|
Say you have just defeated the boss of a dungeon, but your noble Paladin/Cleric was brought down in the fight. You are the only other caster in the party and they are bleeding out. You have the ability to heal them...but it is Infernal Healing.
I want to hear everyone's thoughts about both RP consequences and mechanics consequences for it.
Would your opinions change if it wasn't so much a life or death issue, but rather simply a issue of "oh, I was hurt, can you patch me up?"
I don't think i'd let the pally know you have a stock of demon/devil blood on you... I would assume it would NOT detect as evil... I admit i like the thought of healing a pally with evil forces... mechanics, I'd say were a non-issue. partly, he is unconcious. I do not think most paladins, depending on deity, would accept healing using such a material. RP... I can see a lot of potential, there... especially when you have to explain where you acquired such a spell/component, as the paladin (especially if his alignment was LS) stormed off to confront the store/teacher.
Mechanically... the Paladin/Cleric could be detected as evil for the duration of the spell.
Which means if there is a crazy psycho OTHER paladin around... he may get smited.
RP wise... He would feel dirty, and probably slap your caster upside the head for 'practicing the dark arts'... He may look at you differently having felt the vileness of your spell coursing through him...
Other than that... Not many reprecusions. Nobody would fall or lose their powers or anything... That kind of stuff requires an 'evil act' ususlly WILLINGLY... Not having an 'evil spell' cast ON them...
For clarification.
Infernal Healing:School conjuration (healing) [evil]; Level cleric/oracle 1, magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, summoner 1, witch 1You anoint a wounded creature with devil’s blood or unholy water, giving it fast healing 1. This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor. The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic, though this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment.
I have an infernal sorcerer who LOVES this spell, and would have ZERO qualms about casting it on ANYONE who was hurt and needed healing... The 'icky feeling will pass... death won't'
|
|
Would your analysis change if it was a wand, and this was a more common occurrence?
Mind you, I don't really think that a paladin or a cleric should have to atone for having Infernal Healing cast upon them.
But at the same time, It makes me curious as to what would happen if a party's main source of healing for example was a wand of infernal healing.
mechanics consequences: he gets healed (infernal healing does nothing to a character's alignment, nor does it influence their personality)
RP consequences: up to the players/GM but i would play it as a "necessary evil" (WAY easier on a Sarenrae paladin rather than an Iomedae crusader) and probably atone (in a characterization/RP way) for the unholy nature of the spell. If it were a matter of "patch me up" then that might be a bit more hazy, but you can still play it as giving him the strength to fight for good and making up for the wrongness of using evil power(?) making a habit out of it is definitely a no-go for an Iomedae paladin like I said though.
Wands? If the paladin is willing, he should stick to his lawful good morals to justify relying on unholy healing but if he is unwilling there's always a will-save to negate.
Depends on alignment if the whole party is using it, but I wouldn't be surprised or expect them to change their character a whole lot (it's entirely neutral to want to not die.)
Since it's a evil spell, it might effect your alignment eventually... again, i think i'd keep the knowledge away from said pally
Is possible with enough bluffs and stuffs he will never notice, since detect evil is now a targetted ability... >.> and the cone goes FROM him, not himself unless he is doing it apurpose.
Would your analysis change if it was a wand, and this was a more common occurrence?
Mind you, I don't really think that a paladin or a cleric should have to atone for having Infernal Healing cast upon them.
But at the same time, It makes me curious as to what would happen if a party's main source of healing for example was a wand of infernal healing.
I think it depends on where the wand came from.
Cure light wounds is the same level spell as Infernal healing... if the Pally and cleric are actively CHOOSING to purchase or order the {Evil} version because it's mechanically BETTER... then yeah, as a DM I'd hit them with a few warnings about compromising their ethics... Promoting a thriving economy based on Devil blood....
If they find it in loot... or the wizard bought the wand with HIS treasure... then the Pally and Cleric are fine.
If I was playing the paladin or good cleric, I've would have a big problem with it. Being infused with devil's blood and obviously evil magic, just doesn't mesh well.
The reaction of said character would depend on the character, as well as the wizard casting the spell.
It might range from taking offense from the wizard casting the spell, wanting to redeem him of his wrong ways, or start an internal conflict, the paladin feeling tainted by the spell (perhaps even feeling that dying would have been a better fate), seeking to atone in some way.
I cannot image playing such a character that would just be okay with it.
While the "lesser of two evils"-argument is decent, it is very important to remember that "the lesser evil" is still something wrong. Otherwise the argument just becomes a rubber stamp for doing whatever you feel like (or whatever is mechanically optimal).
My take:
Sequence of events:
1) Spellcaster casts Infernal Healing on Paladin (tells the Paladin this is a cure spell).
2) Paladin is allowed a sense motive check opposed by the spellcaster's bluff check.
3) Paladin is allowed a spellcraft check to recognize the spell.
4a) Paladin succeeded the spellcraft check and chooses to resist the spell.
4b) Paladin failed spellcraft check and chooses to autofail the will save (believing the spell to be harmless).
5) Assuming the Paladin has failed the save he now experiences the evil of the spell. He should be made aware of the evil feeling coursing through him.
6) Paladin should now react accordingly.
Note: An unconscious paladin just circumvents most of these steps. It does not actually change them.
Should it screw the paladin's alignment or paladinhood? Not unless he knowingly accepted the evil spell. If he knowingly accepts the evil spell then yes, he fails his code since that should be considered a (minor) evil act.
Reminder: ANY willing evil act no matter how small causes loss of the paladin's abilities.
- Gauss
Spell bluff... >.> *whistles innocently as he puts a evil cursed coin into his back pocket*
and in this case pally was knocked out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Say you have just defeated the boss of a dungeon, but your noble Paladin/Cleric was brought down in the fight. You are the only other caster in the party and they are bleeding out. You have the ability to heal them...but it is Infernal Healing.
I want to hear everyone's thoughts about both RP consequences and mechanics consequences for it.
Would your opinions change if it wasn't so much a life or death issue, but rather simply a issue of "oh, I was hurt, can you patch me up?"
Aligned spells do not affect your alignment. They only are treated as being cast by a creature of X alignment regardless of their caster's alignment. What you do with your spells is what determines your alignment. You could cast Infernal Healing x100 on others just because you can, and your alignment would become good (just as casting holy smite into a crowd of Neutral civilians is gonna be very evil), though the spell will ping as evil for the duration, will be dispelled by spells like dispel evil, and protection from evil would apply bonuses to saves if you insisted on saving against it.
While the Paladin/Cleric is under the effects of the spell they radiate an evil alignment. Of course, assuming it is a good Paladin/Cleric, they also radiate a good alignment due to their aura feature (they might confuse the piss out of an Inquisitor--especially if you cast this and protection from law on a Paladin, which would make the Paladin ping on every detect alignment spell :P).
As for the RP repercussions, that is entirely uncertain. It depends on:
- Your characters
- Your campaign
One person's Paladin might slap the shoulder of the sorcerer, nod approvingly and commend the sorcerer for using his power - albeit of darker origins - for righteousness. Another person's Paladin might consider it icky and be too caught up with his own purity to accept the aid of the sorcerer, or even try to stifle the sorcerer's right to use the spell (by the way, this would be the Paladin doing evil by the alignment rules, just sayin').
If your campaign is a place where casting any sort of magic of a particular alignment (such as [Evil]) is frowned upon, the Paladin or even the sorcerer may try to avoid casting it frequently for fear of social repercussions. For example, while the spell has no effect on the Paladin's alignment, or his code, or the sorcerer's alignment, the Paladin's peers or superiors (if any) may not be as impressed with the utility of such spells (it is after all easiest to judge others by the standards you wish you lived by). In extreme cases - which vary by campaign - regular usage might cause the sorcerer or the Paladin to be expelled from his or her order (which wouldn't prevent the Paladin from advancing as a Paladin, just as a sort of "ronin" or outcast Paladin), or may result in the Paladin's peers not approving of the company that he or she keeps ("That mage is going to be the death of you Savil. It is dark magic that courses through her veins, and you mark my words, she may be good at hiding it but there is evil inside her and she will drag both of you strait to hell if you let her!").
In Summary
- The spell affects neither the caster nor the recipient's alignment (it may even be a point for good on the caster's due to the caster acting in accordance with the Good alignment for aiding others).
- The spell does not violate the Paladin's code.
- The Paladin does not need Atonement.
- The roleplay aspects beyond mechanics are what you and your group make of them. It's important to know that not everything in the world is governed by alignment mechanics. Societies, social groups, and creatures have different ways they feel about things or view them without being X or Y on the alignment axis. So while the spell won't cause the Paladin to fall, nor the caster to become evil, it may weird people out or cause social stigmas that have nothing to do with alignment (though in-game characters may declare it so).
Im not sure how you arrive at your summary Ashiel. If making use of an evil spell is not an evil act then what is?
Intentionally using an evil spell is an evil act then it is enough to violate the Paladin's code. Intentionally and knowingly accepting an evil spell should also be considered an evil act which is enough to violate the paladin's code.
Regarding casting an aligned spell, it should affect your alignment over time. But that is up to the GM to adjucate since there are no hard rules on it. I disagree with the idea that you can use an evil spell for a good purpose and call it a good act. It is still an evil spell and your alignment should reflect that.
Summary: Alignment is vague at best, but a paladin's code of conduct utterly prohibits evil acts and intentionally using an evil spell qualifies.
- Gauss
There's a PFS ruling that dovetails Ashiel's idea that [Evil] used for good purpose makes the [Evil] not evil, but it's not held up by either James, Jason, or SKR. They all maintain that [Evil] is evil, regardless of the intentions in which it is used.
I'm offering no opinion on it either way, just thought I'd throw some info the thread's way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im not sure how you arrive at your summary Ashiel. If making use of an evil spell is not an evil act then what is?
Hurting, oppressing, or killing innocents. Read the alignment rules. Aligned spells have no effect on alignment. They are merely treated as being cast by someone of that alignment and determine how they react to other spells and effects. No where in the entire manual does it say that casting X does anything to your alignment, though it does bar certain spells from clerics (but not their deities, as a Neutral Evil cleric of a Neutral god cannot cast protection from evil, but the neutral and good clerics of the same god can).
Intentionally using an evil spell is an evil act then it is enough to violate the Paladin's code. Intentionally and knowingly accepting an evil spell should also be considered an evil act which is enough to violate the paladin's code.
Prove it. Show me the quote. The problem with such an assumption is that it creates stupid and contrived situations. One does not go to heaven because they stand on their front porch conjuring or binding celestial badgers. Capturing an angel with planar binding does not mean it's a good act, even though it gains the [Good] subtype because you're calling a good creature.
There are too many holes in that theory and no real evidence or support for anyone who is actually serious about the truth to arrive at that conclusion. It becomes a matter of pure faith: "I think this should be, so even though all evidence points to it not being, I believe it is anyway".
If you want the truth of the matter, casting protection from law to ward your allies against Formians or Inevitables is not going to suddenly make you start shirking your duties, dishonoring your codes, or mean that you dislike or abandon traditions, break promises, and so forth. That's just stupid. What it does mean is that when someone casts detect chaos, the spell is going to show up. It does mean that is someone casts dispel chaos, the spell is going down. It does mean that word of chaos is going to harm creatures with Regeneration 5 (chaotic weapons and spells). And so forth.
Summary: Alignment is vague at best, but a paladin's code of conduct utterly prohibits evil acts and intentionally using an evil spell qualifies.
Killing is an evil act. However, Paladins kill to promote good (protecting others being the most common reason), making it a Neutral act. Again, read the alignment rules. See, alignment isn't just a series of subtypes scattered about the rules. It actually has its own block of text explaining and detailing the rules surrounding alignment, what causes your alignment, what changes your alignment, etc.
Alignment
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
All creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
If your sorcerer casts fiendish healing on a wounded man, he is in keeping with Good. He is being altruistic, respecting the man's life, and so forth. He is not hurting, oppressing, or killing him. Quite the opposite. When he casts the spell, the spell is treated as being cast by an evil character, and has an evil aura, but the caster and the recipient are both not made more evil by it at all. To do so, you would need a house rule.
Likewise, a conjurer who casts lesser planar binding to summon a lantern archon to extort free continual flame spells so he can corner the market on everburning torches is not in keeping with the Good alignment, even though the spell he casts is [Good]. Instead, he is more in keeping with the Evil alignment if he forces the creature to do it against its will (because that is oppression). Whereas a magician who pulls a King Solomon and forces a fiend to do good is likely Neutral (or possibly Good) because you are binding (oppressing) the creature, but presumably to prevent the creature from harming others and perhaps to protect innocent life. However, the spell still radiates Evil if tested with detect evil.
Alignment is moral choices, actions, reasons, and habits. It is not "You cast X [Y] spells and you become Y". They are not even aligned actions. A Paladin can, legally, learn and cast animate dead and unless he actually does something evil with it he will not break his code. Read the Paladin's code, read Alignment, and then come back and I'll be happy to entertain further discussion.
I have read them, they are very vague and do not even remotely explain the effects of aligned spells. As such it is up to GMs to adjucate (as I stated). Since casting an evil spell IS an evil act, hence the tag [evil] it may have no mechanic on alignment (other than whatever the GM says) but it should still have the effect of costing a paladin his abilities.
With that said, there is NO definition of what qualifies evil acts. No list exists, thus, it is all GM fiat. Your quote does not answer what is an evil act other than some vague implications. Again, GM fiat.
If we were to use your statements no paladin ever, anywhere, would lose his abilities because the game does not clearly, in black and white, define specific actions are being evil.
I choose to accept the dev's statements that evil spells are evil acts. For that matter, I agree with them. Now, what spells are evil or good is something I may not agree with. Example: the Pro vs alignment spells should not have alignment tags. They should be usable by anyone without repercussions and it creates weird situations where a cleric has a planar binding spell he cannot use because he cannot cast the required magic circle spell.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have read them, they are very vague and do not even remotely explain the effects of aligned spells. As such it is up to GMs to adjucate (as I stated). Since casting an evil spell IS an evil act, hence the tag [evil] it may have no mechanic on alignment (other than whatever the GM says) but it should still have the effect of costing a paladin his abilities.
That is your house rule. It is not supported in the rules. The rules are clear as to what the subtypes do. Just as being born on a good-aligned plane gives you the good subtype, but you can still be Evil with a Capital E (this is RAW by the way).
With that said, there is NO definition of what qualifies evil acts. No list exists, thus, it is all GM fiat. Your quote does not answer what is an evil act other than some vague implications. Again, GM fiat.
Quote the contrary. The language is not vague in the least. Evil means hurting, killing, and oppressing. The word "implies" means that it is understood without directly saying (see dictionary.com). It also defines what makes things good.
If we were to use your statements no paladin ever, anywhere, would lose his abilities because the game does not clearly, in black and white, define specific actions are being evil.
Actually, it does. It says that hurting, killing, and oppressing others is evil. However, it is clear that not everything is good or evil. Paladins have to act in accordance to evil (hurting and killing) to also act in goodness (protecting others). The result is effectively Neutral. Now if you mean that this makes it difficult for a Paladin to randomly fall, then yes, I agree it does. As it should. A Paladin falling is a slippery slope. When something is clearly more evil - by definitions given by the alignment rules - than it is good, then it is an evil act.
This is partially why Paladins can exist at all. In an environment without scales, Paladins become paradoxical; because they by their nature as warriors must hurt, kill, and oppress others. However, they do so in a measure to promote good and to prevent more grievous evils from occuring (similar to a surgeon using a scalpel, which is used to cut - which hurts - in a manner that promotes the overall healing of the patient).
I choose to accept the dev's statements that evil spells are evil acts. For that matter, I agree with them. Now, what spells are evil or good is something I may not agree with. Example: the Pro vs alignment spells should not have alignment tags. They should be usable by anyone without repercussions and it creates weird situations where a cleric has a planar binding spell he cannot use because he cannot cast the required magic circle spell.
- Gauss
It's worth noting that clerics are not banned from casting spells not of their alignment through another class or feature. Yes, as a cleric they cannot cast them, but as a character they can. If a Neutral Evil Cleric/Wizard/Mystic Theurge wishes to cast protection from evil as a wizard, there is nothing to prevent said cleric from doing so.
As for the statements of the Devs, you can take those as you want. However, we have the rulebooks. We can actually read what is and is not true. The Devs cannot themselves actually agree on many, many things, as is evident on these boards daily. At the end of the day, there is only what is or is not the rules, and your house rules. Now the devs have frequently said things like "This is how I would run it", or "I would prefer it be like this", but unless they can back it up with the actual rules then again it - like many other things - is a house rule. Everyone has them. But some of us don't try to pass our house rules off as the rules as written (because that is obscenely rude and deceitful).
So, again, either cite the core rulebook where it says that casting X spell is X alignment regardless of the use of said thing, or don't. But if you don't, then don't say that it is. You are adding rules that do not exist. That is fine, as long as you are honest about it. I will continue to cite the rules, the alignment rules, and what those rules define as good, evil, lawful, and chaotic, and Neutral, without adding new restrictions and punishments.
Unlike your assertion, when taken to the logical extreme the rules as they are do not falter. However, the assertion that casting X is X and makes you X becomes stupid the moment you take it to its logical conclusions, and you end up with people shouting hail maries, summoning binding celestial badgers in the basement so they don't radiate as evil when the inquisitors come by.
I also don't see the need to create more issues for Paladins. They aren't like in previous editions where they are Fighter+. They're just another class. A well balanced class. With a code of conduct and alignment limitation, and one that is reasonably possible to follow using the alignment rules as they are written. I see no reason, what-so-ever, to try and invent and interpose new restrictions and ways to breach their code of conduct that do not already exist.
|
Infernal Healing:School conjuration (healing) [evil]; Level cleric/oracle 1, magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, summoner 1, witch 1You anoint a wounded creature with devil’s blood or unholy water, giving it fast healing 1. This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor. The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic, though this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment.
I guess a paladin would detect as good and evil for the duration of the spell.
So, again, either cite the core rulebook where it says that casting X spell is X alignment regardless of the use of said thing, or don't.
Infernal Healing:School conjuration (healing) [evil]; Level cleric/oracle 1, magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, summoner 1, witch 1
You anoint a wounded creature with devil’s blood or unholy water, giving it fast healing 1. This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor. The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic, though this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment.
We have here in the spell description that THIS magic... IS Evil. It's pretty much up to the DM if using Evil ingredients like Devil Blood and Unholy water and releasing a magic that IS Evil... As per the spell description, Is an 'Evil' act...
But the spell itself is infact EVIL, and the recipient can FEEL the Evil for the duration.
I'm a little curious what people think about with sorcerers or Eschew Materials? Is the spell really Evil if your NOT using the inherently evil components?
|
|
As I said, Mechanics wise, I don't really think that just by having a evil spell cast upon them, a paladin or cleric should require atonement.
However, I was more interested in the idea of it being not a one in a rare moment thing, but rather lets say that a party's main source of healing for example was a wand of infernal healing, where a paladin has to willingly accept the spell being cast upon him/her multiple times a day to heal (assuming other sources have been exhausted).
Also, just was curious as to what everyone's thoughts are about the RP consequences. I know for my wizard, who is a utilitarian who sees everything as simply a means to an end, it doesn't matter to him whether the healing is divine or not. But would a Paladin willingly accept demon's blood as a means to heal themselves?
Ashiel, at no point did I bring up creature subtypes. I stated spell types.
By your literal reading of the rules any paladin that ever kills anyone is committing an evil act. A paladin who commits an evil act loses his abilities.
The rules do not state that killing for a good purpose is a good act. They do not state that killing for a good purpose is a neutral act. You are inserting those interpretations.
- Gauss
Ashiel, at no point did I bring up creature subtypes. I stated spell types.
By your literal reading of the rules any paladin that ever kills anyone is committing an evil act. A paladin who commits an evil act loses his abilities.
The rules do not state that killing for a good purpose is a good act. They do not state that killing for a good purpose is a neutral act. You are inserting those interpretations.
- Gauss
No, I'm saying that if you are going to assign alignments to actions (which the alignment rules specify what constitutes as things in keeping with good and evil alignments) then you have to be honest about it and apply it in both cases. If in the same action you are committing evil and good by its very nature it has to be Neutral. Y'know...that really, really vast space between Good and Evil.
Paladins aren't killing for themselves (or shouldn't be). Paladins aren't killing you to take your s!%%. Paladins aren't killing you for their own ends and power. When a Paladin swings his sword to kill, it is also to protect (at least in theory). If an act is partially good, and partially evil, the act must be Neutral. Simple reasoning dictates this. It is akin to +1 and -1 make 0.
If you push an old lady down the stairs...well alignment considers that evil (hurting others). If you pushed her down the stairs to ensure she avoids the fireball that is on route to your position right now. Suddenly you committed evil (hurting others) to do good (protect the old lady, since she has better chances with the stairs vs the incoming napalm strike). Since the act was altruistic (putting her before yourself) its even more good than it is evil. Net gain for good. Congratulations, you're acting like a good guy!
It's not complicated. It is simply in keeping with the definitions that the alignment system defines. Definitions that - by their nature - are not part of spells. Now spells can be powered by an alignment, or carry the weight of an alignment, but the act of casting or utilizing those is what is important here. If a Paladin has infernal healing cast on him, he probably is not going to like it in the way I wouldn't like maggots of healing poured down my pants.
And just so we're clear...
The rules do not state that killing for a good purpose is a good act. They do not state that killing for a good purpose is a neutral act. You are inserting those interpretations.
You're right. Because they only tell you what is good, and what is evil, and what is lawful, and what is chaotic. And casting a spell with an alignment descriptor is not that. The rules tell you what casting those spells DO mean (which is that they have W, X, Y, or Z characteristics) but not that employing them is.
Let me put it another way. A Paladin is not going to fall because he picks up a +3 unholy sword and drives it through a fiend's blackened heart. Sure, the weapon is evil. It says it's evil. It hits as evil. It has an evocation [Evil] aura, because it has the Evil subtype. But the Paladin wielding that Evil weapon does not make the Paladin evil. Nor does it count as an evil act to use it. The Paladin could, wielding this weapon, rack up in points of good really, really damn fast (because wielding the weapon inflicts a negative level on the Paladin for the duration, and if he's doing so for good reasons, he's also being altruistic and making personal sacrifices to do so, so ++good).
And before you say this example is contrived, it's not. I've seen this exact thing happen before in a game. During the game the Paladin's weapon got trashed, and due to the circumstances surrounding the event he didn't have a good fallback weapon to bypass the DR of a fiend which required a cold-iron weapon. But there was a +3 unholy weapon dropped by a fiend that they had fought earlier. Realizing the best way to overcome the villain was to bite the bullet, eat the negative level, and wield this weapon that is [Evil].
Paladin then smites said fiend, using said evil weapon. It's the same thing. Alignment is very clear. It is not what you are using, it is how you are using it.
Say you have just defeated the boss of a dungeon, but your noble Paladin/Cleric was brought down in the fight. You are the only other caster in the party and they are bleeding out. You have the ability to heal them...but it is Infernal Healing.
I want to hear everyone's thoughts about both RP consequences and mechanics consequences for it.
Would your opinions change if it wasn't so much a life or death issue, but rather simply a issue of "oh, I was hurt, can you patch me up?"
I could see some paladins smiting the fiend who defiles their sacred body with that evil magic. And as a GM I'd see such an attack as justified and thus not an evil act itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see some paladins smiting the fiend who defiles their sacred body with that evil magic. And as a GM I'd see such an attack as justified and thus not an evil act itself.Say you have just defeated the boss of a dungeon, but your noble Paladin/Cleric was brought down in the fight. You are the only other caster in the party and they are bleeding out. You have the ability to heal them...but it is Infernal Healing.
I want to hear everyone's thoughts about both RP consequences and mechanics consequences for it.
Would your opinions change if it wasn't so much a life or death issue, but rather simply a issue of "oh, I was hurt, can you patch me up?"
I'm reminded of the scene in Dragonlance where the High Theocrat had burned himself and Goldmoon cast a healing spell on him and he, in his zealotry, shoved his now-healed hand back into the fire to "purify the defilement". I hope your justified paladin whose body is defiled with the vile magic and is willing to murder the person that saved them is also willing to carve the tainted-by-black-magic flesh from their own bones, if it's that big of a deal.
I'm reminded of the scene in Dragonlance where the High Theocrat had burned himself and Goldmoon cast a healing spell on him and he, in his zealotry, shoved his now-healed hand back into the fire to "purify the defilement". I hope your justified paladin whose body is defiled with the vile magic and is willing to murder the person that saved them is also willing to carve the tainted-by-black-magic flesh from their own bones, if it's that big of a deal.I could see some paladins smiting the fiend who defiles their sacred body with that evil magic. And as a GM I'd see such an attack as justified and thus not an evil act itself.Say you have just defeated the boss of a dungeon, but your noble Paladin/Cleric was brought down in the fight. You are the only other caster in the party and they are bleeding out. You have the ability to heal them...but it is Infernal Healing.
I want to hear everyone's thoughts about both RP consequences and mechanics consequences for it.
Would your opinions change if it wasn't so much a life or death issue, but rather simply a issue of "oh, I was hurt, can you patch me up?"
Believe me, that Paladin would need atonement if I was running the game. Why? Because that is not in keeping with the Good alignment. I'm not at all against letting Paladins fall. I just would rather they fall for the right reasons (actually doing evil) and not because someone poured maggots of healing in their pants.
|
Say you have just defeated the boss of a dungeon, but your noble Paladin/Cleric was brought down in the fight. You are the only other caster in the party and they are bleeding out. You have the ability to heal them...but it is Infernal Healing.
Been there, did that in a PFS game.
No, I did not ask the players permission.
Yes, they were pissed, but their character survived.
Say you have just defeated the boss of a dungeon, but your noble Paladin/Cleric was brought down in the fight. You are the only other caster in the party and they are bleeding out. You have the ability to heal them...but it is Infernal Healing.Been there, did that in a PFS game.
No, I did not ask the players permission.
Yes, they were pissed, but their character survived.
In PFS could you, at the beginning of the game, declare that you consider having evil spells cast on you pvp?
i think i woulda kept pally in dark, still... :D what he dont know cant smite you.
could you smite someone you healed with that? rather, could the pally since they would radiate evil...
The paladin did not commit an evil act, an evil spell was cast upon him. The affects of which would only last the duration of the spell. I would rule that he not need to atone for something he was an unwilling participant in. What is the difference with it being PVP or being done by an enemy? Yes, he would not be happy with the player in question and would ask why not just bandage his wounds with a heal check instead? Yes the paladin would want to purge himself of the impurity but it is not an atonable act IMHO and I am fairly harsh on paladins following the code. Why does the party have no healing potions instead? This is one of the moral dilemna questions that should not be.
Ashiel, I think the biggest problem you and I are having in this discussion is that you keep trying to bring up the RAW of alignment. This is not a rules thread. This is a general discussion as to how to handle a specific type of event which does NOT have clearly defined rules.
You are seeing a very small snippet of rules and expanding upon them. There is NOTHING in the rules regarding good+evil act = neutral act. Now, I personally agree that a good+evil act should generally be considered neutral, but if you are going to bring personal beliefs into it rather than rules (which you are) then we are having a different discussion.
In short: the 'rules' on alignment are so brief and so vague as to constitute only a general guideline and not rules at all. Thus as I have been saying, it is up to the GM. You appear to be applying this (being up to the GM) without admitting you are.
- Gauss
Ashiel, I think the biggest problem you and I are having in this discussion is that you keep trying to bring up the RAW of alignment. This is not a rules thread. This is a general discussion as to how to handle a specific type of event which does NOT have clearly defined rules.
I have to agree. RAW is deliberately vague on PC alignment and the repercussions of using the power of evil. (i.e. spells with the [Evil] descriptor.) Involuntary PC alignment shift is solely in the hands of the GM. The game is designed around that-- this is why there are no "good/evil points" or "law/chaos points" that determine a PCs alignment.
I can tell you how I handle the use of spells like infernal healing in my game: Every time you use or benefit from a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, it chews up a little bit of your soul. Once, twice, or a handful of times won't affect a PC's non-evil alignment. Relying on it most certainly will have a long-term effect.
It was a while ago, but either SKR or JJ stated that in their own interpertation of the spell, the recipeint can feel the power of evil coursing through her body while the spell is in effect. I made the same ruling in my campaign world, and this means that if infernal healing were cast on an unconscious person, that person would still know it as soon as she regained consciousness. A well-played paladin or good cleric would certainly be very angry with the caster, and should want to attone for the sin of benefiting from using the power of evil.
Of course, in your game, feel free to interpert this differently. Actually, that's kind of the point, and why the RAW are deliberately vague.
In my interpretation of alignment, an activity has two components: action and intention. If either part is evil, then the activity overall is evil. As the addage goes, "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
So, by my logic, casting infernal healing to save somebody's life-- good intention/evil action = evil act.
Another example: casting summon monster to summon a couatl and force it to attack the wise and just king's castle-- good action/evil intention= evil act.
But this is rapidly spinning into Yet Another Alignment Thread.
Ashiel, I think the biggest problem you and I are having in this discussion is that you keep trying to bring up the RAW of alignment. This is not a rules thread. This is a general discussion as to how to handle a specific type of event which does NOT have clearly defined rules.
You are seeing a very small snippet of rules and expanding upon them. There is NOTHING in the rules regarding good+evil act = neutral act. Now, I personally agree that a good+evil act should generally be considered neutral, but if you are going to bring personal beliefs into it rather than rules (which you are) then we are having a different discussion.
In short: the 'rules' on alignment are so brief and so vague as to constitute only a general guideline and not rules at all. Thus as I have been saying, it is up to the GM. You appear to be applying this (being up to the GM) without admitting you are.
- Gauss
You do realize that throughout the entirety of the Alignment Rules, the only time "act" is mentioned is if someone is acting out of custom with their alignment, right? RAW, the only thing that is an evil act is an action that is in accordance with the evil alignment. Which is not happening in this case.
Furthermore...
If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why.
The alignment rules DO define what makes the alignments. If they are as vague as some posit, then they are useless and are wastes of time and/or effort. Or they are aren't and are usable.
Essentially if you are acting in accordance with an alignment, then you are preforming an aligned act. Paladins who are killing people to protect others are acting in accordance with both evil and good by definition of the alignment rules. What else would you call this other than Neutral (being simple here, because these are game mechanics)?
The only way you make a good or evil act is by acting in accordance to that alignment. Acting in mixed accordance is a "Neutral" act by definition of what constitutes as acting in accordance to the rules of alignment. Acting outside of Lawful Good is legal for a Paladin. However, acting in an Evil fashion is not, and results in falling. Ergo, by the rules, Paladins can function as long as their alignment remains Lawful Good and they take no actions in keeping with the Evil alignment.
Again this has diddly squat to do with spells, swords, items, or whether or not you were healed by a spell. A Paladin doesn't need atonement for being hit with unholy blight from an Erinyes, and he doesn't need atonement for being healed by infernal healing. The caster who casted it did not act in accordance with the Evil alignment (s/he did not HURT, OPPRESS, or KILL OTHERS) and instead was acting in accordance with the Good alignment (s/he was being ALTRUISTIC, RESPECTING LIFE, CONCERNED FOR WELLBEING).
These are actions in accordance with the alignments as defined by alignment. These are the empirical rules of alignment. The source. The wellspring of what alignment is. This is the authority on alignment. The only mention it makes of acting is based on whether or not the action is in accordance with said alignment.
I can't break it down to be any simpler than this. I don't think anyone could. The game ceases to function when taken to its logical conclusions if you try to run it differently, and requires countless arbitration and expansions and ammendments as to what is Good and Evil beyond what the alignment rules define it at.
Returning to the social repercussions (as noted in the title), there's a big difference between social rammifications and alignment. The vast majority of conflicts throughout campaigns have little to do with alignment directly (though people may quickly declare their opinions of good vs evil in the campaign, even if their views of good/evil do not adhere to the objective morality of D&D/PF, because that's the difference between character opinion and universal laws).
That means if you do stuff that is frowned upon socially (which very likely includes infernal healing for several reasons) that may result in a stigma. It may result in being shunned, persecuted, or punished for their actions if they were morally correct by objective standards, but not by the opinion or understanding of their peers. This is basically the primary enabler of tropes concerning evil-doers who pose as good, or misunderstood heroes ("He's a wolf, you can't trust him.").
Which means even though such an instance has 0% affect on either character mechanically, it is still a source of in-game RP, because characters form their own opinions, beliefs, and ideals based on their experiences and beliefs (which may or may not be in accordance with the objective morality of D&D/PF). It could cause strife between the two, or perhaps the Cleric/Paladin could accept the judgment of the caster out of their friendship yet be shunned by the rest of society or the Cleric/Paladin's order ("I get him, if no one else does. He may seem bad, but you don't see him as I do.") which could cause outside strife that could batter or reinforce their bond.
There are many story telling elements surrounding this, and all have strong places in an RPG. Some examples include:
- Bad Powers, Good People.
- Good is Not Soft.
- Dark is Not Evil.
- Can be a perfect time for the Paladin to have a Chat With Satan.
- Creepy Good.
- Black Knights.
- Grudging Thank You.
- Not Helping Your Case.
- Odd Friendship.
- Opposites Attract.
Also, it's worth noting that a Paladin who feels strongly can go get an atonement spell cast for him for free. The material component cost only applies if you are atoning for deliberate misdeeds (IE - Paladin is having a bad day a kicks a little ol' lady in the teeth {and yes, he should feel bad}). And it's a decent thing to consider doing as a Paladin periodically, since it doesn't cost anything special if you're just centering your alignment. Alternatively, you can say screw mechanics, I have money for a moment and (since there is no mechanical ramification) have your Cleric/Paladin ask advice from mentors, meditate or come to terms with his feelings on the matter, etc.
Ashiel,
You have stated a couple times that the paladin can cast an evil spell and not have any problems with either alignment or with his abilities. Yet now you state that as long as they act 'in according with the alignment guidelines they are fine'. How exactly is creating a skeleton using an evil spell (ie: an evil act) in any way shape or form in accordance with a lawful good ideal? It is an evil act pure and simple.
Yes, you may be saving a town with it, but you are performing an evil act to accomplish the good act. It is both an evil act and a good act. This does not result in a neutral act. Will the paladin's alignment remain Lawful Good? Not if he keeps doing that, he will eventually acquire a Lawful Neutral alignment. Will the paladin lose his abilities the moment he performs the evil act of creating undead? YES. And since casting an evil spell is a deliberate misdeed then yes, he must pay for the atonement.
It amazes me that you state this is not what would occur.
Back on original topic, I already stated that a Paladin who unknowingly accepts the benefits of an evil spell should not be penalized. The game requires intent. BUT, that same paladin accepting it knowingly would be in violation since that does qualify as intent.
Anyhow, continuing this discussion serves no further purpose, I stated my opinion to the OP.
- Gauss
Mechanically, if I remember correctly, the primary Pathfinder (tm) purpose of Alignment descriptors in spells is that Clerics/Paladins/Anti-Paladins can't cast spells with an opposing alignment. That is the sole mechanical difference. Which means that neither a Paladin, nor a Cleric of a Good Deity, nor a Good Cleric, could cast Infernal Healing; and they would certainly feel icky if it was cast on them, but that is it for Mechanical effect.
Now, the social affects could/would be as broad as the GM & the Players can agree to.
I actually have to deal with this somewhat in my home game because, for healing our party, there is me, Magus with Infernal Healing because dad was a former Hellknight Signifer & he scribed my first Spellbook, and a Gnome Ranger who is high enough level to cast 1st level Divine spells.
Guess who doesn't get to Nova because several of the other party members are a bunch of yahoos who couldn't tell a tactical thought from bad beans? ()
On the bright side, I don't have to worry about a Paladin or Cleric in the party getting pissy because I used Infernal Healing to 'kick-start their heart' so-to-speak.
On the dark side, I'm the member of the party who always seems to get served last & always winds up having the locals starting something just when I'd really like to just have a nice quite drink.
you may be saving a town with it, but you are performing an evil act to accomplish the good act. It is both an evil act and a good act. This does not result in a neutral act.
You're right. It doesn't make it a neutral one. It makes it a justified one. At least in the paladins eyes.
Will the paladin's alignment remain Lawful Good? Not if he keeps doing that, he will eventually acquire a Lawful Neutral alignment.
Doing things you believe to be right, even if they require an action that is distasteful, if you believe it to be justified, isn't going to change anything about you. Because you always thought it was justified. Especially if you're a paladin with convictions.
And since casting an evil spell is a deliberate misdeed then yes, he must pay for the atonement.
It's exactly as deliberate as slicing your sword into the orc. No paladin thinks it's okay to slice and dice at random, but you can bet that when the orc horde comes to raid and kill and enslave that your paladin will feel justified, even though the action he is taking is deliberate. But the game didn't flag swording dudes as [evil]. And good that it didn't. We can figure it out on our own.
It just so happens that it did throw up the [evil] sign on some spells and then followed that up by not really making that mean very much in most cases. But the fact that the word is there makes people over think it. Somehow killing orcs is justified and using healing spells to help people is not if the game flags it as naughty.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel,
You have stated a couple times that the paladin can cast an evil spell and not have any problems with either alignment or with his abilities. Yet now you state that as long as they act 'in according with the alignment guidelines they are fine'. How exactly is creating a skeleton using an evil spell (ie: an evil act) in any way shape or form in accordance with a lawful good ideal? It is an evil act pure and simple.
You say this, but I don't actually care about what you say unless you can provide proof. I've already shown what alignment declares to be in keeping with an alignment. Just as it is entirely possible for a Paladin to wield an Unholy Sword without falling, so too is it possible for said Paladin to cast an [Evil] spell. You are asserting that using an Evil aligned object or spell is an Evil act, but you are making this up. You have provided to written text from the core rules that back you up on this assertion. You are declaring what you want to be the RAW, which is blatantly false. To be honest, it's actually making me angry because you continue to do so without actually substantiating your claims, which feels like I'm having a discussion with a recording set on repeat.
Yes, you may be saving a town with it, but you are performing an evil act to accomplish the good act. It is both an evil act and a good act. This does not result in a neutral act.
If an act is both good and evil, how is it not Neutral? If it is not, then Paladins cannot exist. Period. Paladins by their nature kill, harm, and oppress others (they're warrior combatants for goodness sakes) with the temperance and restraint of a Good individual and for reasons associated with Good. Under your idea of Alignment, Paladins cannot function. They just can't. They fall for doing what Paladins are supposed to do.
Of course, this is assuming that the Paladin is preforming an Evil act (such as killing). Merely wielding an unholy sword or casting an [Evil] spell is not that, because in both cases, neither are automatically Hurting, Oppressing, or Killing others, which is what Evil in D&D is defined as. D&D morality is not subjective, it is objective. A, B, and C = Good. X, Y, and Z = Evil. If it doesn't fall into these then it is not.
Will the paladin's alignment remain Lawful Good? Not if he keeps doing that, he will eventually acquire a Lawful Neutral alignment.
If he is acting in accordance with the Lawful Good alignment, yes, he will remain Lawful Good. That's how alignment specifically works. As detailed in the alignment rules themselves. If the Paladin is acting in a manner that is in accordance with Lawfulness and Goodness (that is to say "tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties" and with "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings"), the Paladin remains Lawful Good. Until he acts in accordance with the Evil alignment, he is not committing an Evil act.
Your argument hinges on their being no middle ground in the form of Neutral-aligned acts (which does not work in an Axix). Your argument is that there is no manner in which to act in accordance to the Neutral alignment, which is demonstrably false both through the evidence of the alignment rules and from a test of absurdity by showing the Neutral alignment in regards to Good and Evil.
Will the paladin lose his abilities the moment he performs the evil act of creating undead? YES. And since casting an evil spell is a deliberate misdeed then yes, he must pay for the atonement.
You keep speaking, but nothing that is worth anything is coming forth. If you declare these to be empirical facts, prove it with the text. Show evidence rather than standing there repeating yourself, because it won't begin to change my understanding of it unless you actually posit some evidence.
To be in keeping with evil, his actions must hurt, oppress, or kill others. Casting animate dead that the Paladin learned via Unsanctioned Knowledge does not automatically fill any of that criteria. Likewise, mindless undead having an evil alignment is an error in the rules (akin to how ogres lack proficiency in their listed weapon and have the wrong to hit modifiers) as the Alignment Rules state that creatures incapable of moral choice (IE - mindless / nonsentients) cannot be an alignment other than Neutral (mindless undead do not have a special ability that changes this rule only for them, and thus RAW mindless undead are Neutral despite what their statblock says, just as Ogres have a -4 penalty to hit with Greatclubs which is not included in their statblock).
What that Paladin does with that power is another thing entirely. I imagine that most church-backed Paladins would probably not pursue such options in the first place unless their order supported such things, such as a Lawful Good Paladin of Wee Jass (Lawful Neutral goddess of magic, death, and knowledge from core 3.x and Grayhawk) whose use of necromantic magics wouldn't cause anyone in their order to take a second glance at a Paladin leading a battalion of undead soldiers against the forces of evil.
It amazes me that you state this is not what would occur.
It amazes me how many posts you've asserted as fact without so much as a shred of evidence backing your claim. It amazes, and saddens me. Forgive me if it is hard. Perhaps you could refrain from responding to my posts until you have something to respond with other than declarations of your amazement.
Back on original topic, I already stated that a Paladin who unknowingly accepts the benefits of an evil spell should not be penalized. The game requires intent. BUT, that same paladin accepting it knowingly would be in violation since that does qualify as intent.
It would be helpful if you could explain why that is rather than merely telling the OP what happens and offering nothing more than "trust me". Since the Paladin accepting the aid is in no way keeping with the evil alignment he is not acting evil, and thus has no reason to atone other than for his own peace of mine.
Anyhow, continuing this discussion serves no further purpose, I stated my opinion to the OP.
- Gauss
True. Hopefully in the future you will provide references, evidence, and support for your claims other than "because I say so". Peace.
Mechanically, if I remember correctly, the primary Pathfinder (tm) purpose of Alignment descriptors in spells is that Clerics/Paladins/Anti-Paladins can't cast spells with an opposing alignment. That is the sole mechanical difference. Which means that neither a Paladin, nor a Cleric of a Good Deity, nor a Good Cleric, could cast Infernal Healing; and they would certainly feel icky if it was cast on them, but that is it for Mechanical effect.
Actually, only clerics suffer such a restriction. Paladins have no such restrictions. A Paladin can legally acquire spells such as animate dead or contagion via Unsanctioned Knowledge and cast them as part of his/her normal Paladin spells. Such spells may have social repercussions, but unless the Paladin is using them in ways that are in keeping with the Evil alignment then the Paladin is free to use them as he/she sees fit (punishing evil with a divinely wrought disease is actually pretty thematic as well).
Now, the social affects could/would be as broad as the GM & the Players can agree to.
I actually have to deal with this somewhat in my home game because, for healing our party, there is me, Magus with Infernal Healing because dad was a former Hellknight Signifer & he scribed my first Spellbook, and a Gnome Ranger who is high enough level to cast 1st level Divine spells.
Guess who doesn't get to Nova because several of the other party members are a bunch of yahoos who couldn't tell a tactical thought from bad beans? ()
On the bright side, I don't have to worry about a Paladin or Cleric in the party getting pissy because I used Infernal Healing to 'kick-start their heart' so-to-speak.
On the dark side, I'm the member of the party who always seems to get served last & always winds up having the locals starting something just when I'd really like to just have a nice quite drink.
Heh, your character sounds pretty nice. I like the touch that your first spellbook was penned by your father. That's a cool touch. On a side note, this is a wonderful example of the difference between roleplaying and social stigmas that are separate from Alignment. In my own campaign, the main location for most of my adventures has both the creation of undead and any conjuring of fiendish outsiders as strictly prohibited practices (and even if you don't animate the dead, necromances are distrusted at best). Now some of the characters in the game (PC and otherwise) are capable of doing both and often end up breaking said laws when they deem that it is needed. Now if they are caught, they will be tried, sentenced to time, and branded with a mark on their face that displays them as practitioners of "forbidden magics" to all they meet.
So they are careful as to when, where, how, and why they use their powers. Sometimes you can get away with it if some folks owe you a favor or two. If you saved the farmer's daughter from being ravashed by some orcs by sicking a hell-hound on the orc, there's a pretty good chance that said farmer and his family will keep your act hush-hush. Of course you may have branded yourself as too dangerous to be around, so while they might not turn you in you might be unwelcome or put them at unease. Or you might end up with someone who is more loyal to their religion or country laws than they are grateful and turn you in. Even if you don't, rumors tend to get around and if you're doing it on a regular basis and rumors begin circulating wide enough the templar inquisitors may come pay you a visit (sometimes in disguise so as to catch you in the act).
Why is it like this in the setting? It's not to punish necromancers or conjurers. It's not that fiendish creatures are overpowered, or that I don't want PCs having the option to use animate dead. It is instead a cultural, religious, and social taboo deeply rooted in their history and negative experiences with such things. It's called roleplaying and being in a living world.
Ashiel, fine, you want 'rules' statements?
Point 1:
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
Right there, black and white, it states that Lawful Good opposes evil. Thus performing Evil acts would be a violation. Do we agree or disagree on this point?
Point 2: The Alignment quotes you keep bringing up are vague and/or contradictory.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Lets look at that. It talks about hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Ok.
First: Hurting. Anyone that hurts anyone else is, by a strict interpretation, performing Evil. Yes? And also ridiculous. It would make the game unplayable.
Second: Killing. Anyone that kills anyone else is, by a strict interpretation, performing Evil. Again, ridiculous. It would make the game unplayable by anyone of a good alignment.
Summary of Point 2: There must be some some other factor otherwise anyone that kills ANYONE in this game is performing evil. So, this rule is vague.
Point 3: spell subtypes.
There is no definition of spell subtypes in Pathfinder beyond the vague statement that it categorizes the spell in some way.
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.
Can you point out to me the section where it states that alignment subtypes do not affect alignement? I do not believe you can. It is not in the book. Again, as I have been stating, this is an area without rules.
Since we do not have actual rules on it we have to go with either GM fiat or whatever we think the developer's intent might be. Well, we are in luck. Here is the developer's intent on one such evil spell being cast:
Link
But, I know this will not satisfy you as the very next post is your opinion on how good vs evil is not black and white. Several posts later you challenged SKRs statement about it being an evil act.
Ultimately, that is the core of this discussion between you and I. You do not believe it is black and white. I do. There really are no actual rules about this despite your claims to the contrary. The quotes you provide are not complete rules but only examples.
Sidenote: Regarding skeletons being evil inanimate objects imbued with evil can be evil. Is this written anywhere? Probably not. But here is a quote from SKR on the subject: Link
Final thought for you: You have repeatedly used quotes from the rules and then stated that they are the rules. Then you go on to use concepts that are NOT in those quotes. Namely the whole 'performing evil for a good act = not evil' concept. But as SKR has pointed out before, the alignment concepts in pathfinder are that the ends do not justify the means.
In any case, now that I found your previous argument against SKR I certainly feel that continuing with you is pointless as you have your opinions and I have mine. Enjoy! :)
- Gauss
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good combines honor with compassion.Right there, black and white, it states that Lawful Good opposes evil. Thus performing Evil acts would be a violation. Do we agree or disagree on this point?
You do not violate alignment. If you mean preforming an evil act violates the code of conduct of the Paladin, then absolutely.
Lets look at that. It talks about hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Ok.
First: Hurting. Anyone that hurts anyone else is, by a strict interpretation, performing Evil. Yes? And also ridiculous. It would make the game unplayable.
Second: Killing. Anyone that kills anyone else is, by a strict interpretation, performing Evil. Again, ridiculous. It would make the game unplayable by anyone of a good alignment.
Summary of Point 2: There must be some some other factor otherwise anyone that kills ANYONE in this game is performing evil. So, this rule is vague.
Negative. Read the alignment rules again:
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
So firstly, you're not going to suddenly change alignments if you do something evil. Not even Paladins are going to change their alignment for doing evil (but they will require atonement). Secondly, most adventurers are generally fighting for A) good, B) self defense. At least traditionally in iconics (but there are plenty of evil adventurers out there killing out of convenience I imagine). The game is plenty playable by people of good alignment. Again, if you are hurting/killing to protect someone (including yourself) then you're not being evil, because you're being Neutral at worst (because Neutral is acting in a way that is between good and evil).
So you are ignoring Neutral.
Can you point out to me the section where it states that alignment subtypes do not affect alignement? I do not believe you can. It is not in the book. Again, as I have been stating, this is an area without rules.
Since we do not have actual rules on it we have to go with either GM fiat or whatever we think the developer's intent might be. Well, we are in luck. Here is the developer's intent on one such evil spell being cast:
Can you point out the rules text that says dragons don't explode into roses when they breathe? Oh? You can't? Oh? Because they don't? Oh, why don't they? Oh, because it doesn't say they do? Okay then. Also, I don't really care what Sean had to say about casting a scroll with an Evil subtype did. According to the rules, he's wrong. If it's not hurting, oppressing, or killing, it's not evil. That is what evil is in D&D/Pathfinder by definition. It is not subjective, it is objective. Again, show me where it says it's evil. I'll show you where it says dragons breath fire, clerics cast spells, and alignment says evil is hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Now you be a sport and show me where it says using an [Evil] sword is evil or using an [Evil] spell is evil, or that being an [Evil] creature means you cannot be non-evil (and if you try with the creature bit, I'll prove you wrong in one quote from the Bestiary).
Ultimately, that is the core of this discussion between you and I. You do not believe it is black and white. I do. There really are no actual rules about this despite your claims to the contrary. The quotes you provide are not complete rules but only examples.
On the contrary. I DO believe that D&D/PF morality is black and white. So much that my view of it has evolved since the conversation with Sean. See, in the conversation with Sean, I was arguing with a mixture of philosophy and rules. Now I'm just arguing with rules, because D&D/PF morality is not subjective. It is objective.
Final thought for you: You have repeatedly used quotes from the rules and then stated that they are the rules. Then you go on to use concepts that are NOT in those quotes. Namely the whole 'performing evil for a good act = not evil' concept. But as SKR has pointed out before, the alignment concepts in pathfinder are that the ends do not justify the means.
In any case, now that I found your previous argument against SKR I certainly feel that continuing with you is pointless as you have your opinions and I have mine. Enjoy! :)
- Gauss
Ah, but here's the thing. You must act in accordance to evil to be doing an evil act. You can act in accordance to Neutral. You keep ignoring Neutral. A Palading preforming Neutral acts does not break his code. Neutral characters are by definition neither entirely good nor entirely evil. They are the middle ground. They are both good and evil equally.
The problem I think you and I are having is that you are acting like there are only 2 alignments in play here. Good and Evil. But there are three alignments. Good. Neutral. Evil. When you act evil you are going to break the Paladin's code. Acting Neutral does not break the Paladin's code, but if you are consistently in keeping with the Neutral alignment then you are going to cease being Good and that is also a loss of Paladin powers. However, Paladins are not just murderous hobos.
Paladins are more than just killing evil doers. They protect and aid those in need. Their code itself requires them to be altruistic, merciful, and so forth. It's near impossible to actually follow the Paladin's code of conduct all the time and NOT be Lawful Good.
Yes, in your world of binary 0 or 1 personalities, Paladins cannot exist. However, in the core rules they can, because of of the Neutral alignment. If the Paladin is acting Neutral it's not going to break his code.
On Another Note
You still didn't do what I requested. You didn't provide rule evidence to back up your claims. What you did was quote something that said good opposes evil (which 0% of anything I've said has said otherwise); which was the practical equivalent to my saying "the rules say medium great axes deal 1d12 damage" and you returning with rules saying "great-axes deal slashing damage" and being like "Hah, I gotcha, great-axes don't deal 1d12 damage!".
You then tried to make assertions about the rules which ignore Neutrality, and tried to make an appeal to popularity, and attempted to paint the situation to seem as if it's impossible to play good characters; which requires you to ignore more of the alignment rules to make that argument.
All you did was try to kick up dust and smoke. I specifically requested that you show me the text, in the rules, that says casting the spell is an aligned act, and in keeping with that alignment. I DARE you to do so. Because you refuse. Instead you insist I show you where it doesn't. At that point, you have leaped from the cliffs of logic and into the pit of failure. You can justify anything you want, no matter how inane, if you require the game to tell you what something does not do for it to not do it.
"Squirrels breath fire more potent than a thousand stars. Proove me wrong. Show me where it says squirrels do not have a breath weapon that deals a trillion d6 points of fire damage!" <- This is what you sound like to me.
First: Hurting. Anyone that hurts anyone else is, by a strict interpretation, performing Evil. Yes? And also ridiculous. It would make the game unplayable.
Second: Killing. Anyone that kills anyone else is, by a strict interpretation, performing Evil. Again, ridiculous. It would make the game unplayable by anyone of a good alignment.
Okay, I don't really want to get too involved in this argument (though I think Ashiel is correct that D&D and PF revolve around an objective view of morality, if I must pick a side), but I really wanted to point out these statements.
This is creepy, dude. You should reconsider whatever made you decide that hurting and killing don't necessitate some level of evil, even if it's counterbalanced by the greater good of the act.
If not, seek professional help; that's a level of detachment from the value of life that's frankly a bit chilling.
First: Hurting. Anyone that hurts anyone else is, by a strict interpretation, performing Evil. Yes? And also ridiculous. It would make the game unplayable.
Second: Killing. Anyone that kills anyone else is, by a strict interpretation, performing Evil. Again, ridiculous. It would make the game unplayable by anyone of a good alignment.
Okay, I don't really want to get too involved in this argument (though I think Ashiel is correct that D&D and PF revolve around an objective view of morality, if I must pick a side), but I really wanted to point out these statements.
This is creepy, dude. You should reconsider whatever made you decide that hurting and killing don't necessitate some level of evil, even if it's counterbalanced by the greater good of the act.
If not, seek professional help; that's a level of detachment from the value of life that's frankly a bit chilling.
Yeah. I'd really rather not prove all the anti-D&D crowd from the 80s and Chick Tracks right in thinking that we're violence mongering, black-magic working, morally bankrupt individuals.
"Killing people isn't bad." >:(
"O'really?" O~o
That's a road I do not want to tread.
Aratok:
It is only creepy because you have seriously misunderstood my statement. You took those two statements out of context since you did not include the next paragraph.
Here is that next paragraph:
Summary of Point 2: There must be some some other factor otherwise anyone that kills ANYONE in this game is performing evil. So, this rule is vague.
I was not stating that they are not evil. I was pointing out that _exactly as written_ they are ALWAYS evil. Thus, _exactly as written_ no good aligned character can ever kill a bad monster because it counts as an evil act.
Again, the rule is vague. I will state again that some other mitigating circumstance must be in play. The problem is, no such mitigating circumstance is written into the rules.
Ashiel tries to make a connection between the 'good alignment' and the 'evil alignment' texts by stating that killing in a good cause is not an evil act. But, exactly as written it IS an evil act AND a good act. And since no statement of good+evil = neutral exists then the single act remains good and evil. Of course, Ashiel has stated it is a neutral act but he cannot show me where it states killing for a good purpose is a neutral act.
Summary: I have NOT decided that hurting and killing do not count as some level of evil. Please note the double negative there. IE: I believe hurting and killing, in general, is a very evil act.
I have in fact decided that the guidelines are incomplete since killing someone to defend yourself is clearly not an evil act.
Please, try not to read just a piece of what I write without considering the part after. That way leads to misunderstandings such as the one that just occurred.
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A paladin casting an evil spell for a good purpose won't affect his alignment because it is a natural action. He is choosing to do something HE regards as vile and worthy of contempt so that good can come of it. Likewise, the reason that violence doesn't automatically make characters evil is because most of the time they are doing it for a reason (self-defense) or because diplomacy and threat-display have failed and it's the only way to stop a madman with a sword or a goblin about to wound someone. Even when they do so, most people that do it realize they are causing pain, that pain is bad, and that they would usually consider life sacred.
Casting an evil spell isn't an evil act, the objective you are trying to achieve with it is what matters. If casting an evil spell was always an evil act worthy of dropping a paladin to fallen status no matter the objective they were trying to reach, then they shouldn't bother with carrying a sword or being unwelcoming/intimidating to someone because oppression and hurt are evil.
This "paladin falls" BS is weak because that falling mechanic is there so that rules exist for a deity forsaking the paladin/anti-paladin when he starts dropping his morals like a rock for his own selfish ends/contemplating how life is sacred and not to be done away with so callously.
Actions aren't gerrymandered to be both good and evil at the same time because that would be stupid and would drag almost everyone to neutrality. That snake-faced lying hood is helping an old lady so that he can pickpocket/break into her house later? I guess he isn't evil but merely neutral because he did both a good act (helping the elderly) and evil act (pick-pocketing). Doesn't matter that he had his eyes on the prize the whole time, he might as well tear up his membership card now because the Neutral Evil clubhouse won't be letting him in anytime soon!
That paladin just slew an orc because he thought he would soon do harm with his brutal mace to a few innocent peasants? Put him in his place by taking away his divine abilities because the orc sure didn't consent to dying and he sure hurt the orc with his sword too! Nevermind that it was completely natural of him to do it (being a militant arm of the church and likely worshiping the crusader deity Iomedae) he did both a good act and evil act, so either he forks over 2,500 gold or he gets to tough it out in the mundane life.
"The end doesn't justify the means" is kind of a trap because on one hand it kind of makes sense (good ends are achieved with good means for best results) but on the other hand it totally robs paladins of their entire "divine killer" shtick and taken as a literal statement makes that deceiving thief scenario I mentioned earlier correct.
Finally, the reason the evil descriptor is there is because of this: evil magic is related to the evil planes and divine magic is given by gods/cosmic energy. When you are a good cleric, the evil god is not going to share his power sourced from his evil soul. When you are at least neutral, he might reconsider. When you are evil, the allfather of good won't give you his gift of benevolent healing and smiting because he feels that you are a waste of effort. That is why that subtype exists, to manage how it interacts with other magic and with the source that you get it from.
tl;dr:
using evil for good is natural.
using good for evil is natural.
evil spells come from an evil place. that is about it.
evil spells aren't objectively evil to use.
paladins fall when it is obvious to everyone that they should.
"the end doesn't justify the means" is very weak.
actions aren't both a good and an evil action at the same time.
most actions are natural, and those that aren't are usually neutral and only change alignment over time.
Yeah. Neutral needs to get more attention in these things. There are 3 alignments on the Good/Evil axis, not just varying degrees of 2. There's nothing wrong with preforming Neutral acts (acting in accordance with Neutrality). And acting a bit Neutral isn't going to change your alignment when the majority of your personality is acting in accordance with Good or with Evil.
I think it's why I've never found the nature of the alignment system as printed to be stupid, or incomplete. It's why Paladins in my games have always been able to function and do their jobs at fighting evil. It's why you don't get Paladins falling for stupid things, because doing evil really means doing evil.
But this is a perfect example of why I think the alignment system is worthless. It hasn't really added anything to roleplaying opportunities that the lack of alignment system would lack; and it is easy to fight and argue over alignment because people keep trying to make it subjective instead of objective and then turning everything binary. It has the potential to disrupt groups leaving multiple people feeling ill towards each other (because if you have a GM who says one thing, a player who says another, the GM is going to think the player is being a jerk and not playing right, and the player is going to think the GM is being a jerk and not playing right, etc)...and for what?
+2d6 damage vs Evil creatures?
Seriously.
I agree Ashiel, Alignment is a major source of contention. :)
- Gauss