| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Per the guide to org play p. 34-35 Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.) while following specific orders from their faction or the Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions. These are cases where karma applies to those making the orders, not their tools.
So can someone cast animate dead or shadow projection with out fear of an alignment change.
Thanks in advance.
No.
|
If casting Animate Dead directly relates to your faction mission, then you can cast it without repercussion. If it directly relates to your faction mission, you can torture, maim, or kill (even if they've surrendered) as many people as it takes to succeed. A paladin could use a baby as a flail to beat to death an unconscious prisoner if Ollystra Zadrian or Colson Maldris sends him a note asking him to "kill the bad man".
Otherwise, who knows. Expect table variation.
|
If casting Animate Dead directly relates to your faction mission, then you can cast it without repercussion. If it directly relates to your faction mission, you can torture, maim, or kill (even if they've surrendered) as many people as it takes to succeed. A paladin could use a baby as a flail to beat to death an unconscious prisoner if Ollystra Zadrian or Colson Maldris sends him a note asking him to "kill the bad man".
Otherwise, who knows. Expect table variation.
Not entirely correct. If a Paladin would still violate their code or oath by their actions, they still suffer the penalties for breaking said code/oath.
|
Not entirely correct. If a Paladin would still violate their code or oath by their actions, they still suffer the penalties for breaking said code/oath.If casting Animate Dead directly relates to your faction mission, then you can cast it without repercussion. If it directly relates to your faction mission, you can torture, maim, or kill (even if they've surrendered) as many people as it takes to succeed. A paladin could use a baby as a flail to beat to death an unconscious prisoner if Ollystra Zadrian or Colson Maldris sends him a note asking him to "kill the bad man".
Otherwise, who knows. Expect table variation.
Also, extreme example much?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Letting someone off the hook for faction missions is crap. "Just following orders" isn't a legitimate excuse when on trial for war crimes, and in a universe where good and evil are objectively measurable quantitative things, it should be even less so. They cut the vivisectionist, undead lord, and gravewalker archetypes for being too close to evil, so let the campaign flavor sword cut both ways and remove any faction missions that ask you to commit evil acts.
If you're going to turn someone evil for casting animate dead and kick them out of the Society, then just ban the spells and tell necromancers to rebuild. Skeletons and zombies are immune to mind-affecting stuff, right? To me, that indicates they don't have minds, and as long as you destroy them when you're done instead of just abandoning them into the wild, no innocents have been harmed.
|
|
Letting someone off the hook for faction missions is crap. "Just following orders" isn't a legitimate excuse when on trial for war crimes, and in a universe where good and evil are objectively measurable quantitative things, it should be even less so. They cut the vivisectionist, undead lord, and gravewalker archetypes for being too close to evil, so let the campaign flavor sword cut both ways and remove any faction missions that ask you to commit evil acts.
If you're going to turn someone evil for casting animate dead and kick them out of the Society, then just ban the spells and tell necromancers to rebuild. Skeletons and zombies are immune to mind-affecting stuff, right? To me, that indicates they don't have minds, and as long as you destroy them when you're done instead of just abandoning them into the wild, no innocents have been harmed.
Are there such extreme missions? Admittedly I haven't come across any, just curious to see if they actually include something that would quantifiably place you in the Evil side of things.
Letting someone off the hook for faction missions is crap.Are there such extreme missions? Admittedly I haven't come across any, just curious to see if they actually include something that would quantifiably place you in the Evil side of things.
I haven't run into any that were blatantly so in all cases, but I've seen one case of an enemy being defeated, stabilized, bound, and healed a little so he could be interrogated, and then when someone realized the guy was the target of their faction mission, executed. There are plenty of faction missions that amount to assassination, and the assassin PrC is required to be evil because assassins kill for no reason beyond being ordered or paid to.
I don't know if any scenarios have done this yet, but what if one faction wants someone captured and another wants the same target killed? The captors could succeed, and then the assassins step in and ruin it for them. Since there's no PvP allowed, the only thing that could potentially keep the assassins from stealing victory from the captors is the threat of an alignment hit. If "just following orders" is enough to absolve anyone from being responsible for their evil acts, then there's nothing the failed captors can do but refuse to game with those characters (or even players) in the future.|
|
Letting someone off the hook for faction missions is crap.Are there such extreme missions? Admittedly I haven't come across any, just curious to see if they actually include something that would quantifiably place you in the Evil side of things.I haven't run into any that were blatantly so in all cases, but I've seen one case of an enemy being defeated, stabilized, bound, and healed a little so he could be interrogated, and then when someone realized the guy was the target of their faction mission, executed. There are plenty of faction missions that amount to assassination, and the assassin PrC is required to be evil because assassins kill for no reason beyond being ordered or paid to.
I don't know if any scenarios have done this yet, but what if one faction wants someone captured and another wants the same target killed? The captors could succeed, and then the assassins step in and ruin it for them. Since there's no PvP allowed, the only thing that could potentially keep the assassins from stealing victory from the captors is the threat of an alignment hit. If "just following orders" is enough to absolve anyone from being responsible for their evil acts, then there's nothing the failed captors can do but refuse to game with those characters (or even players) in the future.
I honestly don't think that they would put such faction missions in the scenarios specifically because they don't allow PvP.
As an aside the Assassin PrC isn't legal because you need to be evil to play it and you can't be evil in PFS.
|
There is one Sczarni mission I can think of off the top of my head where
For this specific mission, a character doing this would not be suffering an alignment infraction, as per the new rules they were following their faction's orders. A Paladin, however, is held to a higher code of standards thank faction missions and would probably loose his powers if he went through with it.
|
|
There is one Sczarni mission I can think of off the top of my head where
** spoiler omitted **
For this specific mission, a character doing this would not be suffering an alignment infraction, as per the new rules they were following their faction's orders. A Paladin, however, is held to a higher code of standards thank faction missions and would probably loose his powers if he went through with it.
That is true, but I can't think of a single reason why a Paladin might want to join the Sczarni faction...
|
So can someone cast animate dead or shadow projection with out fear of an alignment change.
Mike Brock addressed this in the 4.2 changelog thread.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
His ruling is that ... the evil is in the use of the spell itself.
...
Raising the dead, regardless of how one does so, is an evil act.
So first you say it's only an evil act if you use the spell for an evil purpose. Then you say that raising the dead (though I assume you mean the likes of animate dead rather than raise dead) is always an evil act, no matter what.
Can you explain how you're NOT being self-contradictory?
|
|
Raising the dead, regardless of how one does so, is an evil act. Repeatedly doing so can and should lead to the loss of characters.
You know that this is exactly against what Mike said. The link is listed above.
Evil spells, all evils spells are tools. It's not the tool that causes alignment change, it's how you use the tool after you wield it that can change alignment.
|
|
You know that this is exactly against what Mike said. The link is listed above.
Evil spells, all evils spells are tools. It's not the tool that causes alignment change, it's how you use the tool after you wield it that can change alignment.
I think what Will is trying to say is that it's the action of animating dead, not the spell, that is evil.
Like in the quoted text from Mark, it's evil actions that shift your alignment. What Will is saying is if you used a limited wish to animate dead a corpse (wish does NOT have the evil descriptor) it would still be an evil act and have repercussions.
It's not the spell that's the problem, it's the fact you are wrestling unwilling souls from the beyond to do your bidding.
|
|
The PFS guide ruling is there to bring clarity to tables rulings. The faction missions as written aren't evil, so just roll with it. For example, Andoran mission #77 says you should assassinate Mayor McCheese because he's a bad bad man. In case your GM thinks it's evil, it's being clear that it's not.
Now we can get into a huge debate about "what is evil", but we've already had numerous debates and they're pointless because everyone has an opinion. Also keep in mind that you're killing intelligent and living creatures left and right with very little remorse. At times it's hard to believe that any of us are "good".
Anyway, I'm happy with the clarification, I'd like to know if evil spells are allowed though, especially Infernal Healing because it's used by many of my PCs. Without Infernal Healing, scenarios without a healer would be extremely challenging.
|
|
His ruling is that ... the evil is in the use of the spell itself.
...
Raising the dead, regardless of how one does so, is an evil act.
So first you say it's only an evil act if you use the spell for an evil purpose. Then you say that raising the dead (though I assume you mean the likes of animate dead rather than raise dead) is always an evil act, no matter what.
Can you explain how you're NOT being self-contradictory?
Sorry, that was my bad. I meant animating the dead -- not raising the dead, as per the spell. I was trying to differentiate the act of creating an undead slave from the actual spell animate dead.
Binding a dead person's soul into the husk of their dead body, interfering with their eternal rest, and then using them as a slave is an evil act -- regardless of how it is accomplished.
Animating the Dead creates mindless undead. PF tends to go by the mind=soul idea. Reading the description of the spell, nothing is mentionned about binding souls etc. It may not be a nice way to treat dead bodies, but I see nothing about it affecting souls.
In fact, aren't their PFS modules where ghosts are upset about their bodies being used to create undead? I know I've seen that somewhere before, but I'm not sure it was in PFS.
Undead with minds cannot be created before level 11 or 12 for casters, so it's not really an issue for 99% of PFS play.
|
|
especially Infernal Healing because it's used by many of my PCs. Without Infernal Healing, scenarios without a healer would be extremely challenging.
For this specific example Mike was extremely clear
Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. Using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a GM removes my PC from the campaign just for casting a legal spell there'll be hell to pay.They would technically be removing your PC from play for shifting in alignment due to committing evil acts -- not for casting the spell.
And people think it's players whose rules-lawyering we have to watch out for?
|
If a GM removes my PC from the campaign just for casting a legal spell there'll be hell to pay.They would technically be removing your PC from play for shifting in alignment due to committing evil acts -- not for casting the spell.
Except according to Michael Brock, casting an evil spell is not an evil act. If you use an evil spell to torture blind orphans, that's an evil act. If you use an evil spell to heal blind orphans, that's a good act.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Except according to Michael Brock, casting an evil spell is not an evil act. If you use an evil spell to torture blind orphans, that's an evil act. If you use an evil spell to heal blind orphans, that's a good act.If a GM removes my PC from the campaign just for casting a legal spell there'll be hell to pay.They would technically be removing your PC from play for shifting in alignment due to committing evil acts -- not for casting the spell.
Will Johnson doesn't think casting the spell is an evil act, it's the result of the spell successfully resolving that's an evil act.
EDIT: So I guess if I cast animate dead and someone counterspells it, or I fail due to being deaf or failing a concentration check or whatever, then I haven't committed an evil act. But if the spell goes off and does what it's supposed to do, well, that's a different matter entirely.
|
|
Read Mike's post again. It is not license to commit evil acts. It simply clarifies that casting an evil descriptor spell in and of itself is not evil.
If used to good ends, such as healing with infernal healing, no worries. If used to commit an evil act (as interpreted by your GM), it can lead to an alignment shift. The same is true of any spell or action. Even celestial fire can be used to torture, which is evil.
I've read the post, and I don't think casting animate dead is in and of itself an evil act. I wouldn't recommend that PCs go shopping at the local graveyard, but reanimating a creature to help them accomplish their mission? Evil spell, not an evil act.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Read Mike's post again.
Okay!
Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell ...is an alignment infraction.
(Emphasis mine.)
So if my PC casts animate dead, all I've done is cast a spell. I have to actually do something evil "outside of casting the spell" in order to commit an alignment infraction.
So unless you really do differentiate between casting a spell and having the spell successfully take effect, then no, animating the dead is not an alignment infraction in PFS. Deal with it.
|
|
I've read the post, and I don't think casting animate dead is in and of itself an evil act. I wouldn't recommend that PCs go shopping at the local graveyard, but reanimating a creature to help them accomplish their mission? Evil spell, not an evil act.So you would be a GM who interprets the creation of undead as not an evil act. Another GM may disagree. The guide allows GM's to make their own mind up about this based on the circumstances.
Players should just be aware that many GM's may argue that creating undead is evil. This could lead to a shift in alignment and the loss of a character. Players should be aware of this and should not get upset when and if it happens.
I would in fact be upset, and here is my line of thought:
If casting the evil spell is not an evil act, and I am not using it to reanimate someone's grandmother so I can kill them in hilarious fashion; if I am instead reanimating the vicious beast we slew so that we can get the medicine to the hospital in time, I do not want to lose my character for using a class feature.
|
|
Raising the dead, regardless of how one does so, is an evil act. Repeatedly doing so can and should lead to the loss of characters.
So you argue that Animating dead should get characters removed for doing what is normal for a class of character that is specified in the PFS guide as ok
So animating the dead is an end, not a means? How does that even make sense? Necromancers are always animating the dead in order to accomplish something else, not just for its own sake.Do we really need to discuss whether or not animating the dead is an evil act?
Then you complain that people are even debating this.
This is seriously wrong and goes against the PFS guide, what Mike has previously said, and the description of the society in the books. The society is not "paladins and friends." It's paladins, mercenaries, mobsters, necromancers, devil worshippers and other assorted adventurers.
If you kick out Scarni and Cheliax, or had the Silver Crusade or possibly Andora start to lead the society, then I could see your point. Until then, we need to rely on the PFS guide, what Mike has previously said, and the description of the society in the books.
|
|
Hi everyone! I wanted to hop in with a quick comment. A GM shouldn't ever "report your character as turned evil aka dead" without a warning. It states this in the guide.
I personally have a cleric of Urgathoa, who at one point did plenty of animating (I ended up coming to the conclusion that it was too expensive and stopped). But if a GM ever told me, hey, I have a problem with you doing this, then no problem, I wouldn't do it. As a player you just have to be respectful of the comfort levels of your fellow players and your GM. You know...be a reasonable human being. Depending on the game, Don't go around with undead in cities, don't do it if there's a a 10 year old at the table, don't ritually sacrifice humanoids, don't do certain things if if there's new/unknown people with clerics and pallies at the table. Some games I play her as a blood-drenched deathknelling avatar of the Pallid Princess. Some games she's just a charismatic gothy cleric who doesn't heal much.
Table variation is a part of PFS. Have fun playing your characters no matter the situation. :)
|
|
Hi everyone! I wanted to hop in with a quick comment. A GM shouldn't ever "report your character as turned evil aka dead" without a warning. It states this in the guide.
I personally have a cleric of Urgathoa, who at one point did plenty of animating (I ended up coming to the conclusion that it was too expensive and stopped). But if a GM ever told me, hey, I have a problem with you doing this, then no problem, I wouldn't do it. As a player you just have to be respectful of the comfort levels of your fellow players and your GM. You know...be a reasonable human being. Depending on the game, Don't go around with undead in cities, don't do it if there's a a 10 year old at the table, don't ritually sacrifice humanoids, don't do certain things if if there's new/unknown people with clerics and pallies at the table. Some games I play her as a blood-drenched deathknelling avatar of the Pallid Princess. Some games she's just a charismatic gothy cleric who doesn't heal much.
Table variation is a part of PFS. Have fun playing your characters no matter the situation. :)
** spoiler omitted **
I have no problem with a GM giving me a warning that he believes I'm committing an alignment infraction. Like you say, it depends on the game.
That was not my understanding of what Will was stating however. Will, if that is all you meant, I apologize for responding with so much hostility.
|
|
Hi everyone! I wanted to hop in with a quick comment. A GM shouldn't ever "report your character as turned evil aka dead" without a warning. It states this in the guide.
I personally have a cleric of Urgathoa, who at one point did plenty of animating (I ended up coming to the conclusion that it was too expensive and stopped). But if a GM ever told me, hey, I have a problem with you doing this, then no problem, I wouldn't do it. As a player you just have to be respectful of the comfort levels of your fellow players and your GM. You know...be a reasonable human being. Depending on the game, Don't go around with undead in cities, don't do it if there's a a 10 year old at the table, don't ritually sacrifice humanoids, don't do certain things if if there's new/unknown people with clerics and pallies at the table. Some games I play her as a blood-drenched deathknelling avatar of the Pallid Princess. Some games she's just a charismatic gothy cleric who doesn't heal much.
Table variation is a part of PFS. Have fun playing your characters no matter the situation. :)
** spoiler omitted **
I agree with all your points save perhaps one. At any convention you will run into people you don't know or barely know at virtually every table. Saying "don't do certain things if if there's new/unknown people with clerics and pallies at the table," covers a lot of tables. I think that would have covered all but maybe 1 of 8 tables at the last con I was at.
I would say, be careful "if there's new/unknown people with clerics and pallies at the table" or perhaps discuss matters before the adventure starts. I don't think the society would place necromancers with anti-undead paladins intentionally.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Will, do you differentiate between casting animate dead, and an undead creature actually being produced by said spell?
If yes, then that means a deaf caster might accidentally not commit an alignment infraction - if he rolls low on his d% for spell failure, then he's merely cast the spell without producing undead and is therefore fine, but being successful at what he's trying to do causes it to be illegal. So the evilness of his act is based on something outside his control (the spell failure chance), regardless of his intent.
If no, then that means that you believe casting animate dead constitutes an alignment infraction, even though Mike said that it's only actions "outside of casting the spell" that constitute alignment infractions. That means you're contradicting him.
So which is it?
|
|
My comments were to simply clarify that Mike was not giving carte blanche to the casting of any and all evil spells.
He created a distinction between the evil spell and the act in question. He clarified that healing a party member is not an evil act, so the use of infernal healing in and of itself is not evil.
However, it has been left to GM's to determine what is and isn't an evil act. Creating undead may be considered by many GM's to be an evil act. As per the guide, those GM's would need to warn anyone who attempts to do so at their table. If that player ignores those warnings, it is within the rights of that GM to shift their alignment.
Those GM's should not be attacked for making this decision. They are not violating Mike's ruling, because it is the act of creating the undead that they are objecting to. Further, players should realize that there will be table variance when it comes to evil acts and should comply with the rulings of their GM.
Mike said "simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself."
You are arguing that casting create undead isn't an evil act, but completing the casting of create undead is an evil act? Glad that issue is solved.
Mike's earlier statement regarding alignment "Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues." This statement seems to be in regards to the lawful/chaotic axis. In other words, in a world with evil and neutral dieties, violating religious codes and oathes is a chaotic act, not an evil act.