I point at a mule and call it a duck, it's going to make little sense.
See, watch.
the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism).
See, we know what Altruism means. If we don't know what that word means, then we can learn. It doesn't mean whatever we want it to mean, because that would be stupid.
D&D defines good as being altruistic, and protective of innocent life. I quoted that before. By the book and all. There's a good reason that the alignment section has no information about where babies come from or if you can light a fire underwater, because that has nothing to do with alignment. What it DOES say is that alignment affects spells. At no point does it say that casting a spell with a descriptor is considered an act of that alignment, nor does it say that casting those spells will make your alignment change.
In fact, what it DOES say is...
Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment.
Let's re-iterate. Certain classes list repercussions for those that don't adhere to a specific alignment. Paladins, Druids, Barbarians, Monks, and Clerics? Check. And some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment. Protection from Good, Protection from Evil, Holy Smite, Blasphemy, Dictum, etc? Spells, check. Unholy weapons, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, etc? Magic items, check. Then it goes on to say that "Beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry to much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment.
So it doesn't even note a change in alignment. Merely that the alignment of the creature causes spells and magic items to have different effects. That's exactly what is written.
You guys have shown NOTHING. You can keep parroting what you WANT to be the rules, but it's not. The alignment rules are pretty clear in that they don't say that there is such and effect. Given that it is entirely possible for characters to cast spells that don't have descriptors that match their alignment, you would think something like that might actually be worth noting if it actually had an effect on the character.
However, it doesn't. It never notes that. The best anyone has shown is that spell descriptors determine how they interact with different portions of the game, such as alignment. The alignment rules explain how that interaction takes place.
Anything else is as much a step away from the rules as saying my character can shoot lasers out of his eyes for 30d6 damage just because I say it can. "But the rules don't say you can" is the same sort of situation. The rules doesn't say it does. YOU guys are adding that, and then preaching it off as RAW.
Just be honest and there will be no problem. I don't mind your house rules, but peddling your house rules as a core part of the game is dishonest and should stop. I have a list of house rules a half a mile long (figuratively speaking of course) and I don't come to the forums and start arguing like they're RAW (in fact, I ignore/forget my house rules when it comes to discussing the game).
|
|
Ever hear of a dictionary? Words don't just mean what people think they mean. They generally are used to express something specific. See, if I point at a mule and call it a duck, it's going to make little sense.
See, watch.
Which dictionary ? They don´t all even say the same about everyword. I am not even a native english speaker, certainly what i understand about many words has not anything to do with it. I don´t see anywhere in any book you have to understand english to play the game.
the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism).
Others what ? Others americans ? Others humans ? Others rational beings ? Others live organisms ? You can´t define everything. Each person see the world in different shades.
See, we know what Altruism means. If we don't know what that word means, then we can learn. It doesn't mean whatever we want it to mean, because that would be stupid.
Are you sure you live in the same planet i live ? Look around.
D&D defines good as being altruistic, and protective of innocent life. I quoted that before. By the book and all. There's a good reason that the alignment section has no information about where babies come from or if you can light a fire underwater, because that has nothing to do with alignment. What it DOES say is that alignment affects spells. At no point does it say that casting a spell with a descriptor is considered an act of that alignment, nor does it say that casting those spells will make your alignment change.
The book don´t say many things. You suppose too much.
You guys have shown NOTHING. You can keep parroting what you WANT to be the rules, but it's not. The alignment rules are pretty clear in that they don't say that there is such and effect. Given that it is entirely possible for characters to cast spells that don't have descriptors that match their alignment, you would think something like that might actually be worth noting if it actually had an effect on the character.
In my dictionary it does say evil corrupt and evil acts make you evil. If a spell says its evil, it make you evil. How many times ? How much i want.
Anything else is as much a step away from the rules as saying my character can shoot lasers out of his eyes for 30d6 damage just because I say it can. "But the rules don't say you can" is the same sort of situation. The rules doesn't say it does. YOU guys are adding that, and then preaching it off as RAW.
Maybe that´s would explain why dragon can fly and breath fire, where that would be impossible in real life :P Why are you so serious ?
Just be honest and there will be no problem. I don't mind your house rules, but peddling your house rules as a core part of the game is dishonest and should stop. I have a list of house rules a half a mile long (figuratively speaking of course) and I don't come to the forums and start arguing like they're RAW (in fact, I ignore/forget my house rules when it comes to discussing the game).
I am being honest, your supposition is as much house rules as mine. The entire book is Paizo´s house rules. Dictionaries are house rules. Science is house rules. We are debating just for fun.
The spell is [evil]. What it means ? Someone might say it means nothing, someone might say it means you became evil casting only one time, someone might say to be evil you must cast a million times. The rules are open to any interpretation. What the problem with that ?
If you are not going to at least be serious and are just going to dodge the issue and babble on about how everything means nothing then you are wasting my time and yours.
PS: Dragons has breath weapons in D&D. Dragons have a flight speed in D&D. The game says they fly, and the game says they breath fire, or electricity, or acid, or cold, or clouds of sleeping gas, or whatever. It's not because somebody just goes "my dragon shoots lasers from his eyes".
Stop being asinine.
|
|
If you are not going to at least be serious and are just going to dodge the issue and babble on about how everything means nothing then you are wasting my time and yours.
PS: Dragons has breath weapons in D&D. Dragons have a flight speed in D&D. The game says they fly, and the game says they breath fire, or electricity, or acid, or cold, or clouds of sleeping gas, or whatever. It's not because somebody just goes "my dragon shoots lasers from his eyes".
Stop being asinine.
Sorry to hear that from you. But i still told the truth. From my point of view you just doing the same. You talk as if your point of view is an universal truth that other people fail to see.
So your argument comes down to characters with a good alignment can perform daily evil acts and stay good because by RAW it doesn't say they should have to change alignments to match how they play their character?
Sorry to hear that from you. But i still told the truth. From my point of view you just doing the same. You talk as if your point of view is an universal truth that other people fail to see.If you are not going to at least be serious and are just going to dodge the issue and babble on about how everything means nothing then you are wasting my time and yours.
PS: Dragons has breath weapons in D&D. Dragons have a flight speed in D&D. The game says they fly, and the game says they breath fire, or electricity, or acid, or cold, or clouds of sleeping gas, or whatever. It's not because somebody just goes "my dragon shoots lasers from his eyes".
Stop being asinine.
My posts are based on a reasoning and facts. The best you said could be summed up as "english doesn't be teh english iffin' ya not wantin' tah english to not mean knickerbockers like it does", or in other words, nonsensical. Yes, words have meanings. That's why we have words instead of just saying smurf over and over again.
You on the other hand are arguing that we must add to the RAW and that it somehow should then be treated as RAW. As I noted, I don't mind your house rules. If you want to say that casting spells of an alignment descriptor will change your alignment (which is actually the opposite of what the alignment rules say, as it notes that alignment affects spells and magic items, not vice versa) then that is your prerogative.
However the core rules don't say that. When I addressed, with quotes and civil discussion, while trying to be polite and formal enough to note citations within the rules, to have a legitimate debate, you merely brush it aside. It took a long, long, looooong time just to get someone on the descriptor = alignment changing action side to actually post something to attempt to justify their position.
I responded to the only - and very weak - rule citation with the actual rules for alignment and how alignment and spells interact. To this, you basically just said that it was wrong and tried to suggest I was somehow stupid for desiring evidence rather than because you say so.
So your argument comes down to characters with a good alignment can perform daily evil acts and stay good because by RAW it doesn't say they should have to change alignments to match how they play their character?
Hardly. Did you even read what I said? Or the quotes that I listed? Why not actually address what I said, and provide some rules to your position instead of playing this childish games.
RAW a character who roleplays more consistently with a particular alignment will change to that alignment. However, there is nothing that says that a descriptor spell is an aligned action beyond how the spell is used. Merely that the description determines how it interacts with other spells and how it is affected by alignment, and in the case of clerics determines what sort of spells they can and cannot cast.
The alignment rules give descriptions of how characters act and reason, and then tells the GM that their alignment should match that. If a character has compunctions against killing, acts with altruism, favors tradition and logic, etc, etc, and exhibits these traits most regularly, then they are most likely Lawful Good, even if they regularly cast magic circle against law because he commonly encounters enemies who are lawful, such as the servants of a Lawful Evil tyrant.
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.
ALSO!!!: Nobody has explained the logical issue of the gods and alignment. A Lawful Good cleric of a Neutral Good god cannot cast Protection from Law, or Word of Chaos, even though the deity actually grants her clerics this spell and has no alignment restrictions on her clerics from casting these spells.
Merely that the description determines how it interacts with other spells and how it is affected by alignmentThis is a mis-citation.
No, that's a summary. The actual text says...
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
Alignment explains the interaction, as I noted.
False. This has been explained.
I must have missed this. Could you point me to the post or at least which page this was addressed on, because I saw no one explain why the deities would somehow get mad at the cleric for doing nothing out of the ordinary.
Think of evil, good, law and chaos more as natural forces or energies than as moral ideals. It makes everything much easier. When performing good/evil/lawful/chaotic acts, you increase the amount of [alignment] in the area and you're tainted by it yourself. Casting [alignment] spells works the same way, and permanent magic items taint their vicinity constantly with their alignment.
So yes, wearing an amulet of protection against evil makes you more good - or tainted by the force of good - but killing an innocent brings so much more evil into the world and taints you so much more.
EDIT: From a RAW standpoint, I think that you cannot use the scrolls without UMD since they require you to be of a class able to cast the spell. As I see it, the class expressively prevents you from casting opposite-aligned spells, and there you have it. I don't believe someone doing it via UMD should fall or the like though. It's not in the vicinity of "grossly violating" the code, unless something like a cleric of lathander casting Animate Dead.
Interact means both things affect the other. Your stance is that this is not true and alignment only affects spells, never the other way around. That's particularly interesting because you've been slamming Draco for not using words as defined.
It's a verb that means to act upon or in close relation to.
My point stands. It notes that it interacts with alignment. That interaction is explained in Alignment. Now do you want to actually provide something in the alignment rules, or elsewhere in the core rules that backs your opinion, or are you just going to keep trying to ignore the in-game explanation for how alignment and spells interact?
nteract (ˌɪntərˈækt)
— vb
( intr ) to act on or in close relation with each otherFor good measure,
Interact means that all interacting things act on or with all of the others. Otherwise it would just be "act" rather than "interact".each other
noun
each the other; one another (used as a compound reciprocal pronoun): to strike at each other; to hold each other's hands; to love each other.
And?
EDIT: I cast protection from evil. It is a [Good] descriptor spell. If I was an Evil cleric I cannot cast this spell. It is interacting with my class feature. I am attacked by a creature with an Evil alignment (for simplicity we'll say he's Neutral Evil) and I receive a +2 deflection bonus to my AC against that creature. This is it interacting with alignment. This is also it interacting with creatures (since regardless of a creature's actual alignment, the alignment subtypes will trigger this as well).