IIRC, James Jacobs has stated, black on white, that casting an [evil] spell is an evil act and that it does affect alignment, but how much it affects is up to the DM.
But that's just if I remember correctly. Can't swear on it - could've been another dev, or I could just have been dreaming.
I did read what you wrote:
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.
It sounded to me like you are saying that a characters actions cannot change their alignment. That a characters alignment is whatever they say it is, and it only interacts with the rules in a very narrow manner.
If you aren't saying that, it sounds like your argument boils down to: "Evil spells aren't Evil."
That means that, since some descriptors interact with alignment, they have an effect on alignment. The only effect something can have on alignment is to alter it. The exact magnitude of the change is left to each DM, like every single other alignment change in the game (with the exception of items like the helm of opposite alignment).
You are expanding it. It notes that most do not have a game effect by themselves, and that they exist to determine how they interact with other game effects. Interact does not mean that in changes but acts in conjunction with. The alignment chapter (not actually a chapter but it's the core of the alignment rules) explains what sort of interaction it has. Interaction also means to act in conjunction with. For example, alignment affects how spells work, and some spells work differently based on alignment.
You are trying to split hairs and dodge the issue. Show me where it says casting a spell with an alignment descriptor is an act of that alignment. Show me where it says casting protection from law repeatedly is going to make you chaotic.
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.
In the Cleric section of Core rulebook under their spellsChaotic, 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.
... a good cleric can't cast an evil spell because it's opposed to his alignment restrictions.
Clerics are powered by their faith to a deity. Clerics literally pray for their spells.A cleric of a lawful deity cannot pray for a chaotic spell because the deity is opposed to it.
A lawful cleric cannot pray for a chaotic spell because the cleric himself is opposed to it.
continued
If you are not opposed to the occasional use of true chaos, and are a cleric, you are not a lawful cleric.
It sounded to me like you are saying that a characters actions cannot change their alignment. That a characters alignment is whatever they say it is, and it only interacts with the rules in a very narrow manner.
If you aren't saying that, it sounds like your argument boils down to: "Evil spells aren't Evil."
To a point that is true. There is nothing in the core rules that says casting a spell with an alignment descriptor is an act of that alignment. There is nothing that says casting protection from law is a chaotic act, for example. There is nothing that says repeatedly casting protection from good is going to make you turn evil, or that it is an evil act. That is entirely a house rule as far as the RAW is concerned. Notice that the alignment rules say nothing about casting spells of a descriptor.
However, most evil spells are going to be used for evil purposes. Just like most good spells are used for good purposes. Some spells are going to require you to commit evil acts to use them (for example, the cure spell that requires you to sacrifice an infant) which would make it impossible for a character to actually preform the spell without committing an evil act (except if they have Eschew Materials, since they can then ignore the sacrificial baby).
So like the aforementioned example. If you have a Lawful Good wizard - based on the average of his personality and actions - who frequently casts protection from law because there is an evil tyrant whose giving him grief and the spell frequently wards against the tyrant's minions, does not mean that he is going to suddenly become a Neutral Good and then Chaotic Good wizard.
If I am wrong, please show me the text that proves it.
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.
In the Cleric section of Core rulebook under their spellsChaotic, 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.
... a good cleric can't cast an evil spell because it's opposed to his alignment restrictions.
Clerics are powered by their faith to a deity. Clerics literally pray for their spells.A cleric of a lawful deity cannot pray for a chaotic spell because the deity is opposed to it.
A lawful cleric cannot pray for a chaotic spell because the cleric himself is opposed to it.
continued
If you are not opposed to the occasional use of true chaos, and are a cleric, you are not a lawful cleric.
Thanks. That's also plenty of reason for me. I know that LG clerics cannot cast Chaotic spells. RAW they can prepare them, but not cast them. However, if they were to activate a protection from law wand, or a scroll via UMD, there is no reason their deity should suddenly come down out of the sky and get pissed with them. Which was what that question was meant to contest.
There is nothing in the core rules that says casting a spell with an alignment descriptor is an act of that alignment. There is nothing that says casting protection from law is a chaotic act, for example. There is nothing that says repeatedly casting protection from good is going to make you turn evil, or that it is an evil act. That is entirely a house rule as far as the RAW is concerned.
It is more than a house rule, it is a clarification by the Creative Director. While I don't think it's made it's way into the official FAQ, he's stated it several times and not in the "this is how I run it" way that he does sometimes, but rather in the "this is how it is in Pathfinder RPG" way that signals _tis is seriöz bissniss_.
Link 1
"As with all spells that have the [evil] descriptor, casting infernal healing is indeed an evil act. How many [evil] spells it takes for you to cast before your alignment shifts toward evil is entirely left up to your GM."
Link 2
"Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil; that's why they have that descriptor. Same goes for Good or Lawful or Chaotic. That means that certain classes can't really cast them at all (divine classes of different alignments), but that other classes (arcane spellcasters, for the most part) can cast them as much as they like. But casting alignment spells a lot will and should turn the caster toward that alignment"
So yeah, while you can claim that it's not in your written copy of the book, the intentions are 100% clear and for most people, repeated statements on how something is by the Creative Director means that's the way the cookie crumbles.
There is nothing in the core rules that says casting a spell with an alignment descriptor is an act of that alignment. There is nothing that says casting protection from law is a chaotic act, for example. There is nothing that says repeatedly casting protection from good is going to make you turn evil, or that it is an evil act. That is entirely a house rule as far as the RAW is concerned.It is more than a house rule, it is a clarification by the Creative Director. While I don't think it's made it's way into the official FAQ, he's stated it several times and not in the "this is how I run it" way that he does sometimes, but rather in the "this is how it is in Pathfinder RPG" way that signals _tis is seriöz bissniss_.
Link 1
"As with all spells that have the [evil] descriptor, casting infernal healing is indeed an evil act. How many [evil] spells it takes for you to cast before your alignment shifts toward evil is entirely left up to your GM."
Link 2
"Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil; that's why they have that descriptor. Same goes for Good or Lawful or Chaotic. That means that certain classes can't really cast them at all (divine classes of different alignments), but that other classes (arcane spellcasters, for the most part) can cast them as much as they like. But casting alignment spells a lot will and should turn the caster toward that alignment"So yeah, while you can claim that it's not in your written copy of the book, the intentions are 100% clear and for most people, repeated statements on how something is by the Creative Director means that's the way the cookie crumbles.
That's great and all, but these rules have been around for...almost 12 years now. The creative director didn't write them. I'm pretty sure Monte Cook and the gang wrote them. Likewise, the FAQ is nice but has actually been wrong and contradicted itself on occasion. So it's about as useful as the old WotC FAQ by the Sage (as in usually pretty useful but not always correct, as sometimes they actually have to change stuff because it actually goes completely against the RAW).
If they want to errata it, that's fine by me. It won't change the way my games are played. But at the moment the RAW is the RAW. I guess that's the hardcore Lawful side in me (I would definitely stat myself as Lawful Good due to my obvious preference for logic, order, rules, laws, standards, etiquette, etc; combined with my altruism, forgiving nature, etc).
So if they errata it, that's great as it might put a stop to these sorts of things. But as it is right now it is not that way in the core game. It might be that way in Golarion, but that is not how "generic pathfinder" works. That is not how it works when you buy the book off the shelf at Barnes and Nobles and come home and play it with your friends and family. That is not what it says anywhere between the front cover and the back cover in the core rulebook. Get what I'm saying?
Thanks. That's also plenty of reason for me. I know that LG clerics cannot cast Chaotic spells. RAW they can prepare them, but not cast them. However, if they were to activate a protection from law wand, or a scroll via UMD, there is no reason their deity should suddenly come down out of the sky and get pissed with them. Which was what that question was meant to contest.
I don't know. If, in the case of alignment, the only thing keeping the cleric from casting a spell is his own alignment, I do not see why he could cast the spell directly with a scroll, or means of a wand. At least not intentionally.
The cleric simply cannot cast against his alignment. The wizard can, although repeated use of strong alignments may change his alignment (at the GM's discretion). The cleric is more restricted. They have a specific clause stating so.
If the lawful cleric wants to or must use that (chaotic) scroll, he must either
1) Change his alignment, which may be the spiritual result from deciding to use the scroll. GM's rule whether he's allowed to.
or (and this may also result from 1)
2) stop being a cleric (become an ex cleric).
on protection and summons
I am not sure why people want the summons and protection spells to be unaligned.
How do you create a magic circle against good? Make a barrier made of pure, spiritual evil. Same with a circle against Law, you fuel it with pure chaos. Good, evil, law, and chaos are both concepts and actual substance.
Why is summoning a devil, daemon, or demon evil? Why wouldn't it be? Regardless of its application, you are calling forth a measurably evil being and putting it into the material plane. Same with good. If you want the assistance of a neutral ally, you'll have to use handle animal and train some guard dogs.
on protection and summons
I am not sure why people want the summons and protection spells to be unaligned.How do you create a magic circle against good? Make a barrier made of pure, spiritual evil. Same with a circle against Law, you fuel it with pure chaos. Good, evil, law, and chaos are both concepts and actual substance.
Why is summoning a devil, daemon, or demon evil? Why wouldn't it be? Regardless of its application, you are calling forth a measurably evil being and putting it into the material plane. Same with good. If you want the assistance of a neutral ally, you'll have to use handle animal and train some guard dogs.
I didn't know anyone wanted neutral protection and summoning spells. I didn't see anyone suggest that, and I know I didn't. Though it is actually entirely possible for a Neutral aligned wizard to summon neutral fiendish and celestial creatures. Likewise, when you cast a spell to bind and enslave an angel to do your bidding it is a [Good] spell.
Did I miss something?
So yeah, while you can claim that it's not in your written copy of the book, the intentions are 100% clear and for most people, repeated statements on how something is by the Creative Director means that's the way the cookie crumbles.That's great and all, but these rules have been around for...almost 12 years now. The creative director didn't write them.
Nononono, wait up. That doesn't work. You can't claim "WELL NO RULE SAYS SO!" and then when the actual writers of THIS game says so, you say "WELL IT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RULE 12 YEARS AGO!!!".
That simply doesn't work. That's like saying "well toughness only ever gives 3 hit points. Who cares what the new design team says, that rules has been around for 12 years and back then it only gave 3 hit points!".
(I would definitely stat myself as Lawful Good due to my obvious preference for logic, order, rules, laws, standards, etiquette, etc; combined with my altruism, forgiving nature, etc)
I see myself as lawful good despite despising laws. To me, law vs. chaos has more focus on the collective vs. individual factor. To each his own I guess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, when they said "This spell is evil", they figured everyone knew what "is" means.
You have two ways to interpret the rules:
Evil spells are Evil.
OR
Evil spells are not Evil.
Which one sounds more logical to you? I know which one I pick.
Nononono, wait up. That doesn't work. You can't claim "WELL NO RULE SAYS SO!" and then when the actual writers of THIS game says so, you say "WELL IT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RULE 12 YEARS AGO!!!".
That simply doesn't work. That's like saying "well toughness only ever gives 3 hit points. Who cares what the new design team says, that rules has been around for 12 years and back then it only gave 3 hit points!".
Toughness was changed. I open my rulebook and I see that toughness gives +1 HP / HD with a minimum of +3. If something is changed, then it is changed. The RAW is that toughness is not as it was 12 years ago. This is unchanged. If they want to go and change it with some errata or whatever then I guess that is their prerogative. I think that would be in poor taste as the RAW is actually more setting-neutral this way, which makes it a better RPG overall, IMHO.
(I would definitely stat myself as Lawful Good due to my obvious preference for logic, order, rules, laws, standards, etiquette, etc; combined with my altruism, forgiving nature, etc)I see myself as lawful good despite despising laws. To me, law vs. chaos has more focus on the collective vs. individual factor. To each his own I guess.
There's a lot that I hate about laws. Some are stupid. I'd still say I'm very lawful, as you would. But then again, it's entirely possible for us to have very different views while both being Lawful Good. That's the beauty of it.
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.
That simply doesn't work. That's like saying "well toughness only ever gives 3 hit points. Who cares what the new design team says, that rules has been around for 12 years and back then it only gave 3 hit points!".
Before, it was open to interpretation if [evil] spells where evil acts. It was already in 3.5. In PF, the dev's posts have cleared that up.
EDIT: I will add that already in 3.5 there was a splat that cleared it up IIRC - I remember the (quite retarded, but anyways) book of vile darkness state that casting evil spells are evil actions. I'll check it when I get home.
That simply doesn't work. That's like saying "well toughness only ever gives 3 hit points. Who cares what the new design team says, that rules has been around for 12 years and back then it only gave 3 hit points!".Before, it was open to interpretation if [evil] spells where evil acts. It was already in 3.5. In PF, the dev's posts have cleared that up.
EDIT: I will add that already in 3.5 there was a splat that cleared it up IIRC - I remember the (quite retarded, but anyways) book of vile darkness state that casting evil spells are evil actions. I'll check it when I get home.
You'll also notice that those were optional books and they modified many existing spells, including adding Evil descriptors to spells that weren't previously evil, and that's where the "mindless undead are evil" option came into the game. None of it was core. WotC couldn't even keep their optional rules strait because they actually included a core spell that was made [Evil] with the BoVD on the spell list of at least one of their prestige classes in the Book of Exalted Hypocrisy *cough* I mean Deeds.
EDIT: The BoVD was a 3.0 splatbook. Some of it was incorporated into the core 3.5, including some of the undead nonsense and making Deathwatch an [Evil] spell. However, the core of the alignment rules did not change from 3E to 3.5 nor from 3.5 to PF. If they want to errata that is fine. As-is currently, it does not function as some are suggesting.
IIRC, the comments in the book where in the "Nature of Evil" chapter, not in the "Variant Rules" chapter. Also, mindless undead where evil in core 3.5, no other books needed for that. So, what we have is:
In 3.5 core, [evil] = evil is a possible interpretation of the rules - although not explicitly stated, it is somewhat implied and makes a lot of sense. In a splat book detailing evil, it was cleared up as to [evil] = evil.
In Pathfinder core, [evil] = evil is a possible interpretation of the rules - although not explicitly stated, it is somewhat implied and makes a lot of sense. On the board, developers cleared it up to [evil] = evil.
It's far more than a house rule. A house rule would be something like [evil] = chaotic, not [evil] = evil when there's text insinuating it in the core rulebook of both systems and the developers have later clarified it in both systems.
It is the correct interpretation. You may choose to interpret it otherwise, and it won't really be a house rule - just as saying that all orcs are hermaphrodites isn't a house rule. You're in the gray area of "not impossible, but not intended".
Thanks. That's also plenty of reason for me. I know that LG clerics cannot cast Chaotic spells. RAW they can prepare them, but not cast them. However, if they were to activate a protection from law wand, or a scroll via UMD, there is no reason their deity should suddenly come down out of the sky and get pissed with them. Which was what that question was meant to contest.
Sorry but that's unbelievable. After pages of discussions, we are still at square one.
- Clerics can't CAST spells of opposite alignment. You agree to that. That's RAW.
- Using a scroll is like casting. You cast from a scroll. A scroll is basically, someone has prepared ahead the spell for you. You still must cast it. Quotes from the manual have already being given.
It follows that a cleric can't use scrolls of opposite alignment. That's RAW.
All this discussion about what is evil, what makes you evil, and what a deity gives a damn about a cleric is doing, is irrelevant to the original question. Even IF we assume that casting a spell with the evil description was evil, and even if that single act could make a cleric evil, and even if said cleric would become immediately an ex cleric AFTER casting from a scroll, that still would not explain why he couldn't cast it in the first place. So why bother?
Now, A developer has added that even spell triggers items should be forbidden, under the same rule. Imo, this is not by RAW, because using a wand is not like casting, so I consider this RAI, not RAW. Scrolls are however, a clear case.
Cheers
I was speaking about a trend of posts that basically said that by casting a spell that was opposed to their alignment outside of their clerical spells that a deity would suddenly get pissed with them trying to weasel out of their restrictions and take away all their powers. It was a note on the logical issue of that since in many cases a deity wouldn't give two coppers about you using that spell.
Because a cleric can still cast something opposed to their alignment by a scroll using Use Magic Device, and a Cleric/Wizard could just as easily use their wizard spellcasting to cast spells opposed to their alignment without making use magic device checks (a Lawful Neutral Cleric / Wizard could cast protection from law on his wizard side with no issues). And if that Lawful Neutral cleric worshipped a Neutral Good, Neutral, or Neutral Evil deity, the deity actually grants that spell themselves; so the idea that they would suddenly fly down out of the clouds and take the cleric's powers is pretty dumb.
Since that has been cleared up, that's fine.
==============================
IIRC, the comments in the book where in the "Nature of Evil" chapter, not in the "Variant Rules" chapter. Also, mindless undead where evil in core 3.5, no other books needed for that. So, what we have is:
And it was still just a 3.0 splatbook. Nothing in it was core. Prior to that damnable splatbook you never had arguments on the WotC boards about people using negative energy, because everything that came before it had clearly shown that casting stuff like Deathwatch or Inflict Light Wounds was a neutral act. Even the very planar book showed there was nothing inherently wrong with bringing negative energy into the plane anymore than there was something inherently wrong with bringing positive energy, fire energy, acid energy, cold energy, or any other sort of energy into the plane, and that it had nothing to do with alignment.
Some of it was lifted and made core in 3.5, which also caused a lot of issues, because not everything in it was made core, and some stuff that directly contradicted it was made core too (including the information and proof that negative energy was 100% neutral and akin to the elements of fire). This miss-mash gave us stuff like Deathwatch having the Evil descriptor, and some spells being [Evil] because they use or bring negative energy into the world while Inflict spells, Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Fatigue, Enervation, Waves of Exhaustion, Chill Touch, and countless more negative energy spells completely lack the [Evil] descriptor.
In short, it lost everything that even remotely resembled consistency.
In 3.5 core, [evil] = evil is a possible interpretation of the rules - although not explicitly stated, it is somewhat implied and makes a lot of sense. In a splat book detailing evil, it was cleared up as to [evil] = evil.
In Pathfinder core, [evil] = evil is a possible interpretation of the rules - although not explicitly stated, it is somewhat implied and makes a lot of sense. On the board, developers cleared it up to [evil] = evil.It's far more than a house rule. A house rule would be something like [evil] = chaotic, not [evil] = evil when there's text insinuating it in the core rulebook of both systems and the developers have later clarified it in both systems.
It is the correct interpretation. You may choose to interpret it otherwise, and it won't really be a house rule - just as saying that all orcs are hermaphrodites isn't a house rule. You're in the gray area of "not impossible, but not intended".
You'll have to forgive me but honestly I don't take what the devs say to be the word of god. They've just biffed too many times. The devs can't even agree on whether or not horses get to wear armor, and created inconsistencies within the rules. For example, it was either Jacobs or Buhlman (I forget which) who said animals don't get proficiency with barding when you train them for combat (which was directly against the rules as written), then apparently had it changed, but did a sloppy job because still - as written - they get proficiency in all barding when they are trained for combat.
So if they want to errata it, that's fine. However we should be honest. If someone asks something like "If I keep casting protection from law to protect myself from something chaotic like fey, demons, or the minions of an evil tyrant, do I turn Chaotic?" and then we should answer them honestly.
"According to the rules no. However, your GM may be using a house rule, and the developers say that you should probably turn chaotic, as up to your GM."
You'll have to forgive me but honestly I don't take what the devs say to be the word of god.
I don't either - I rarely even use alignment in my games. But when it comes to the rules of their RPG, they have final say and this has been final say several times now. There isn't any disagreement from them here, it's a clear-cut [evil]=evil, just as clear as any other rules clarification.
You'll have to forgive me but honestly I don't take what the devs say to be the word of god.I don't either - I rarely even use alignment in my games. But when it comes to the rules of their RPG, they have final say and this has been final say several times now. There isn't any disagreement from them here, it's a clear-cut [evil]=evil, just as clear as any other rules clarification.
If I may ask, why don't you use alignment in your games?
If I may ask, why don't you use alignment in your games?
Moral ambiguity is more fun.
If you want to see a good variant without alignment, check out Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved.
What does alignment add to the game besides arguments about alignment?
If I may ask, why don't you use alignment in your games?Moral ambiguity is more fun.
If you want to see a good variant without alignment, check out Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved.
What does alignment add to the game besides arguments about alignment?
Those are fair enough reasons. I actually was forced to remove general alignments from my online games to avoid metagaming. Sadly some players have not developed a great sense of roleplaying yet, and it was too tiresome and annoying watching them constantly falling back to the alignment written on someone's character sheet, regardless of how the character acted.
For example, one of my players was playing a Lawful Evil magician. She tended to do things that might be considered nice or good because it suited her goals and made life easier for her. One PC kept acting on the fact she was Evil, even though she didn't actually do anything evil, while another constantly tried to tell other people how to play their PCs according to their alignment (he acted like her character wasn't being RPed correctly unless she was eating babies or something stupid like that).
So I ended up gutting the basics of alignment from my online games. In my online games, everyone is treated as neutral. Paladins and Clerics with aligned auras actually gain the alignment subtype (as in a human paladin would be a LG Medium Humanoid (Human, Good)) which caused them to be treated as aligned as good and allow them to pierce opposed damage reductions. Then I noted that any aligned effect is 1/2 as effective on Neutral alignments. Thus holy weapons inflict +1d6 damage to neutral creatures, smites are 1/2 as effective vs neutral creatures, spells like protection from evil provide half their bonuses against neutral creatures, and so forth. Then I told people to just play their damn characters. :P
Honestly it has worked wonderfully. Nobody whines about alignment, people are more concerned with social repercussions (for example, necromancers and conjurers of evil outsiders are frowned upon or outright hunted in certain regions of the world, primarily due to social and religious reasons). I haven't seen a single instance of anyone saying "No I wouldn't agree with you because you're Evil" or "you'll betray me because you're Chaotic" or "You're not supposed to lie because you're Lawful", etc. Instead, they just play characters who act more like real people.
That being said, I never experienced a single problem with alignment in 3E for the years it was out in any group I was gaming with. Not so much as an argument. I've watched the waters get muddier and muddier with 3.5 and Pathfinder as well. However, I had never needed to preform alignment surgery on the core rules before the metagaming issue in my online games. I guess when I was 13 I just played along a more mature group than a lot of people do (we were open to the concept of circumstances and chatted about philosophy a bit now and then).
I was just curious as to why Stringburka didn't use alignment. :)
conflict between good and evil.If I may ask, why don't you use alignment in your games?Moral ambiguity is more fun.
If you want to see a good variant without alignment, check out Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved.
What does alignment add to the game besides arguments about alignment?
You can have that without alignment, truthfully. Pretty much every great fantasy story usually runs into this, and most of them aren't about alignment. I'm pretty sure Tolkien didn't go "Aragorn is a Neutral Good Ranger".
Actualy you are wrong, both the 3.0 Players handbook and the 3.5 Players Handbook explicitly state that channeling negative energy is an evil act.
It is a direct unambigous statement in both books, it is on pg 160 in the 3.5 book, I would have to go get my 3.0 book and frankly I don't have the time to do that at the moment.
Channeling negetive energy in 3.0 and 3.5 was an evil act. By RAW Good clerics could still cast negative energy spells that did not have the Evil tag, but doing so was an evil act and doing so consistantly would of course change your alignment.
The connection between negative energyand evil was core before the BoVD came out. I will check later but I am willing to bet that connection was there in previous editions.
Yes, using a cleric's channel negative ability was evil, and using their channel positive energy was good. However, casting inflict spells were not evil, even though they used negative energy. Casting healing spells were not good just because they used positive energy.
The only time it was noted as being aligned was in regards to clerics spontaneous channeling and undead turning.
That is not what the rules say, they say, "channeling negative energy is an evil act", they do nto say, "using the negative energy turning powere is an evil act". The rule is in that section, but it is a direct statment that it is evil to channel ngative energy.
Yes, using a cleric's channel negative ability was evil, and using their channel positive energy was good. However, casting inflict spells were not evil, even though they used negative energy. Casting healing spells were not good just because they used positive energy.
The only time it was noted as being aligned was in regards to clerics spontaneous channeling and undead turning.
Ok, fair enough. But that means that spells like ray of enfeeblement were also evil, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone moaning and groaning about someone's alignment taking a hit 'cause they cast that, ray of fatigue, or chill touch.
EDIT: Which my point being is that it still had nothing to do with the descriptor of spells. Never has.
What does alignment add to the game besides arguments about alignment?
conflict between good and evil.
Overrated. The Romans felt it was virtuous and just to conquer and civilize the Gauls. The Gauls felt it righteous to defend their land against invaders. Which were good and which were evil? Still plenty of conflict to be had.
I find stories with moral complexity much more interesting than black and white fairy tales. But your mileage may vary. There is no wrong way to play.
What does alignment add to the game besides arguments about alignment?conflict between good and evil.Overrated. The Romans felt it was virtuous and just to conquer and civilize the Gauls. The Gauls felt it righteous to defend their land against invaders. Which were good and which were evil? Still plenty of conflict to be had.
I find stories with moral complexity much more interesting than black and white fairy tales. But your mileage may vary. There is no wrong way to play.
I can get behind this.
I don't see the confusion here, folks.
If you have a moral code against murdering infants, whether that is a code you defined or the code of the deity you worship, you aren't allowed to murder infants, and you aren't allowed to cast a spell that requires you to murder an infant to activate it.
The above is an evil spell. Casting it is an evil act. If you are a good cleric or a neutral cleric of a good deity, you can't cast this spell, because it's evil.
If Ike Infantkiller creates a scroll of murderous cure, he killed an infant to create that scroll. Using that scroll is against your moral code because its creation involves committing an evil act. Ditto if he created a wand, or a mace, or a wondrous item that uses that spell: a spell partially powered by the murder of an infant. If your moral code doesn't allow you to murder infants, you're not allowed to use an item created by murdering infants.
The "I'm not the one who murdered the infant" excuse doesn't cut it... you're gaining an advantage or power based on the murder of infants. If you're playing poker, and you know the cards are marked, and you use those marks to win, it doesn't matter that you aren't the one who marked the cards--you're still cheating.
If you're a good cleric, it's against your moral code to commit evil acts. Casting an [evil] spell is an evil act. Using an [evil] item is an evil act. Whether or not you invented the spell or created the item, using it is an evil act because the item's power comes from an evil act.
Well, this certainly puts to rest a few similar questions I had in mind as of late. Thanks Sean!
There is no difference between Law/Chaos/Good/Evil in terms of the game. In all respects they are merely four extremes on an axis.I reject that analysis totally. It is far far easier to slide towards evil and chaos than it is law and good. Order takes effort, Good is an uphill struggle against evil, whereas the other two can be spread simply through inaction. That's why thematically novel stories aren't written in the way that you would suggest.
Alignment isn't something that a GM should be tracking numerically. He should be looking at the gestalt, the zeitgeist, not the summ of the player's actions. In each case it's fairly easy to tell...by the standards of the game if a player is committed to good, evil, neutrality, or is just a munchkin trying to game the system, the response to the latter being whatever the GM thinks will benefit his overall campaign the most.
An evil cleric who through UMD or other means that uses a good scroll to accomplish his ends isn't going to move appreciably in his axis, his soul is dammed already. A good cleric however using the evil analogue of the same spell is going to be at considerably greater risk, because it's far easier to fall than it is to rise. That's why thematic tropes have far more fallen angels than risen demons.
I tend to agree with you on the thematics. However if intent means nothing and only the action and spells make you more of that alignment then the evil wizard casting protection from evil over and over will eventually become good, or at least neutral. He might even do this because he knows by achieving this state of balance that his charms and compulsions pierce protection spells, or that he is more resistant to the heroes that would use magic or holy weapons against him.
Personally I believe intent and such matters, whole heartedly. Of course, atonement basically says you can swap alignments as long as you want to be that alignment. Did you burn down and orphanage, murderer a little old lady and throw the corpse across the street, and then piss in the sacred fire of holiness? Well, now you wish you hadn't done all of that, and you feel bad about it, and you don't want to do it again. So now, you get an atonement spell and for 3,000 gp you can be Lawful Good.
Is it stupid? I think so. Is that how they are saying it works? Yeah, pretty much.
Also, being consistent has nothing to do with munchkins. I don't know why you even brought munchkins into it. As far as the game is concerned Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are all equal forces. It is just as easy to move on the Law/Chaos axis as it is the Good/Evil axis.
I tend to agree with you on the thematics. However if intent means nothing and only the action and spells make you more of that alignment then the evil wizard casting protection from evil over and over will eventually become good, or at least neutral. He might even do this because he knows by achieving this state of balance that his charms and compulsions pierce protection spells, or that he is more resistant to the heroes that would use magic or holy weapons against him.
Why does this continue to strike you as odd? Yes, you could have an otherwise evil wizard, let's say a necromancer, living in a town and doesn't want to be evil. He believes his actions are justified, but knows the burden casting (evil) puts unto his soul and mind. He continuously does good works and casts good spells to maintain a state of neutrality- knowing full well that if he falls to darkness the paladins will find and kill him, and he will deserve to die.
He may even consider it a form of martyrdom.
Personally I believe intent and such matters, whole heartedly. Of course, atonement basically says you can swap alignments as long as you want to be that alignment. Did you burn down and orphanage, murderer a little old lady and throw the corpse across the street, and then piss in the sacred fire of holiness? Well, now you wish you hadn't done all of that, and you feel bad about it, and you don't want to do it again. So now, you get an atonement spell and for 3,000 gp you can be Lawful Good.
Is it stupid? I think so. Is that how they are saying it works? Yeah, pretty much.
Why is it stupid? Or are you saying your example is stupid, much like the fabricated baby murdering spell of healing (Which was very much a 'hey look guys, evil can be used to do good, here's an example using a non-existent spell!)
It says, rather pointedly in the atonement spell, that the subject has to truly want to change. Some random jerk PC murdering and desecrating for the luls trying to troll morality would probably get ruled by any GM as insincere atonement.
Now, a paladin that got mind controlled to do such acts, devastated that he was compelled to do them could use the atonement. Same with a paladin that got fooled into poisoning the well.
And before anyone throws out 'but he was compelled/tricked, it wasn't him', it doesn't matter. If you compel a druid to use a metal shield, he'll lose his druid powers for 24 hours. Compulsion and trickery can be used to make someone poison himself, both physically and spiritually.
On a funny note, a true neutral could use atonement to shift alignment of a LG cleric of a LN God so he could use evil scrolls. "The world is made of both light and dark... I see that now."
Also, being consistent has nothing to do with munchkins. I don't know why you even brought munchkins into it. As far as the game is concerned Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are all equal forces. It is just as easy to move on the Law/Chaos axis as it is the Good/Evil axis.
Actually, bringing up munchkins was a good point. Some players' characters aren't really being good, chaotic, evil, or whatever, they're just motivated by what would make them the most powerful/most likely to succeed in the adventure. Character wise, they would randomly do good evil lawful and chaotic things because they are ignoring the 4th wall and wanting to 'win.'
I would say that maintaining any extreme alignment is difficult. Things tend to sink towards neutrality. I don't see a good wizard casting evil spells having to fight against corruption being any more than an evil wizard casting good spells has to fight against the fragility and vulnerability of altruism.
However if intent means nothing and only the action and spells make you more of that alignment then the evil wizard casting protection from evil over and over will eventually become good, or at least neutral. He might even do this because he knows by achieving this state of balance that his charms and compulsions pierce protection spells, or that he is more resistant to the heroes that would use magic or holy weapons against him.No. I already covered this. Evil overwrites everything, and neutral overwrites good.
Evil action + evil intent = evil
Evil action + neutral intent = evil
Evil action + good intent = evil
Neutral action + evil intent = evil
Neutral action + neutral intent = neutral
Neutral action + good intent = neutral
Good action + evil intent = evil
Good action + neutral intent = neutral
Good action + good intent = goodEvil actions always result in evil. Evil intent always results in evil. Good actions and good intents only result in good when combined. There's some DM leeway with the N+G combos, but simply casting protection from evil ad infinitum for no purpose will never, ever change your alignment.
House rules aren't always a source of blessing.
And thankfully no designer team ever included something... utterly... horrible... like this.
House rules aren't always a source of blessing.I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.
If you're trying to say, "That's a house rule and I don't like it", then I'd argue that no, it isn't a house rule, no more than anything else in the alignment system. Evil is as evil does, regardless of how it does it.
It is an house rule. I find it disturbing that you think its not an house rule. Back it up with some RAW please.
The closest thing to this I have ever seen as RAW was the table with the types of creatures... which supersedes which and stuff.
Back any alignment argument up with RAW. Mine is backed up with the intent of the system: Good is harder than evil. Law is harder than chaos. Good=evil=law=chaos leads to nothing but boredom. By making the sides unequal, you automatically add moral quandries.As a perfect example, take Ashiel's evil scroll.
Under a ruling of "alignments are all equal but opposite", using the scroll is an evil act, but using it to save some poor innocent is a good act; 1-1=0, so it balances out to completely neutral. This means there's no moral quandry involved; you just use the scroll. No brainer.
Under a ruling of "good is harder than evil", using the scroll is an evil act, so what you use it for is irrelevant; it's evil. This means there's a serious moral quandry: should I stain my own soul to save the life of another? That has serious bite for characters who care about their own alignment.
Good isn't harder than evil and law isn't harder than chaos.
The intend of the alignment system was to make all alignments "equally". A good representation of this is the Wheel (Planescape cosmology) and the style in which the alignment is represented (the 9 field checkerboard). There is nothing ever implied about "weight" or how "hard" or "tiresome" alignments are.
An Demon doesn't find its life or existence any more easy than a Devil. If you think so its most likely because of real life "opinion" you project of them and see chaotics probably more as the lazy hippy people willing to sell their country for their own good while lawful guys are the hard working class trying to patriotically save their country.
This does not in any way represent the rules or intend or anything we have in D&D.
Some campaign settings surely change that, but after all its ADDITIONAL rules...
No. I already covered this. Evil overwrites everything, and neutral overwrites good.
What? Where'd you get this? Evil does not negate goodness, nor does neutrality negate goodness. A bit of evil could be used to produce a lot of good- it taints it but does not negate it.
There is sort of a summing of intent, ends, and means- left to the GM to decide. Some classes, like clerics, have some stricter rules to alignment, but they are the exceptions.
Evil action + evil intent = evil
Evil action + neutral intent = evil
Evil action + good intent = evil
Neutral action + evil intent = evil
Neutral action + neutral intent = neutral
Neutral action + good intent = neutral
Good action + evil intent = evil
Good action + neutral intent = neutral
Good action + good intent = goodEvil actions always result in evil. Evil intent always results in evil. Good actions and good intents only result in good when combined. There's some DM leeway with the N+G combos, but simply casting protection from evil ad infinitum for no purpose will never, ever change your alignment.
Why wouldn't it? An evil wizard repents by spending the rest of his days casting and creating wondrous items with protection of evil imbued on them. Perhaps he just hates demons-
Early on, he is doing it purely out of hatred of demons (they killed a loved one, shattered his dreams of grandeur, etc). But he toils.
After a long time, let's say 10 years of dedication, the very act of creating that much good works upon his soul. He becomes neutral. His intent shifts a little as well. He continues, knowing that his works could be used by others to fight against the beings he so despises.
Another 10 years, or longer, the goodness overwhelms and eventually becomes him. He keeps up his manufacturing, knowing that he is arming the good and the innocent against something truly evil.
end of fable
Why wouldn't spending decades casting good spells change your alignment? Isn't hermitage or monastic discipline following the same logic? Is casting protection from evil over and over again with a holy symbol in hand (it does need a divine focus) that much different from praying over and over with a rosary?
Ah, but in Planescape, it is frequently said that the only thing keeping the Demons and Devils from overrunning the Planes is the Bloodwar--ie, the fact that they fight each other.The "9 field checkerboard" has no bearing on how hard it is to maintain any given alignment. If it did, it would be easier to maintain a Lawful/Chaotic alignment than a Good/Evil one, because the grid is longer on the Law/Chaos axis than the Good/Evil axis. That's just silly.
Thats fluff in planescape. Demons are things made out of pure evil and chaos. Devils are made out of pure evil and law.
The Wheel is in balance. So all alignments have to be equal for that to happen.But anyway... what does this have to do how EASY it is to be that alignment? Demons are made out of planestuff... Devils are made out of planestuff... archons are made out of planestuff etc pp. Even if there are more fiends than celestials? Does that mean being a celestial is harder? The amount of fallen celestials is rather too low to explain the numeric superiority of the fiends.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Its harder to change from lawful good to chaotic evil than from lawful good to chaotic good. Thats a fact and well represented in the checkerboard.
In D&D all alignments are made out of two coordinates, x and y. Changing only one component is easier than going across the whole board and changing both x and y to their opposites. The Lawful/Chaotic component/conflict is just as important as the Good/Evil component/conflict.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And still you haven't shown up with a single RAW quote supporting you. Unless you can I guess we suspend the talk about how you perceive the whole good/evil thingy.
And you havn't shown up with a single RAW quote supporting you, either.
Wanna know why?
There are no rules governing alignment changes.
We are not talking about alignment changes.
You said that evil always supersedes good in actions. Not me. So back that up.
I said there are no such rules and thus I cannot provide rules that do not exist. Pretty self explanatory.
Also:
Alignment StepsOccasionally the rules refer to “steps” when dealing with alignment. In this case, “steps” refers to the number of alignment shifts between the two alignments, as shown on the following diagram. Note that diagonal “steps” count as two steps. For example, a lawful neutral character is one step away from a lawful good alignment, and three steps away from a chaotic evil alignment. A cleric's alignment must be within one step of the alignment of her deity.
Lawful Neutral Chaotic
Good Lawful Good Neutral Good Chaotic Good
Neutral Lawful Neutral Neutral Chaotic Neutral
Evil Lawful Evil Neutral Evil Chaotic Evil
The Nine AlignmentsNine distinct alignments define the possible combinations of the lawful-chaotic axis with the good-evil axis. Each description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts.
There are 2 axis. None are described as more "important" "harder" or anything. Nor is any direction of it described as such. Plus going diagonal is harder than going into one direction. Which is logical because both conflicts are seen as just as important. So if you go diagonal you have to "overcome" two barriers because and thus its harder.
On the contrary it is NOT described as any HARDER or EASIER to go to the lower left than to the upper right, which your "view" of the rules implies.