| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, well, nothing to be said here.
And you said it exceedingly well.
Pathfinder, as defined by its rules, is not a "shades of gray" reality. It's very black and white. If a spell is an evil spell, that means casting it is exploiting evil powers and as so is a specific act of evil.
You can choose to pursue a "greater good" argument to justify using evil in certain circumstances, but the act itself is still fundamentally evil.
Cool, so an evil wizard summoning angels to slaughter innocents is along with being despicably evil for his actions, also committing acts that are still fundamentally good?
Maybe there's hope for him! Maybe it mitigates his depravity rather than highlight it...
I disagree. I've seen people make these blanket arguments, but they are never balanced, rather they are focused on [evil] descriptor but ignore all the other alignment descriptors.
I think it's better to follow the rules that expressly say that such is directly in the DM's hands and there are no other mechanics for it as such,
James
No he commits two acts. The first, summoning an angel, is supernaturally good. The caster has altered the balance of the planes, slightly, towards good.
The second act the caster takes, order the angel to slaughter innocents, is evil. This may make the balance +5 good (summoning the angel) -50 (what you did with it). They are two separate actions, one good, one evil.
Pathfinder, as defined by its rules, is not a "shades of gray" reality. It's very black and white. If a spell is an evil spell, that means casting it is exploiting evil powers and as so is a specific act of evil.
You can choose to pursue a "greater good" argument to justify using evil in certain circumstances, but the act itself is still fundamentally evil.
Cool, so an evil wizard summoning angels to slaughter innocents is along with being despicably evil for his actions, also committing acts that are still fundamentally good?
Maybe there's hope for him! Maybe it mitigates his depravity rather than highlight it...
I disagree. I've seen people make these blanket arguments, but they are never balanced, rather they are focused on [evil] descriptor but ignore all the other alignment descriptors.
I think it's better to follow the rules that expressly say that such is directly in the DM's hands and there are no other mechanics for it as such,
James
No he commits two acts. The first, summoning an angel, is supernaturally good. The caster has altered the balance of the planes, slightly, towards good.
The second act the caster takes, order the angel to slaughter innocents, is evil. This may make the balance +5 good (summoning the angel) -50 (what you did with it). They are two separate actions, one good, one evil.
And that assumes that the angel will do what you ask. As I said, in my campaigns asking an angel to slaughter innocents is likely to result in the angel looking at you like you are crazy and saying "no."
There. Cut and dry. No wiggle room. Casting an [evil] spell is an evil act.NEXT QUESTION.
How about Empower where the devs weighed in? Oh wait, they got it wrong and corrected themselves. They are human. And from what I've seen really great guys. But if they hand you the Jack of Clubs and call it the Ace of Spades, they happen to be really great guys that are wrong. This happens, and it doesn't stop them from being really great guys that are also really knowledgeable about our beloved hobby.
They did not get it wrong. They changed their minds. I said that upthread.
In the thread when they stated it that the entire formula was not empowered they were well aware of how it worked in 3.5. There were even posters mentioning the PHB version of magic missile. It seem Jason finally changed his mind, and went with the PHB version.
Post from that thread:
Oh no - need a whole new thread for this one. Personally I think you were right the first time (per the PHB example of "Roll 1d4+1 and and multiply the result by 1-1/2 for each missile").
edit:This was brought up several times over the 2 years before it got changed. To say they were unaware of how it worked in 3.5 seems to be far from the truth.
As SKR says, if you believe the descriptor "acid" means the spell is "acid" why do you argue the descriptor "evil" does not mean the spell is "evil?"
Anyway, interpret it as you like. The rules are the rules and the developers have weighed in and very specifically said that casting evil spells is an evil act.
The RAW and RAI according to the people who wrote them and are charged with explaining and adjudicating them to their customers are that casting spells with the "evil" descriptor is an evil act.
But for your games you can play however you like.
To add to this, you not only have Sean(rules team), but James(design team) saying the same thing. If they had to make an FAQ I am sure we can all guess what the answer would be. I wish I had a way to contact the 3.5 devs because I am sure if this is FAQ'd people would say the rule is being changed when in fact it is not.
And that assumes that the angel will do what you ask. As I said, in my campaigns asking an angel to slaughter innocents is likely to result in the angel looking at you like you are crazy and saying "no."
Perhaps. The rules on supernatural beings are a bit unclear. You might be correct in saying that "attack and innocent to the best of your abilities" results in an angel just standing their. It is supernaturally incapable of taking the requested action. On the other hand you might be able to order an angel to knock down a dam flooding a valley killing the same innocents. (Then again maybe not, if the angel is lawful good that could be equally against its lawful nature).
But angels are an extreme case. Could you order a summoned creature with the celestial template to take an evil action? Also is there any difference between Monster Summoning spells (where the creature is by cannon not really there and doesn't die if killed during the summoning) and gate/planar ally? Angels only appear on the Monster Summoning IX list. By the time your dropping a 9th level spell an argument could be made that you should be able to compel the summoned creature to do about anything you want.
Normally I will hit the FAQ button even if I think I know the answer for sure, but there is some confusion. This seems like there is not even a question as to the answer.
Casting a spell with the [alignment] descriptor is an [alignment] act.
You have a link to that or are you paraphrasing? That is even better than what SKR posted if the words exist in the form.
I do know that the Book of Vile Darkness says casting evil spells is an evil act. No it is not a core book, but it shows intent, and 3.5 had a habit of using splat books to introduce rules, and or go into details on various issue. The PHB 2's changing the polymorph spells is an example. Complete Arcane saying that certain spells can be treated as weapons for the purpose of feats is another example. Another book introduced the swift action, and changed the quicken spell feat from a free action into a swift action. So now we have precedence for new books introducing rules, and a book said that cast evil spells is an evil action. I am sure there are more.The rules compendium which is an update just before 4th edition came out says this:
A descriptor further categorizes a spell. Some spells have
more than one descriptor. Most descriptors have no game
effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts
with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual crea-
tures, with alignment, and so on. The descriptors are listed
on the following table.
PS:BoVD was not introducing a rule, but giving a list of evil acts according to the game, and casting an evil spell was listed.
Monte Cook one of the leading developers of 3.5 wrote BoVD so it is not like some random freelancer snuck one by editing.
My general point is that people seem to be very worried about [evil] spells. Yet no one seems to mind or bother with [good], [lawful], [chaotic] spells. If you're going to worry about [evil] you really need to also worry about all the others. To do otherwise is hipocritical.So casting good spells can make you good?Can helping orphans make you good?
Depends on what else you do.
What do you mean?
Here is a good blanket answer:
Work it out with your GM.
It is a question of "methods verse goals." A debate that belongs in philosophy, not gaming.
I had a player's lawful neutral cleric use death knell to punish law breakers. I considered it a lawful spell in that sense, not an evil one.
I asked this question for the community, not really for myself. :)
I get to GM more often than I would like to. :(
Not sure what is being debated here anymore.
RAW, casting evil descriptor spells is an evil act.
Houserule it out if you disagree.
I was just building my case for when James gets back, and to counter any other remarks that might be made. :)
By the way: If a Celestial cannot be ordered to do evil things,as has been repeately proposed here, would it make summoned Fiends incapable of doing good, or is it again a case of "evil is cooler/easier than good!"? A fiend could very well be able to do everything in its power: It would, exempli gratia, save the orphans from the burning orphanage
And by the way, do not believe these developers- they are all bribed by those so called "Forces of Good" to distribute propaganda into this world glorifying them while diffaming us! The Celestials are the true villians!
A summoned monster does what you tell it to do. Adamantine Dragon's idea about his summons denying the caster is a houserule. There was even a celestial creature in an AP that was summoned(not called), and tried to get the adventurers to go away. Even without that AP though the rules are quiet clear. Unlike called creatures they don't get a choice.
The idea of an evil character summoning an angel to kill innocents is just silly. The angel would appear, get told that it must "attack your opponents to the best of its ability". The angel would see a bunch of innocents, double check the label on his celestial underwear and be reminded that it is a [good] creature, and say, "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life." Since this creature is the physical embodiment of good, it would not be within it's abilities to harm innocents.
Sorry, but that is blatant houseruling on your part. There is nothing in the Summon Monster or the Bestiary rules that suggests that they are not able to act contrary to their nature and in fact they have to be. Otherwise there could be no fallen angels.
EDIT: I should point out that casting a spell with an [alignment] descriptor would generally have a very minor affect on alignment compared to most other actions.
Yeah, I would guess so. If you summon a swarm of Succubi to drain an anti-paladin you would probably still come out on the good side if it were about scoring points. But if you had multiclassed as a Paladin you would have a problem.
I pulled it early on.
This thread still went to Summon Monster Mayhem.
I've played with a variant for several years that for each time you learn the spell you get to summon 1 creature. Same one every time, it has a name, a personality etc.
That way if said evil wizard is summoning an angel, over and over again and ordering it to kill puppies it's not a celestial anymore, it's a Fiend. And the angel's buddies will not be happy with said wizard. This solves alot of the Summoning shenanigans.
Wraith, this is not devil's advocate but rather more like a strawman. I am not claiming that 'nothing is really evil' but rather that the DM is the one making those calls, not descriptors on spells.
My point is that by the base assumption of the game certain things are considered to be evil. RAW does not say that stabbing people in the face for no reason is evil, but it is. As for evil spells the game also assumes casting them are evil. That is what I have been saying. The devs of both 3.x and PF have said it.
Are you saying that is not the intent no matter what sources I find?
Or are you saying that you don't care what the dev's intent is, and that if it is not written such a manner that it can't be possibly interpreted without error then it does not count, which would make sense if you don't agree with SKR's interpretation of the text he quoted.
SKR did not say if you pick up an evil sword, that it was an evil act. He said if you use an evil item, that was an evil act, and I am sure he meant that if you knew the item was evil and you used it anyway.
Here is the quote-->"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."
The alignment section says the GM decides what is evil/good/etc because not all games will be exactly the same, however certain things are still considered to be evil at the core of the game unless the GM says otherwise. That in no way takes away from the GM's power, because he can always decide that killing people and selling souls is not evil. That also in no way disagrees with your idea of intent in the alignment chapter because it supports what the devs wrote in an BoVD, and the 3.5 PHB.
As to SKR, he was also saying that when you pick up an evil sword you've committed an evil act.
Oh, really? :)
You might want to wear your bullet-proof undies if you get back into this Sean. Just a warning :)
At some point it has to be recognized that when someone wants to believe something badly enough, they simply will believe it no matter what.
Do the core rules leave adjudication to what are acts of a given alignment up to the DM, or in the case of [alignment] descriptor spells is it taken out of the DM's hands?-James
This is a specious argument. The core rules obviously leave the GM capable of doing whatever they want.
The question that should be asked is:
"Is it the intent of the developers in writing the RAW and interpreting the RAI that casting a spell with an evil descriptor is an evil act?"
That's the key point of the discussion. Tossing this "take it out of the hands of the GM" red herring into the mix is simply an attempt to obfuscate the issue.
Why wouldn't using a spell with an ALIGNMENT descriptor be an act of that alignment?
It may not be a substantial action, that is, one that will - on its own - change the caster's alignment. But it seems, to me, a little ridiculous to assert that use of aligned spells is an alignment-neutral activity.
In Pathfinder, the alignments are not merely descriptions, they are discrete, concrete FORCES that work upon the Prime Material in a manner similar to and as fundamental as the elemental forces: they are building blocks of mortal reality.
Some spells are sourced in alignment forces, as noted by their descriptors. Using them is channeling the force of a specific alignment... which is not good/evil, etc. how?
Summoning spells, in particular, are one of the areas in which mortal choice makes a difference: summon a fiend, the spell is evil; summon a deva, the spell is good. Yes, you CAN force your summoned thing to go against its nature after you've brought it forth: again, mortal choice. One of the things that makes mortals so compelling to denizens of the Outer Planes is that capacity for choosing in alignment-based decisions.
And when you use a spell with, say, an [Evil] descriptor, you have CHOSEN to make an evil act.
Maybe not a large one, in the greater scheme of things. Maybe not one that will inevitably stain your soul and make you evil. But an act of inherent evil, nonetheless. Fiends make much of small starts.
PS: While it is feasible to 'balance' your actions by wavering back-and-forth between acts good and acts evil, such a dance WILL make you chaotic.
As to SKR, he was also saying that when you pick up an evil sword you've committed an evil act.Oh, really? :)Did I misread or misunderstand your post:
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.But since you're here:
Do the core rules leave adjudication to what are acts of a given alignment up to the DM, or in the case of [alignment] descriptor spells is it taken out of the DM's hands?
Not saying whether or not a DM would adjudicate casting an [good] spell to be a good act, but rather is it their call or not?
I don't see anything in the core rules that takes it out of the hands of the DM, and I do see text in the core rules that puts it squarely in their hands.
-James
Picking up is not using. That is why I highlighted "using" in my last post saying that was not what he was saying.
Nobody is advocating taking anything out of the GM's hands. My last post explained that. I think what it comes down is if you think the game is to be played only by what is written or what is assumed to be certain core assumptions also.
I have quoted devs saying it is evil. I have quoted a dev, quoting the book, saying it is evil. That does not mean a GM has to rule that it is evil for his game, just like a GM can give more or less leeway to a paladin's code, but that does not change the default intention of the creators of the game.
Now earlier you were saying "It was something that was misconstrued amongst people in 3rd edition. It was a folklore ruling that had no basis in the rules."
I showed you Monte Cook's own writing. Since PF carries on the D&D tradition to a large extent why would it not be evil in PF especially if the PF devs are sayign it is?
Do the core rules leave adjudication to what are acts of a given alignment up to the DM, or in the case of [alignment] descriptor spells is it taken out of the DM's hands?-James
This is a specious argument. The core rules obviously leave the GM capable of doing whatever they want.
The question that should be asked is:
"Is it the intent of the developers in writing the RAW and interpreting the RAI that casting a spell with an evil descriptor is an evil act?"
That's the key point of the discussion. Tossing this "take it out of the hands of the GM" red herring into the mix is simply an attempt to obfuscate the issue.
I handled that in this post. I also said it again in my previous post saying how the two can interact without either one trumping the other. I am waiting for his response. :)
I handled that in this post. I also said it again in my previous post saying how the two can interact without either one trumping the other. I am waiting for his response. :)
It's been "handled" a dozen times. Probably several dozen in this thread alone. That hasn't stopped James from throwing red herrings all over the place.
We will wait together for his response then Wraith. But since I'm not sure how much of the thread SKR has read, I decided to let him know if he is just starting reading it now, he needn't waste his time on James' diversionary tactics.
In Pathfinder, the alignments are not merely descriptions, they are discrete, concrete FORCES that work upon the Prime Material in a manner similar to and as fundamental as the elemental forces: they are building blocks of mortal reality.Can you provide examples of this? I have never seen it.
Tri, I think it is strongly IMPLIED in different places in the rules. The description of the cosmology provides some evidence that good, evil, law and chaos are treated very similarly to elemental planes. Some monsters are described as "the embodiment of good" or language like that.
So while I do think this is strongly implied, I too have never seen it explicitly stated.
However, this is not central to the question or answer that is being sought. It is not necessary for good or evil to be "forces that work upon the Prime Material" for the fundmental issue of whether spells with evil descriptors are evil spells to be resolved. That can be ruled to be true completely apart from whether evil is a force or not.
I happen to LIKE that interpretation, but I can't quote RAW which nails it down.
TriOm:
This is speculative description, not backed up by anything other than Reason, sorry.
But the fact that we deal with objective benchmarks for alignment means that alignment forces are concrete things, supported by the existence of aligned descriptors.
|
If it were true, I would have no problem with alignment rules. Barbarians would be restricted from Lawful alignments because they literally have the essence of Chaos within them, and mixing the two is like mixing a base and an acid. Paladins have to be Lawful Good for the same reason, getting any Evil in there shorts their powers. But I haven't actually seen these concrete forces anywhere.
Nobody is advocating taking anything out of the GM's hands.Sure they are.
One the one side we have the alignment section of the core rule book that says that the DM will adjudicate this and that there is not a mechanical system for it.
On the other side we have people, and some quite learned people, claiming that the DM does not adjudicate it in this case.. they need to go with this set adjudication or make house rules for their campaign.
If you interpret houseruling as taking it out of his hands then I see your point, but I don't agree. I see it as the game assumes evil spells are evil actions, but also saying the GM is ultimately the final authority in cases where such things are not assumed to be at the core of the game. If the GM wishes to change the core of the game there is still rule 0. At no point does the GM lose anything. I would say that he has backup when players commit certain actions. The history of the game, and the text provided by SKR would back him up, and in grey areas the alignment section, and rule 0 back him up.
I have quoted devs saying it is evil. I have quoted a dev, quoting the book, saying it is evil. That does not mean a GM has to rule that it is evil for his game, just like a GM can give more or less leeway to a paladin's code, but that does not change the default intention of the creators of the game.
If the statement is: I would rule it as evil were I DMing. That's great, and more power to them.If the statement is: this is mechanically evil, and the rules say that this is the case. A DM is free to ignore that rule, of course.
That's something else. Which do you see it as?
I see it as the intent of the devs was to say that it is mechanically evil by the default presentation of the game, as pointed out by my previous post.
Now earlier you were saying "It was something that was misconstrued amongst people in 3rd edition. It was a folklore ruling that had no basis in the rules."I showed you Monte Cook's own writing. Since PF carries on the D&D tradition to a large extent why would it not be evil in PF especially if the PF devs are sayign it is?
It, like everything else, would be the DM's call. There is nothing in the core rules that says that alignment descriptor spells are mechanically acts of that alignment. There is wording in the core rules saying that the call is the DM's.I'm saying it's folklore in that people, devs included, are assuming that casting a [good] spell is a good act. In the rules it is the DM's call to say whether or not it merits such and what that might mean, if anything.
The devs are the ones that make such decisions. You can't really tell me I am wrong about the rules if I made the game. You might say I am wrong in the sense that I made a bad rule, but my rulings are going to be correct no matter how bad they are. I brought up Monte Cook because he wrote the PHB, and he wrote the book which spells out the nature of evil in 3.X whose tradition was carried forth to Pathfinder.
So once again I ask:
"Are you saying that is not the intent no matter what sources I find?
Or are you saying that you don't care what the dev's intent is, and that if it is not written such a manner that it can't be possibly interpreted without error then it does not count, which would make sense if you don't agree with SKR's interpretation of the text he quoted. "
Do you have anything in the core rule book towards [alignment] descriptor spells are acts of that alignment? No.
That is a false statement. SKR quote has been provided. You just disagree with the interpretation. That does not mean it is not proof. It is just proof you are not willing to accept, but with that aside I would like for you to answer the question I have repeated for you.
edit:corrected bad use of BB code.
Picking up is not using. That is why I highlighted "using" in my last post saying that was not what he was saying.
Thank you, wraithstrike, for understanding words. :)
James, don't put words in my mouth. Especially if you're wrong and misquoting me.
Wraith,
You've given me a lot to comment on. For now let me just respond to this one, but when I get some time (probably tomorrow as I'm running short now) I'll get back to them.
That is a false statement. SKR quote has been provided. You just disagree with the interpretation. That does not mean it is not proof. It is just proof you are not willing to accept, but with that aside I would like for you to answer the question I have repeated for you.Here is the rule quote in question:
Appearing on the same line as the school and sub-school, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.Now you are saying that this is the RAW for [evil] spells are acts of evil alignment??
Yes that is what I am saying, and what I have continued to say.
Now two sentences later we have:
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.If this is your RAW definitive proof, then yes I do find it lacking. Do you find it acceptable?
It could be written better, but I think it is good enough.
From here do you understand that wielding an axiomatic weapon is an act of law, but wielding an unholy weapon is not an act of evil?
Yes I do, and it does not make perfect sense, but that is the GM steps in.
How about casting a [fire] spell being a chaotic act? I mean obviously fire is chaotic that just stands to reason. Is a [fire] spell even always fire?
A fire spell is always fire to my knowledge. Fire in an of itself is not chaotic. I don't even see how you came to that conclusion. It can be dangerous, but that does not mean it is chaotic.
From this one line do you see that a DM *must* (baring rule 0) rule that a spell with an alignment descriptor is an act of that alignment?Compare this to:
In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls
I think you are misreading the text. Alignment can not be measured on a number scale, but certain actions push you toward one alignment or the other. Which acts and how much they push you is always up to the GM. I think we agree on that. What I am saying is that by the core assumption of the game certain things will always push you in a certain direction. Casting evil spells is one of them. I have even provided quotes to back this up from the people that made the game. That is why I want you to answer my question.
"Are you saying that is not the intent no matter what sources I find?Or are you saying that you don't care what the dev's intent is, and that if it is not written such a manner that it can't be possibly interpreted without error then it does not count, which would make sense if you don't agree with SKR's interpretation of the text he quoted. "
Now the above seems fairly clear that there is no straightjacket ruling. And the prior, again.. I simply don't see where everyone is making the leap from what's written, do you?
I have already explain why it is not a straighjacket ruling, twice already. You see it as a GM limiter if such actions are by default viewed as evil. I see it as an enabler with the alignment section empowering the GM to still rule as he sees fit.
Is the choice up to the GM or is the choice pre-made (and just not written anywhere)
As I said already the choice(at least for evil spells) is pre-made and written in the BoVD, and in the core rules. You just don't like the way it is written in the core rules.
Before responding to this post I would like my question to be answered though.
So wielding an evil aligned sword is an evil act? Wielding a +1 holy longsword is a good act?
How many stories are there about evil items corrupting their wielders?
This definitely needs to be FAQd.
Sean, I think the problem James is having is that a) your answers aren't absolutely clear in your statements (some might consider them evasive, though I consider them to be abundantly clear) and b) that the game rules do not give a clear and definitive statement regarding this issue.
Only suggestion I can make is to errata it to the extent of "Casting a spell with an alignment descriptor is an act in keeping with that alignment." and perhaps something similar regarding aligned items.
This definitely needs to be FAQd.
Sean, I think the problem James is having is that a) your answers aren't absolutely clear in your statements (some might consider them evasive, though I consider them to be abundantly clear) and b) that the game rules do not give a clear and definitive statement regarding this issue.
Only suggestion I can make is to errata it to the extent of "Casting a spell with an alignment descriptor is an act in keeping with that alignment." and perhaps something similar regarding aligned items.
James is ignoring all evidence to the contrary so even that won't help. He will then say it is contradicting the alignment section.
A clause such as X is the base assumption of the game, but GM's should always feel free to assume othewise would have to be added.
I quoted the dev that helped write 3.5, and THE book on evil, and he James said he was wrong also. You can't do much better than that.
Why does this need to be FAQed? Why is engaging in an evil act such a big deal? Aside from severe alignment-based behavioral restrictions (paladins, mainly), does it, really matter? Alignment measures the general trend in a character's moral behavior. Is casting an evil spell enough to tip the scales from one alignment to the other? Probably not. Don't sweat it.
The way I run Pathfinder, it is an evil act. But since I look at the whole of a PC's behavior hen considering their alignment, it's only one of many factors, and a relatively minor one at that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be sure Sean:
Casting a spell with the evil descriptor: Evil act?
Casting a spell with the good descriptor: Good act?
Casting a spell with the chaotic descriptor: Chaotic act?
Casting a spell with the lawful descriptor: Lawful act?
I already said that casting an [evil] spell is an evil act. The same correlation applies to the other alignment spells.
Sean, I think the problem James is having is that a) your answers aren't absolutely clear in your statements (some might consider them evasive, though I consider them to be abundantly clear) and b) that the game rules do not give a clear and definitive statement regarding this issue.
Remember kids, gloating is an evil act.