Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
No, I meant the rules text where it says using an aligned magic item or an aligned spell is an evil act.
Core Rulebook, Magic chapter:Descriptor
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
According to the rules, an [evil] spell is "categorized as" evil.Would you argue that an [acid] spell isn't acid? That an [earth] spell isn't earth? That a [fear] spell isn't fear? That a [mind-affecting] spell isn't mind-affecting? If not, why are you arguing that an [evil] spell isn't evil?
It categorizes the spell in some way because it shows that it is fueled by evil energies and will not be usable by someone who has no access to it.
An [Acid] spell is accordingly fueled by acid accordingly... and lets see... IT FITS!
.
.
According to the logic above I can walk into a Kindergarden and cast Holy Word which has a [good] tag and its a good act!
And I guess we both agree that can't be meant to be, or?
.
.
.
Also PFS has special rules that say all Unicorns are chaotic evil? I mean they have to be!
.
.
.
Plus I loled at the explanation of SKR how ultimatively perverted anything undead is and that its worse than any genocide to be one or create one.
... but Ghosts are not evil.... welll.... becauuuuuse... they are... DIFFERENT... yeah thats a good way to excuse it ;)
And he should be a bit more careful with tossing around comparisons to genocides. You know in what some people call REALITY (the thing we compare many things to) we had some bad things going on regarding genocide... ;). And that was quite bad, you know.
Common Sense...
Per the rulings, casting [Evil] is evil, and casting [Good] is good. It's why an evil cleric can't cast Holy Word (it being [Good], and against his alignment).
AF, you can do whatever you want in a homebrew, including murder non-evil guards who are arresting you for raising undead and call it chaotic neutral if you want. But that doesn't make it RAW.
Per the rulings, casting [Evil] is evil, and casting [Good] is good. It's why an evil cleric can't cast Holy Word (it being [Good], and against his alignment).
AF, you can do whatever you want in a homebrew, including murder non-evil guards who are arresting you for raising undead and call it chaotic neutral if you want. But that doesn't make it RAW.
RAW I am right. Any ruling on the forums is not binding and not legal because they are only personal opinions of the developers and are not coordinated or thought over.
And per this ruling annihilating a Kindergarden with a Holy Word is a Good Act (assuming most children are neutral aligned ;) )
Wow....just reading the arguement between alienfreak and mdt is giving me a headache. And i find it mildly amusing. But sorry, alienfreak, i must side with mdt and the Paizo devs (if that amounts to anything....) Spells with the [evil] descriptor is badwrongeeeeeeevil.
Out of which reason? Because it utilizes killing stuff?
Weapons also utilize killing stuff but not the weapons (well mostly unless they blow up on their own) kill people but people using the weapons kill people.
And my take on philosophy can't be so wrong because this reasoning is mostly the reason why there are countries (like the US) in which you may possess a weapon.
Per the rulings, casting [Evil] is evil, and casting [Good] is good. It's why an evil cleric can't cast Holy Word (it being [Good], and against his alignment).
AF, you can do whatever you want in a homebrew, including murder non-evil guards who are arresting you for raising undead and call it chaotic neutral if you want. But that doesn't make it RAW.
RAW I am right. Any ruling on the forums is not binding and not legal because they are only personal opinions of the developers and are not coordinated or thought over.
And per this ruling annihilating a Kindergarden with a Holy Word is a Good Act (assuming most children are neutral aligned ;) )
RAW you are Wrong. Casting Holy Word is a Good act. Killing the kindergartner is an evil act. You can commit two acts that are diametrically opposed, nothing in the rules say you can't. This isn't a video game where you get 2 pts for casting holy word and -1000 for killing the kid.
How many times do you have to commit evil/good/chaotic/lawful before your alignment shifts? Up to the GM. Which act is bigger evil or lesser evil, up to the GM. Is casting an [Evil] spell evil? Yes. RAW.
Per the rulings, casting [Evil] is evil, and casting [Good] is good. It's why an evil cleric can't cast Holy Word (it being [Good], and against his alignment).
AF, you can do whatever you want in a homebrew, including murder non-evil guards who are arresting you for raising undead and call it chaotic neutral if you want. But that doesn't make it RAW.
RAW I am right. Any ruling on the forums is not binding and not legal because they are only personal opinions of the developers and are not coordinated or thought over.
And per this ruling annihilating a Kindergarden with a Holy Word is a Good Act (assuming most children are neutral aligned ;) )
RAW you are Wrong. Casting Holy Word is a Good act. Killing the kindergartner is an evil act. You can commit two acts that are diametrically opposed, nothing in the rules say you can't. This isn't a video game where you get 2 pts for casting holy word and -1000 for killing the kid.
How many times do you have to commit evil/good/chaotic/lawful before your alignment shifts? Up to the GM. Which act is bigger evil or lesser evil, up to the GM. Is casting an [Evil] spell evil? Yes. RAW.
Oh sorry I forgot. Its a neutral action to kill 20 innocent children
You have to understand that from a purely logical, mechanical viewpoint, that if the rulebook doesn't say it is, the only logical explanation and conclusion is that it is not.
And what does the "dead" condition give you from a "purely logical, mechanical viewpoint?"
The only place "pure logic" has any true application is in computer programming.
There are people who primarily think in a pure logical way. That is where a lot of arguments come into. A person who can only think in a purely logical flowcharted way cannot understand assumption or common sense application. The toggle switch is either "yes it is" or "no it isn't"
There are a lot of gamers who fall into this category. I have watched for years how it has spawned arguments such as this one. Playing wargames has also shown me this mindset vs a more abstract mindset.
I studied psychology and almost graduated with it before switching out to computer science. I am primarily a logic-minded person as well (and am a computer programmer) but am also an artist, writer, and musician so have been able to develop the abstract portion of my understanding.
So I can understand both stances equally well despite where my own leanings fall (and again in this I fall in the casting evil spells is evil, though what degree of evil or how that would affect alignment is iffy... I would rule a good aligned character won't cast evil spells but most characters I GM for the past 20+ years have been neutral for this very reason)
|
And thus such questions have forced me as a GM to completely remove the core rules alignment system from my games, and go with a more prestige system, kinda like in the Factions book. Therefore evil/good is whatever the local civilization considers evil/good and is usually a very grey area, and the law is something that the players may choose to abide or ignore without being labled 'chaotic' or 'lawful'. Of course breaking a law will put a bounty on their heads, so the players will have to live with those consequences. I do rule, however, that all demons/devils are inherently 'evil' and all celestials are inherently 'good'. I don't believe in the 'renegade angel' bologne or the 'i may be a devil, but i don't want to hurt anyone and i love kittens' cheese whiz. As far as undead goes.....unless your a twihard, undead are bad. So are werewolves.
Yeah. Alignment is something that has been removed from many games for the same reasons.
What is good and evil is highly subjective to the society/culture.
I came to much the same conclusion on alignment.
You will find no alignment in any of my games.
Alignment is always a straw man why someone is the good guy and someone the bad. Or why the group has to do this now and not that because the one player is lawful... blabla
Either the people where you are like what you are doing or they don't.
Either its against the law where you are or not.
Being the good or evil guy is so much influenced by your own goals and culture that you cannot simply write it down black and white.
I hope this is a pathetic attempt at a straw man (saying an evil act and a good act cancel out, which is not supported within the rules) rather than your actual philosophical point of view but I'm not entirely sure.
Per Rules there are no such things as major/medium/minor evil or good acts. There are good acts and evil acts.
Both are on an opposed axis and cancel out each other at neutral. I guess this is common sense. Good and Evil are contrary like Acid and Base. You mix them together and it will end up neutral.So one good and one evil act will cancel each other out. Perfectly neutral to kill innocents!
|
In my games, I define good, neutral, and evil as altruistic, self-serving, and malicious. It's the only alignment system I've seen that real life people can agree on (not including forum posters who disagree the sky is blue).
Stop making sense cranewings! I'm not supposed to agree with you. It makes it weird.
I came to much the same conclusion on alignment.
Which is perfectly fine for houseruling. I did post several times, that anything can be done in houserules. If we're debating whether casting aligned spells can be houseruled, or is a good ruling within the game, that's different. If we're discussing RAW, then it's pretty established.
I tend to be a lot softer on alignment in my games than my posts my let on. But I'm running a homebrew. Certain acts are always evil, certain acts always good. But a lot of them are situational and come down to the intent of the character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my games, I define good, neutral, and evil as altruistic, self-serving, and malicious. It's the only alignment system I've seen that real life people can agree on (not including forum posters who disagree the sky is blue).
At night, the sky is black. When it's cloudy, it's white or gray. When the sun is setting, often it's red. When it's storming, often it's black.
:)
I came to much the same conclusion on alignment.You will find no alignment in any of my games.
Alignment is always a straw man why someone is the good guy and someone the bad. Or why the group has to do this now and not that because the one player is lawful... blabla
Either the people where you are like what you are doing or they don't.
Either its against the law where you are or not.Being the good or evil guy is so much influenced by your own goals and culture that you cannot simply write it down black and white.
Which is just fine for homebrew AF. But it's not RAW. As long as that's understood, there's nothing wrong with your approach as a house rule, as long as you are consistent about it.
|
|
Which is perfectly fine for houseruling. I did post several times, that anything can be done in houserules. If we're debating whether casting aligned spells can be houseruled, or is a good ruling within the game, that's different. If we're discussing RAW, then it's pretty established.
Established by writers who are not the original authors of the system. I do not give that much weight. But arguing that is like arguing Star Wars/Trek canon.
On alignment, I still use it in my games, it has its place (as much as it is contested and argued against). Here is a slightly different alignment system a friend made up, I like how he characterised adventurers, oh how fickle they can be, and other types:
INTEGRITY: The Strictness of the character in questions set of moral values, and how well he/she sticks to them.
PREJUDICE: The tendency for the character to discriminate against liberal viewpoints that could affect their status.
LAWFULNESS: The adherence and perceived worth of the laws of the governing authority.
MORALITY: How quickly the person can rationalize bringing harm to someone. How instinctive the urge to kill is.
High lawfulness is ‘lawful’
Low lawfulness is ‘chaotic’
High morality is ‘good’
Low morality is ‘evil’
High integrity is both ‘lawful’ and ‘good’
Low integrity is both ‘chaotic’ and ‘evil’
High prejudice is both ‘lawful’ and ‘evil’
Low prejudice is both ‘chaotic’ and ‘good’
========================================
SIMPLIFIED EXPANDED ALIGNMENT SETS
========================================
Honorable Lawful Pacifistic : Cleric (good gods)
Honorable Lawful -- : Knight, Samurai
Honorable Lawful Violent : Cavalier, Hangman, Devils
Honorable -- Pacifistic : Priest
Honorable -- -- : Adventurer
Honorable -- Violent : Duelist, Kensai
Honorable Criminal Pacifistic : Burglar, Insurance Schemer
Honorable Criminal -- : Thief
Honorable Criminal Violent : Gangster, Cleric(evil gods)
-- Lawful Pacifistic : Conformist
-- Lawful -- : Rough Commoner
-- Lawful Violent : Soldier
-- -- Pacifistic : Recluse, Druid, Monk
-- -- -- : The common man
-- -- Violent : Bully
-- Criminal Pacifistic : Burglar, Confidence man, Anarchist
-- Criminal -- : Malcontent, Rebel
-- Criminal Violent : Thug
Dishonorable Lawful Pacifistic : Corrupt official
Dishonorable Lawful -- : Bounty hunter
Dishonorable Lawful Violent : Corrupt Judge, Corrupt Officer
Dishonorable -- Pacifistic : Merchant
Dishonorable -- -- : Adventurer
Dishonorable -- Violent : Mercenary
Dishonorable Criminal Pacifistic : Confidence man
Dishonorable Criminal -- : Street soldier
Dishonorable Criminal Violent : Murderer, Assassin
Honorable Lawful Pacifistic : LG
Honorable Lawful -- : LG, LN
Honorable Lawful Violent : LE, LN
Honorable -- Pacifistic : LG, NG
Honorable -- -- : LG, LN, NG, TN
Honorable -- Violent : LN, LE, NE, TN
Honorable Criminal Pacifistic : NG, CG
Honorable Criminal -- : NG, TN, CG, CN
Honorable Criminal Violent : TN, NE, CN, CE
-- Lawful Pacifistic : LG, LN, NG
-- Lawful -- : LG, LN, LE, TN
-- Lawful Violent : LN, LE, NE
-- -- Pacifistic : LG, NG, TN, CG
-- -- -- : LN, NG, TN, NE, CN
-- -- Violent : LE, TN, NE, CE
-- Criminal Pacifistic : NG, CG, CN
-- Criminal -- : TN, CG, CN, CE
-- Criminal Violent : NE, CN, CE
Dishonorable Lawful Pacifistic : LG, LN, NG, TN
Dishonorable Lawful -- : LN, LE, NE, TN
Dishonorable Lawful Violent : LE, NE
Dishonorable -- Pacifistic : NG, TN, CG, CN
Dishonorable -- -- : TN, NE, CN, CE
Dishonorable -- Violent : NE, CE
Dishonorable Criminal Pacifistic : CG, CN
Dishonorable Criminal -- : CN, CE
Dishonorable Criminal Violent : CE
========================================
EXPANDED ALIGNMENT SETS
========================================
Honorable Tolerant Lawful Pacifistic : LG
Honorable Tolerant Lawful -- : LG, LN
Honorable Tolerant Lawful Violent : LE, LN
Honorable Tolerant -- Pacifistic : NG
Honorable Tolerant -- -- : TN, NG
Honorable Tolerant -- Violent : NE, TN
Honorable Tolerant Criminal Pacifistic : CG
Honorable Tolerant Criminal -- : CG, CN
Honorable Tolerant Criminal Violent : CN, CE
Honorable -- Lawful Pacifistic : LG
Honorable -- Lawful -- : LG, LN
Honorable -- Lawful Violent : LE, LN
Honorable -- -- Pacifistic : LG, NG
Honorable -- -- -- : LG, LN, NG, TN
Honorable -- -- Violent : LN, LE, NE, TN
Honorable -- Criminal Pacifistic : NG, CG
Honorable -- Criminal -- : NG, TN, CG, CN
Honorable -- Criminal Violent : TN, NE, CN, CE
Honorable Prejudice Lawful Pacifistic : LG
Honorable Prejudice Lawful -- : LN
Honorable Prejudice Lawful Violent : LE
Honorable Prejudice -- Pacifistic : LG, NG
Honorable Prejudice -- -- : LN, TN
Honorable Prejudice -- Violent : NE, LE
Honorable Prejudice Criminal Pacifistic : NG, CG
Honorable Prejudice Criminal -- : TN, CN
Honorable Prejudice Criminal Violent : NE, CE
-- Tolerant Lawful Pacifistic : LG, NG
-- Tolerant Lawful -- : LG, LN, NG, TN
-- Tolerant Lawful Violent : LN, LE, TN, NE
-- Tolerant -- Pacifistic : NG, CG
-- Tolerant -- -- : NG, TN, CG, CN
-- Tolerant -- Violent : TN, NE, CN, CE
-- Tolerant Criminal Pacifistic : CG
-- Tolerant Criminal -- : CG, CN
-- Tolerant Criminal Violent : CN, CE
-- -- Lawful Pacifistic : LG, LN, NG
-- -- Lawful -- : LG, LN, LE, TN
-- -- Lawful Violent : LN, LE, NE
-- -- -- Pacifistic : LG, NG, TN, CG
-- -- -- -- : LN, NG, TN, NE, CN
-- -- -- Violent : LE, TN, NE, CE
-- -- Criminal Pacifistic : NG, CG, CN
-- -- Criminal -- : TN, CG, CN, CE
-- -- Criminal Violent : NE, CN, CE
-- Prejudice Lawful Pacifistic : LG, LN
-- Prejudice Lawful -- : LN, LE
-- Prejudice Lawful Violent : LE
-- Prejudice -- Pacifistic : LG, LN, NG, TN
-- Prejudice -- -- : LN, LE, TN, NE
-- Prejudice -- Violent : LE, NE
-- Prejudice Criminal Pacifistic : NG, TN, CG, CN
-- Prejudice Criminal -- : TN, NE, CN, CE
-- Prejudice Criminal Violent : NE, CE
Dishonorable Tolerant Lawful Pacifistic : LG, NG
Dishonorable Tolerant Lawful -- : LN, TN
Dishonorable Tolerant Lawful Violent : LE, NE
Dishonorable Tolerant -- Pacifistic : NG, CG
Dishonorable Tolerant -- -- : TN, CN
Dishonorable Tolerant -- Violent : NE, CE
Dishonorable Tolerant Criminal Pacifistic : CG
Dishonorable Tolerant Criminal -- : CN
Dishonorable Tolerant Criminal Violent : CE
Dishonorable -- Lawful Pacifistic : LG, LN, NG, TN
Dishonorable -- Lawful -- : LN, LE, NE, TN
Dishonorable -- Lawful Violent : LE, NE
Dishonorable -- -- Pacifistic : NG, TN, CG, CN
Dishonorable -- -- -- : TN, NE, CN, CE
Dishonorable -- -- Violent : NE, CE
Dishonorable -- Criminal Pacifistic : CG, CN
Dishonorable -- Criminal -- : CN, CE
Dishonorable -- Criminal Violent : CE
Dishonorable Prejudice Lawful Pacifistic : LG, LN
Dishonorable Prejudice Lawful -- : LN, LE
Dishonorable Prejudice Lawful Violent : LE
Dishonorable Prejudice -- Pacifistic : NG, TN
Dishonorable Prejudice -- -- : TN, NE
Dishonorable Prejudice -- Violent : NE
Dishonorable Prejudice Criminal Pacifistic : CG, CN
Dishonorable Prejudice Criminal -- : CN, CE
Dishonorable Prejudice Criminal Violent : CE
SIMPLIFIED EXPANDED ALIGNMENT SETS
I see you keep using that word, but I do not believe it means what you think it means.
:)
@arioreo
A Craft skill is specifically focused on creating something. If nothing is created by the endeavor, it probably falls under the heading of a Profession skill.
I've used Profession(Blacksmith) to cover all the non-specific stuff for so long, I'd forgotten it was more of a house rule than RAW.
Established by writers who are not the original authors of the system. I do not give that much weight. But arguing that is like arguing Star Wars/Trek canon.
Which is perfectly fine for houseruling. I did post several times, that anything can be done in houserules. If we're debating whether casting aligned spells can be houseruled, or is a good ruling within the game, that's different. If we're discussing RAW, then it's pretty established.
That is one of my main problems with Jacobs.
1. They 90% just copy pasted the system and even made REALLY SLOPPY errors in their editing of the original rules.
2. He pretends he knows what a Monte Cook (and the other two) thought when creating a rule. But he doesn't.
Also on the topic of removing alignments: This boosts clerics but I removed any alignmend effect spell. Like Protection From... the Word series and so on. Now there is again Protection from [Type]. But the Word series is no more... not that anyone would miss those aberrations ;)
Well, he can at least ask Monte about it, if he feels the need.
Isn't Monte under contract by WotC again?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And right here you proved my point. Proffession(Baker) has as much use as the player puts it to, just like perception. The player not realizing its usefulness is his fault. It is a powerful skill when used right and in the correct situations.
WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING? How do you not see the difference between not applying a clearly defined skill and being forced to just make s*@! up? Profession (baker) allows you to roll to make some money and it allows you to answer so baking related questions. That's what it does. But because of an incredibly vague line about that knowledge coming with other generalized skills (which doesn't come with any assertion, by-the-way that they actually do anything) you are now forced to MAKE S$+# UP.
So to recap, I believe that it's that players fault if he didn't read the lord of the rings because he chose not to. You believe it's the players fault he didn't read the Lord of the Rings because he wasn't creative enough to write it himself?
Actually, it is always been that the GM decides when the players need to cross a river in my games. Its always the GM that decides there is an underground river in this cave. Or that the monster makes his lair on the bank of the river. Rarely, it is the players deciding they want to travel the easiest way and to do that is to follow the river, but then it is the GM who throws any hazards at them that would require them to swim, like archers on the other bank.
So you were railroaded. As a DM or 15 years myself I can tell you when you aren't afraid to go off the tracks, it is ALWAYS the players who decide where to travel.
I unfortunately don't have enough time to finish my reply and unless the other argument dies down I probably won't reply again. I apologize for that.
SIMPLIFIED EXPANDED ALIGNMENT SETS
I see you keep using that word, but I do not believe it means what you think it means.
:)
Just something a friend made. I didn't put it together, not responsible for spelling, meanings etc. I just put it up. I like the descriptions of the four part components within the alignments.
And right here you proved my point. Proffession(Baker) has as much use as the player puts it to, just like perception. The player not realizing its usefulness is his fault. It is a powerful skill when used right and in the correct situations.
WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING? How do you not see the difference between not applying a clearly defined skill and being forced to just make s&#@ up? Profession (baker) allows you to roll to make some money and it allows you to answer so baking related questions. That's what it does. But because of an incredibly vague line about that knowledge coming with other generalized skills (which doesn't come with any assertion, by-the-way that they actually do anything) you are now forced to MAKE S+** UP.
So to recap, I believe that it's that players fault if he didn't read the lord of the rings because he chose not to. You believe it's the players fault he didn't read the Lord of the Rings because he wasn't creative enough to write it himself?
Actually, it is always been that the GM decides when the players need to cross a river in my games. Its always the GM that decides there is an underground river in this cave. Or that the monster makes his lair on the bank of the river. Rarely, it is the players deciding they want to travel the easiest way and to do that is to follow the river, but then it is the GM who throws any hazards at them that would require them to swim, like archers on the other bank.So you were railroaded. As a DM or 15 years myself I can tell you when you aren't afraid to go off the tracks, it is ALWAYS the players who decide where to travel.
I unfortunately don't have enough time to finish my reply and unless the other argument dies down I probably won't reply again. I apologize for that.
Yeah, the dm can try and railroad the players, but they actually have the real power, if they act as one. If he throws out the punishments, the players will usually abide, or leave.
Hahaha, remember playing runelords, a campaign of horror and tpks, and early on we wanted to scout the region and not attack the goblin island castle. See the sights, roam a bit. We got brutally rendered unconscious by hobgoblins, rescued and put on the plot tracks. Siiiigh.
Established by writers who are not the original authors of the system. I do not give that much weight. But arguing that is like arguing Star Wars/Trek canon.
Which is perfectly fine for houseruling. I did post several times, that anything can be done in houserules. If we're debating whether casting aligned spells can be houseruled, or is a good ruling within the game, that's different. If we're discussing RAW, then it's pretty established.That is one of my main problems with Jacobs.
1. They 90% just copy pasted the system and even made REALLY SLOPPY errors in their editing of the original rules.
2. He pretends he knows what a Monte Cook (and the other two) thought when creating a rule. But he doesn't.
A few points:
1) SKR is actually one of the original writers for 3E/3.5 so we can't just ignore his contributions.
2) Monte Cook, no matter how good he is, was not the sole creator for 3E/3.5. Sure, they probably took a lot of his stuff, but certainly not all.
3) Does it really matter what Cook thought about when creating a rule for DnD? This is Pathfinder.
4) Let's see what Monte Cook has to say about Pathfinder (you can find this on page 4 of your Core Rule Book): "Make no mistake: the Pathfinder RPG is Jason’s baby."
Oh, I should mention that casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is by default Evil. That's what it means. I just got through watching The Punisher again. What he does to Travolta is evil. Is it justified? Maybe. Is it evil? Yes. This goes for a lot of things in the world. Evil acts can be justified, but they are still evil.
And thats my POINT. EVERY SINGLE SKILL REQUIRES THE GM TO MAKE S$!$ UP. Knowledge skills are defined for this, but every skill has areas which are intentionally left undefined so the GM has the leadway he needs. Just because the skills have no predefined uses doesn't mean that they don't have value. The most powerful thing about knowledge skills are the things that are not defined strictly by the rules, and professions are just variations on knowledge skills that have the added benefit of being able to make money.
And right here you proved my point. Proffession(Baker) has as much use as the player puts it to, just like perception. The player not realizing its usefulness is his fault. It is a powerful skill when used right and in the correct situations.
WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING? How do you not see the difference between not applying a clearly defined skill and being forced to just make s@+~ up? Profession (baker) allows you to roll to make some money and it allows you to answer so baking related questions. That's what it does. But because of an incredibly vague line about that knowledge coming with other generalized skills (which doesn't come with any assertion, by-the-way that they actually do anything) you are now forced to MAKE S*&~ UP.
Actually, it is always been that the GM decides when the players need to cross a river in my games. Its always the GM that decides there is an underground river in this cave. Or that the monster makes his lair on the bank of the river. Rarely, it is the players deciding they want to travel the easiest way and to do that is to follow the river, but then it is the GM who throws any hazards at them that would require them to swim, like archers on the other bank.So you were railroaded. As a DM or 15 years myself I can tell you when you aren't afraid to go off the tracks, it is ALWAYS the players who decide where to travel.
I unfortunately don't have enough time to finish my reply and unless the other argument dies down I probably won't reply again. I apologize for that.
Yes, by placing a river in the dungeon the players want to explore the GM is railroading them. /Sarcasm
Its the GMs job to make sure the players have goals, through the use of various plot hooks. Players follow their goals, and the GM gets to decide what they encounter on the way. Sometimes this leads to places the GM will not expect and "go off the tracks" - but then players are still following some goals and usually not just saying "screw all this, we don't give a damn about the plot"
Established by writers who are not the original authors of the system. I do not give that much weight. But arguing that is like arguing Star Wars/Trek canon.
Which is perfectly fine for houseruling. I did post several times, that anything can be done in houserules. If we're debating whether casting aligned spells can be houseruled, or is a good ruling within the game, that's different. If we're discussing RAW, then it's pretty established.That is one of my main problems with Jacobs.
1. They 90% just copy pasted the system and even made REALLY SLOPPY errors in their editing of the original rules.
2. He pretends he knows what a Monte Cook (and the other two) thought when creating a rule. But he doesn't.A few points:
1) SKR is actually one of the original writers for 3E/3.5 so we can't just ignore his contributions.
2) Monte Cook, no matter how good he is, was not the sole creator for 3E/3.5. Sure, they probably took a lot of his stuff, but certainly not all.
3) Does it really matter what Cook thought about when creating a rule for DnD? This is Pathfinder.
4) Let's see what Monte Cook has to say about Pathfinder (you can find this on page 4 of your Core Rule Book): "Make no mistake: the Pathfinder RPG is Jason’s baby."Oh, I should mention that casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is by default Evil. That's what it means. I just got through watching The Punisher again. What he does to Travolta is evil. Is it justified? Maybe. Is it evil? Yes. This goes for a lot of things in the world. Evil acts can be justified, but they are still evil.
Well if I look up the Evil descriptor, again, I don't see that its evil anywhere... only that its powered by evil energies.
But I mean its from a person that forgets to write that every cleric needs a deity in his very own campaign setting (its not 90% based on other existing things) in ANY of the now I think 3 books of the campaign setting. So well... expect anything to be seen as COMMON SENSE ;).
Well if I look up the Evil descriptor, again, I don't see that its evil anywhere... only that its powered by evil energies.
So if it's powered by evil (a fireball is powered by fire), why wouldn't you consider it evil (do you not consider fireballs fire?)? Doesn't that sound like you're just splitting hairs? When it says "powered by," it doesn't mean like car powered by gasoline. That would be the casting components. It means that the spell is inherently evil. Just like a fireball is inherently fire. Now there are metamagic feats that can change some descriptors, but currently there aren't any for the alignment descriptors as far as I know.
And since you are under the impression that Monte Cook has a say in this, you should read the Book of Vile Darkness for 3.5.
But I mean its from a person that forgets to write that every cleric needs a deity in his very own campaign setting (its not 90% based on other existing things) in ANY of the now I think 3 books of the campaign...
Looks like you may be mistaken:
Here's what the Core Book says:
As their powers are influenced by their faith, all clerics must focus their worship upon a divine source. While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.)
Which is consistent with the setting that has at least 4 philosophies. None of which are ruled by gods and all of which provide divine casting ability.
No, the rules only say clerics cannot use spells with opposed descriptors. It is perfectly reasonable to say it is an Evil act, but the actual rules do not label it as such.
Oh, I should mention that casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is by default Evil. That's what it means.
So a Good character can't use an Evil spell because it's in opposition to his tenets and yet we aren't going to say that that it's inherently evil? Doesn't that sound odd? If it wasn't inherently evil, then why bother giving it an Evil descriptor?
The disconnect is this:
Unless the rules specifically say "using a spell that has the [evil] tag associated with it is an evil act", some people will consider it to not be an evil act... because the rules don't say that it is.
And thats my POINT. EVERY SINGLE SKILL REQUIRES THE GM TO MAKE S*!~ UP. Knowledge skills are defined for this, but every skill has areas which are intentionally left undefined so the GM has the leadway he needs. Just because the skills have no predefined uses doesn't mean that they don't have value. The most powerful thing about knowledge skills are the things that are not defined strictly by the rules, and professions are just variations on knowledge skills that have the added benefit of being able to make money.
Actually, it is always been that the GM decides when the players need to cross a river in my games. Its always the GM that decides there is an underground river in this cave. Or that the monster makes his lair on the bank of the river. Rarely, it is the players deciding they want to travel the easiest way and to do that is to follow the river, but then it is the GM who throws any hazards at them that would require them to swim, like archers on the other bank.Yes, by placing a river in the dungeon the players want to explore the GM is railroading them. /Sarcasm
Its the GMs job to make sure the players have goals, through the use of various plot hooks. Players follow their goals, and the GM gets to decide what they encounter on the way. Sometimes this leads to places the GM will not expect and "go off the tracks" - but then players are still following some goals and usually not just saying "screw all this, we don't give a damn about the plot"
I agree with WPharolin. I don't have to make crap up about the Perception rules. It's very clear how they work. While I can make stuff up, it isn't required for me to do so. In fact, I can't recall the last time I had to make something up, but had the option to. I must make something up to make Profession skills somewhat useful outside of making some petty cash and/or answering questions about the profession.
Level 10 is indeed quite far above average. The character woud be able to down a score of individuals of the average army but they would get over-whelmed. Level 13+ is indeed scary but it comes down to what army you're fighting. Elite horse archers? Elite skirmishers? The list goes on. Even for jedi-masters, if there are enough blaster bolts coming at them, the jedi master cannot block/dodge them all. Other methods could be heavy repeater which shoots a ball of pure energy or the sniper rifle. Catch them while their guard down is down etc. I've seen this sort of thing happen in the crimson throne campaign. One character drunk on his power tried to take on an army. It didn't end well.
Well, by 20th level a wizard worth her salt can melee an army of normals into submission, generally without resorting to casting spells. Just using her innate skill, plus her usual equipment.
By 10th level, most PCs are at least worth an army in terms of how devastatingly powerful they are on the battlefield. Most enemies lack anything better than a 5% chance to hit them, and cannot critically hit them due to their AC being so high. Even cavalry isn't impressive to your average 10th level Fighter, who can probably kill most of 1st-3rd level warriors on horseback as part of his AoO when they charge him.
But it's generally not the PCs killing prowess that makes them suitable for standing up to armies. It's their durability. Effects like damage reduction are meager vs level-ranged enemies, but are devastating to mundane characters. An army of 1st-3rd level NPC warriors, experts, and adepts is going to have a lot of trouble hurting someone with damage reduction, and energy resistances are cheap and negate most low-level spells and/or alchemical weapons completely (merely by having fire resistance 10 you are immune to CL 1-2 burning hands, alchemist fire, flaming arrows, etc).
I've run several games which have reached high levels, including one I very fondly remember that reached about level 25-30. By 20th level, the party's tiefling half-fiend conjurer had Hp, AC, Saves, attack bonuses, and so forth that were good enough to take on entire battalions of 1st-3rd level NPCs without breaking a sweat or resorting to actually using up her spells. The party's kobold lich sorcerer, likewise, could have just waded through an army without using spells. Heaven forbid one of the party's warriors actually engage in a battalion vs warrior slugfest.
It's entirely honest to say that by 10th level, your average adventurer is probably powerful enough to solo a normal army, and when I say normal army, I mean two things.
1) An army consisting primarily of 1st-3rd level NPC classed enemies in large numbers as described is the norm in the 3.x DMG and is within the realm of real-life capabilities of armies (and is also supported by the 3PP Fields of Blood manual, hurray!).
2) An army that makes use of fantasy staples, including wands, potions, carpet bombing griffons, hot air balloons, hell hounds, etc.
A 10th level character is more than capable of soloing this. Not naked mind you, since they'll want their gear, but probably won't need to blow more in the battle than a couple of x/day magic items at best, while their static magic items granting AC mods and resistances pretty much keep them alive.
I've been the witness of a party of 10th level characters destroying a 10,000 creature army.
It made me twitch a couple times and drool for a month.
So a Good character can't use an Evil spell because it's in opposition to his tenets and yet we aren't going to say that that it's inherently evil? Doesn't that sound odd? If it wasn't inherently evil, then why bother giving it an Evil descriptor?No, the rules only say clerics cannot use spells with opposed descriptors. It is perfectly reasonable to say it is an Evil act, but the actual rules do not label it as such.
Oh, I should mention that casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is by default Evil. That's what it means.
Druids aren't allowed to wear metal armor and still cast their spells, but their animal companions can, their companions can, and wearing metal armor doesn't make you more metal-y. It's a class feature that decides it, but it doesn't apply to anyone else beyond that class. For example, some of the designers seem to love trying to push this idea that negative energy which is just anti-life is somehow inherently evil, yet good clerics can channel it just fine via spells like inflict critical wounds, while evil clerics can spam heal all day long if they want to.
Heck, in classic D&D settings like Grayhawk, Wee Jass the Witch Goddess / Ruby Queen has Lawful Good Paladins and Clerics in the same churches that promote and condone the use of undead. In fact, her Lawful Good clerics have access to the Death Domain. Likewise, St. Cuthburt (Grayhawk) won't accept evil worshippers but is fine with neutral clerics animating undead and gladly provides those spells, while Helm the god of law, order, and justice in the Forgotten Realms has about the same views on it as St. Cuthburt.
As has been pointed out, if you want to play the alignment nazi game, then killing stuff is per RAW inherently evil. It just is. It says so, right there in the rules. In fact, it says more about killing being evil than it does about spells being evil. So if you wanna play that game, then you better be prepared to scrap all your Paladins and make all of your heroes Evil. If you kill something, you are committing an Evil act per RAW. There's no way around it. You kill an orc instead of wrestling it to the ground? Evil. You kill someone in self defense? RAW = Evil. You stab some rapist in the back to protect the victim? Still evil. This is the result of a black & white mentality.
See, like Auticus explains, there's nothing in the rules that says casting a spell with an alignment descriptor means you must be or will become that alignment for using it, anymore than casting a fire spell is going to turn you into a fire elemental. Thus a wizard can spam animate dead all day long because his class doesn't restrict him from casting it, even if he's Lawful Good, and as long as he is using it for good or neutral intentions, he's not going to take a hit to alignment by RAW.
In fact, by RAW, it is more evil to kill an orc than it is to animate a horde of skeletal servants to clean your house and wash your dishes. It's just that simple. So if you want to start talking about house rules, and calling those who actually play the game as its written out on the rules, it might be good to familiarize yourself with them.
Also, just to point out how stupid alignment arguments are, trapping souls or spirits inside corpses can literally be a good act in Pathfinder. See the Juju Oracle who animates undead as their alignment by stuffing spirits inside of them, which somehow makes them less evil than stuffing neutral energy into a neutral corpse and then controlling it like any other magical servant (unseen servant, golem, summoned monster, whatever). The Juju Oracle even gets to ignore the alignment subtype on all undead creating spells, and their undead are the strongest undead in the game, but they can be any alignment.
This is the problem with black & white alignment. It. Does. Not. Work. It cannot work. There will ALWAYS be a contradiction or something that causes it to break down. Look at popular media. Any system, period, that is based on absolutes will not be able to work. Nature itself is a series of checks and balances.
Logically [evil] spells can't be evil acts in the sense of causing alignment shift because neutral clerics can cast them. If spells with alignment descriptors caused alignment shift anyone using them would drift towards extreme alignments so quickly there would be no reason to have them available to neutral alignments.
The only alternative is that all alignment descriptor spells cause incremental shifts and a neutral character not only can but must carefully preserve his neutrality by balancing his use of spells with one descriptor against spells of the opposite descriptor.
The CN druid who finds himself summoning with the celestial template to fight daemons had better summon some fiendish templated animals on his day off lest he stray into CG territory and become an ex-druid if alignment descriptor spells can cause alignment shift.
And there we stand as fools. As was explained earlier good and evil acts don't cancel each other out.
Any neutral character is Dooooooomed.But note that channel energy specifically says that its either a good act or an evil act.
So if you channel all your attempts per day (about 4-5?) you do 4-5 good deeds per day. After a few years of adventuring its not too uncommon that some towns full of people go missing and only shadows haunt the place!
Which is consistent with the setting that has at least 4 philosophies. None of which are ruled by gods and all of which provide divine casting ability.
Happily the sentence is also true for Greyhawk in which you can pray to anything you want.
But your logic misses another point (besides the CRB not being campaign specific to Golarion): You have to worship a god in an philosophy in Golarion and have to take the domains of that specific god.
So a Good character can't use an Evil spell because it's in opposition to his tenets and yet we aren't going to say that that it's inherently evil? Doesn't that sound odd? If it wasn't inherently evil, then why bother giving it an Evil descriptor?
A good cleric (there is no such restriction for good CHARACTERS) can't use them because his god can't fuel spells by evil energies.
|
|
As has been pointed out, if you want to play the alignment nazi game, then killing stuff is per RAW inherently evil. It just is. It says so, right there in the rules. In fact, it says more about killing being evil than it does about spells being evil. So if you wanna play that game, then you better be prepared to scrap all your Paladins and make all of your heroes Evil. If you kill something, you are committing an Evil act per RAW. There's no way around it. You kill an orc instead of wrestling it to the ground? Evil. You kill someone in self defense? RAW = Evil. You stab some rapist in the back to protect the victim? Still evil. This is the result of a black & white mentality.
See, like Auticus explains, there's nothing in the rules that says casting a spell with an alignment descriptor means you must be or will become that alignment for using it, anymore than casting a fire spell is going to turn you into a fire elemental. Thus a wizard can spam animate dead all day long because his class doesn't restrict him from casting it, even if he's Lawful Good, and as long as he is using it for good or neutral intentions, he's not going to take a hit to alignment by RAW.
In fact, by RAW, it is more evil to kill an orc than it is to animate a horde of skeletal servants to clean your house and wash your dishes. It's just that simple. So if you want to start talking about house rules, and calling those who actually play the game as its written out on the rules, it might be good to familiarize yourself with them.
Also, just to point out how stupid alignment arguments are, trapping souls or spirits inside corpses can literally be a good act in Pathfinder. See the Juju Oracle who animates undead as their alignment by stuffing spirits inside of them, which somehow makes them less evil than stuffing neutral energy into a neutral corpse and then controlling it like any other magical servant (unseen servant, golem, summoned monster, whatever). The Juju Oracle even gets to ignore the alignment subtype on all undead creating spells, and their undead are the strongest undead in the game, but they can be any alignment.
This is the problem with black & white alignment. It. Does. Not. Work. It cannot work. There will ALWAYS be a contradiction or something that causes it to break down. Look at popular media. Any system, period, that is based on absolutes will not be able to work. Nature itself is a series of checks and balances.
I wonder that, if in the Core Rules under Alignment, the publishers should have replaced the word 'killing' with 'murder' under the Good Vs Evil section? Maybe that would have helped clarify it for the RAW folks a little bit better? For example: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and murdering others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and murder without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, murdering for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.