The difference being that Fire is a tangible thing. "Evil" is not.
As well, fire burns things. It makes sense that fire burns things because that is what fire does. It burns.
In this case, Evil is healing things. Or sending people into shadows. Or conjuring up delicious Eggo™ waffles.
It makes no sense logically even taken within the context of the world.
Look at the other descriptors:
Fire burns things. Fire spells burn things. Check. Repeat for acid, cold, and electricity.
Curses curse things. Curse spells curse things. Check.
Healing spells heal things.
Meanwhile, aligned spells do...a nebulously defined number of things that generally don't have anything to do with said alignment, because the game obviously wasn't doing enough BEFORE to shove absolute morality down your throat until you CHOKE ON IT.
Within the world of D&D and PF, this makes a lot more sense than it seems. [Good] is "Whatever the Good Deities say it is," same as [Evil] is "Whatever the Evil deities are involved in." It's picking a team.
Where does alignment matter?
As I've said before, that makes sense from a setting point of view, but not from a game point of view. I'm not big on mixing setting specific fluff with the core game. I play with a lot of RAW only GMs, and this stuff gets carried over.
It matters also in a player sense sometimes, particularly in a game where you can't be evil and suddenly you get shifted by something that is particularly arbitrary, that hurts. Another thing is sometimes people get into a hissy fit if you aren't playing alignment the right way, but hopefully you don't have to put up with those people. I know you were talking mechanics, but I thought I'd mention that.
That's explicitly NOT how alignment is defined in the game. Nor should it be.
It shouldn't be, but depending on who your talking to it can. If I remember right cannibalism is an always evil act in golarion because an evil deity called dibs. That's a distant memory without a quote though. I might be totally wrong.
That's explicitly NOT how alignment is defined in the game. Nor should it be.It shouldn't be, but depending on who your talking to it can. If I remember right cannibalism is an always evil act in golarion because an evil deity called dibs. That's a distant memory without a quote though. I might be totally wrong.
Blood Transcription is a possible example - apparently the act of drinking blood is inherently evil in Golarion.
Nononono.
Drinking blood is okay if you just do it for fun.
It's not okay if you gain any sort of benefit from it, like the Dhampir Blood Drinker Feat or Blood Transcription.
I had a conversation about this with SKR a while back and it still makes me facedesk.
Blood Transcription is a possible example - apparently the act of drinking blood is inherently evil in Golarion.That's explicitly NOT how alignment is defined in the game. Nor should it be.It shouldn't be, but depending on who your talking to it can. If I remember right cannibalism is an always evil act in golarion because an evil deity called dibs. That's a distant memory without a quote though. I might be totally wrong.
Personally, I'd argue killing someone specifically to drink their blood and gain their power is pretty evil usually. Drinking their blood the next day to get some power after they were killed during questing is a little ambiguous, and dhampir being almost automatically evil is just a kick in the face.
I can see the argument for or against, but that's usually why I prefer it to be neutral and left to the table.
Nononono.
Drinking blood is okay if you just do it for fun.
It's not okay if you gain any sort of benefit from it, like the Dhampir Blood Drinker Feat or Blood Transcription.
I had a conversation about this with SKR a while back and it still makes me facedesk.
Could I get a link? That is definitely sounds facedesk worthy!
Could I get a link? That is definitely sounds facedesk worthy!Nononono.
Drinking blood is okay if you just do it for fun.
It's not okay if you gain any sort of benefit from it, like the Dhampir Blood Drinker Feat or Blood Transcription.
I had a conversation about this with SKR a while back and it still makes me facedesk.
If Rolf has to kill someone in order to defend himself, we accept that.
If Rolf is attacked and has to resort to biting his attacker in order to escape or avoid being killed, we accept that.
If Rolf bites his attacker and decides to swallow the attacker's blood, that's just creepy and inappropriate.
If Rolf swallow's the attacker's blood and his eyes light up with joy and he gets stronger for doing so, that's evil.I doesn't matter if Rolf is a human, dhampir, half-orc, or gnome; gaining power from drinking a person's blood is creepy and evil.
It's an easy choice: If you're worried about drinking blood being an evil act, (a) play an evil character, or (b) don't take the Blood Drinker feat. Your character lives in a universe where there are absolutes for the alignments, and the physics of that universe says "Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act."
Emphasis mine.
Emphasis mine.
That thread makes me sad... Though I did enjoy your comment about the rusty spork halfway through. It does also touch on a lot of issues we see in this thread, where examples are biased and whether or not people take "just because" as a good reason or not. Personally, I think just because is by far one of the worst reasons. Its the kind you give a 5 year old and I was given as a kid, and I hated it then and still do now.
|
I always viewed spell descriptors as affecting the target of the spell rather than the spell caster.
For example [Fire] spells typically release heat into the target of the spell, so an [Evil] spell would release "evil" energies into the target of the spell. If anyone is going to have a chance for an alignment change it would be the target of the spell rather than the caster as the infernal healing repairs the target's body but darkens their soul.
That's all fluff of course, but if alignment based spell descriptors actually had an effect that's how I'd see it.
Great fluff except (1) Infernal Healing specifically has no long-term alignment affect on the target, so it can't darken the target's soul and (2) that would turn Infernal Healing into a great offensive spell to cast on a paladin - a save-or-fall effect.
Some spells just are by their very nature. Why is Burning Arc a [fire] spell? Because it's a _burning_ arch. Why is Infernal Healing an [evil] spell? Because it's infernal.It manipulates fire. That doesn't mean you have more fire inside you or are somehow more intrinsically fiery. Your analogy doesn't work.
Why does it manipulate fire? How is that not arbitrarily decided by the spell designers?
Infernal Healing does not make targets evil. It makes them temporarily detect as evil.
Agreed, I just wrote it in a sloppy way. I've read the spell, just wrote it sloppily.
Also Plane Shift, Contact Other Plane, and similar spells have no alignment components. It does not matter what plane you link to. So your argument seems to fall apart at just about every level.
Uhmm... I think you misunderstood my argument completely? I don't see what that has to do with anything really? There's three different things I'm saying, not necessarily connected to each other:
1. The rules are, when drawn far enough, nearly always arbitrarily decided or reliant on other rules which are arbitrarily reliant. Saying a rule is arbitrary doesn't really say much about it - using "arbitrary" in a negative sense in a discussion like this seems off, as many spells and similar are completely arbitrary yet people have no issues with them.
2. When we know the rules (and in this case both RAW and RAI match for all we know), we can either build our setting around the rules and use the setting to explain why the rules are the way they are, or we can scrap the rules/say they "make no sense".
For example, the rules say good clerics can't cast [evil] spells. Why is this, if spells are to be seen as just tools? It's completely arbitrary (clerics of a fire deity has no ban on casting [water] spells) if one doesn't add fluff to the setting, like the good gods being unable or unwilling to fuel such spells, or preparing such spells being the worst kind of heresy. etc etc. Likewise, the rules arbitrarily state summoned creatures cannot use summoning abilities - this makes no in-game sense unless you add custom fluff to it, like the link between the summoned creatures previous location and it's new location temporarily disturbing it's ability to sense and call creatures across the planes, messing up it's "radar" so to speak.
3. Some spells are connected to/reliant on beings or powers outside of the caster, such as contact other plane and summon monster. Infernal healing, in its original write up, is implied to (in-world) work similarly in that it requires the caster to be part of the asmodeus church.
This can, if one wants to, be used as a hook to explain why certain rules work the way they do.
If you have to come up with a custom explanation for something like this, then it's not worth explaining.
Aligned spells actually being aligned acts is a terrible mechanic.
As well, you are confusing arbitrary (i.e. assigned on a whim) for purely game balance reasons (summoned creature's abilities being limited).
This topic is about the former, because it certainly doesn't affect game balance either way.
Why does it manipulate fire? How is that not arbitrarily decided by the spell designers?Some spells just are by their very nature. Why is Burning Arc a [fire] spell? Because it's a _burning_ arch. Why is Infernal Healing an [evil] spell? Because it's infernal.It manipulates fire. That doesn't mean you have more fire inside you or are somehow more intrinsically fiery. Your analogy doesn't work.
Well, I have less complaints about fire spells because they don't have a direct consequence on our character. A spell with the fire descriptor obviously creates fire(the ones I know do anyway.), and they don't make you more fiery but being used. Meanwhile, infernal healing has no clear reason why its evil and we have to resort to making up our own reasons.
There's also a large difference in become more [fire] and changing your alignment. Becoming more fire might be kind of cool, and its a great literary gig, however being turned evil can actually knock you out of a campaign, and is telling you what your morality is. Being told your evil when your not doing anything evil is kinda mean. It would be different if it were for example: (not that that's evil, its just narration.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference being that Fire is a tangible thing. "Evil" is not.
In D&D and Pathfinder, Evil is a tangible thing. That's the whole point. There are entire planes of existence and supernatural entities that are made of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Within the world of D&D and PF, this makes a lot more sense than it seems. [Good] is "Whatever the Good Deities say it is," same as [Evil] is "Whatever the Evil deities are involved in." It's picking a team.
Where does alignment matter? It only matters in two cases of which I am aware: 1) Asking one of those deities (or their servants) for a favor; 2) When someone detects your alignment, or uses another spell or effect that is alignment...
That's explicitly NOT how alignment is defined in the game. Nor should it be.
"Good" being what an entity defines it as doesn't make sense. Read Plato's dialogues. Get your thinking on.
I disagree. That is explicitly exactly how it is defined. [Good] and [Evil] spell descriptors aren't directly tied to morality. They're mechanical effects of the system. And similarly, acts related to being Good or Evil aren't directly tied to philosophical morality -- there's a lot of gray in the real world -- they're very specific and objectively definite within the context of PF. Plato didn't write PF or D&D, and while he said some interesting stuff, it doesn't apply here.
Let's go to the extreme here: If the God of Ultimate Goodness says you need to kill a baby for <reasons>, and it isn't a test, it's a direct command and that Deity means it... killing that baby is a Good act, no matter how insane that may seem. And unless another Good Deity is saying "Don't kill it" then not killing it is a Neutral act at best (choosing not to make sacrifices), and possibly Evil (actively opposing the Good).
In general, Good and Evil moralities in our normal definition of things and their definitions in PF match up, but it isn't required... but in the specific case of "Alignment" it is purely a mechanic for detecting whether you're playing for the Good Deities or the Evil Deities. It's picking a team.
Getting your Smite on as a Paladin because something Detects as Evil isn't about doing "Good". In many cultures, that would be inherently Evil (especially, say, if you were a Jainist and went so far as to sweep bugs out of your path so you didn't accidentally crush them as you walk). You should be looking to take them alive, bring them to trial, and have appropriate non-lethal punishments that reform and redeem.
In PF? Murder-Hobos are Good, because they go around killing Evil. If you swapped all the Good and Evil Alignments on everything, you wouldn't change the general nature of the game all that much. The characters could be Evil just as easily as Good, as long as their targets were appropriately chosen, and very little would change except possibly tactics and willingness to allow for side-effects and allow the ends to justify the means.
Let's go to the extreme here: If the God of Ultimate Goodness says you need to kill a baby for <reasons>, and it isn't a test, it's a direct command and that Deity means it... killing that baby is a Good act, no matter how insane that may seem. And unless another Good Deity is saying "Don't kill it" then not killing it is a Neutral act at best (choosing not to make sacrifices), and possibly Evil (actively opposing the Good).
I don't feel comfortable with that idea. I think its a little absurd, and taking an extreme. I can make the same argument for a god of evil and force someone to be good if you would believe it.
Pazuzu, god of air tells you breathing is now his dominion and evil. What does this mean by that logic?
The difference being that Fire is a tangible thing. "Evil" is not.In D&D and Pathfinder, Evil is a tangible thing. That's the whole point. There are entire planes of existence and supernatural entities that are made of it.
I can touch fire in real life though, evil I can not. That might be what they were getting at... Is there a plane of evil? I thought there was a plane of shadow with a negative energy center, but no plane of evil. That wouldn't fit because negative energy does the opposite of what infernal healing does. There is however a plane of fire, which is made of tangible fire. Its also again, setting specific...
Also, how does that explain infernal healing?
The difference being that Fire is a tangible thing. "Evil" is not.In D&D and Pathfinder, Evil is a tangible thing. That's the whole point. There are entire planes of existence and supernatural entities that are made of it.
Which is BEYOND stupid, but that's not really the point.
I've tried for the past 15 minutes but I really can't articulate at the moment HOW terrible that is, and how exactly I see the distinction between these things.
It's just mind boggling to me that this is something that is defended by people as a concept that should be allowed to breed and infect the game like that.
And hell, even in-setting it's not REALLY. I don't think it's ever explicitly stated that Fiends/Celestials are actually MADE OF aligned material or anything.
There's a Plane of Fire/Wind/Water/Earth, planes of Positive and Negative Energy, things like that which at least justify the existence of those descriptors: These spells conjure X from Plane Y and shape them into certain effects tied to that Plane that follow logically.
Aligned spells don't do that. Divine casting? Maybe, yeah. Provided by aligned BEINGS with super duper god magic. But Arcane casting? Explicitly the result of some guy forcing reality to bend to his will? Makes NO SENSE.
Aye, I was just asking if there was an actual plane made of tangible evil. I made a similar argument about fire/evil earlier, as did several other post.
Further, unlike a Star Wars game, there's not even some sort of Dark/Light mechanic at work to give any weight to [Evil] spells. Though I'd note that evil in Star Wars, using the Dark Side isn't evil in and of itself; it's just corrupting. There's a world of difference between the two.
Not a big fan of the way evil corrupts in star wars myself, but I'm not a big fan of anything that can potentially take some control out of the hands of the player.
|
Meanwhile, aligned spells do...a nebulously defined number of things that generally don't have anything to do with said alignment, because the game obviously wasn't doing enough BEFORE to shove absolute morality down your throat until you CHOKE ON IT.
Most aligned spells, such as detect X (where 'X' = chaos, good, evil or law), protection from X, magic circle vs. X, dispel X, holy smite/chaos hammer/unholy blight/order's wrath, holy word/blasphemy/dictum/word of chaos, at least kind of follow a theme of spell that does X to alignment Y.
It's when spells like infernal healing or animate dead get sucked into it, despite not having any real bearing on alignment type, that it all falls apart. (For instance, if infernal healing only healed evil folk, had half effect on neutral folk, and actually harmed good folk, that would make a fine rationalization for why infernal healing is an [evil] spell, and would also subtly encourage good and neutral folk living in areas where it is a source of healing, such as atheist countries like Rahadoum, to turn non-good and then evil.)
Summon monster counting as a aligned spell when used to summon creatures of that type is also sensible, although the fact that celestial and fiendish creatures only have an alignment if you are good and evil and summon them is kind of wonky. (Neutral summoners call up non-good celestial creatures or non-evil fiendish creatures, apparently, and it no longer counts as a good or evil spell.)
Eh. At least they got rid of alignment languages. Remember being able to automatically test people's alignments by speaking to them in Lawful Good, a magical language that you totally forgot how to speak if you changed alignment? :/
Also? Losing a level when you changed alignment. Yum.
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.
Has anyone noticed this?
Pathfinder does not acknowledge the divine command theory of morality. In fact, morality in Pathfinder is defined by your adherence to one of three principles along two different axes. The powers of Good and Evil are so because they draw their power from those metaphysical powers, not vice versa. Pathfinder, nor D&D before it, has ever listed any deity of ultimate power who can actually define morality by decree. The PRD makes only brief mentions of deities, and how deities interact with mortals varies wildly between game worlds and even campaigns. A Good god who commanded someone to kill a baby, without a truly overwhelming reason, risks an alignment slip. Whether or not that changes their [Good] subtype depends on the setting.
Pathfinder is a world where good and evil are tangible and real, where oaths hold real power, and belief can be supernatural. No deity can contradict those facts without universal power to rewrite reality. An Evil deity trying to gain such power might actually be the background of a high level campaign, with the PCs acting as pawns in the struggle between immortals.
Note that even with Good and Evil as a tangible force, certain things are subject to some measure of opinion. For instance, whether a paladin can steal a horse, or in fact if they can refuse to steal a horse if it would be for the greater good. I think where people get into trouble is when they try to make the nine alignments system simpler than it is. Your alignment doesn't define everything about your personality or even your ethos, any more than your class defines everything about your talents. Just for instance, a Druid and a banker could both be Neutral, but despite sharing an alignment, operate according to very different ethical specifics.
When it comes to splitting hairs, it's often better for a PC to simply choose an alignment that is at least partially neutral. If you want to go old school, you could even write Chaotic Neutral (good tendencies).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Has anyone noticed this?
Quite a few, but people are talking about how the spell has the [evil] descriptor, and therefore turns the caster evil(but not the recipient). Which has a few problems in itself, but some people think its okay and people need to accept that, while others think its bad and therefore a stupid rule. The big thing is that since there isn't a magic number of castings to actually turn you evil, its really left to the whim of the GM, which is a big YMMV gig.
Did I just try to sum up a thread?
|
|
Quite a few, but people are talking about how the spell has the [evil] descriptor, and therefore turns the caster evil(but not the recipient).
[tangent]
A spell that eroded the morality of the person you cast it upon and turned them evil over time would be the most castest spell ever in Soviet Cheliax.(Odd that devils are as Lawful as they are Evil, and yet Infernal Healing isn't also a Lawful spell, and doesn't carry any sort of 'taint' of lawfulness. It doesn't thematically feel very 'infernal' at all, and would actually be a better *daemonic* NE spell, as written, since it only turns peeps evil, and not lawful. A CG caster tainted by it might go to CN and eventually CE, which, for the purposes of Hell, would be counterproductive!)
[/tangent]
|
|
(Odd that devils are as Lawful as they are Evil, and yet Infernal Healing isn't also a Lawful spell, and doesn't carry any sort of 'taint' of lawfulness. It doesn't thematically feel very 'infernal' at all, and would actually be a better *daemonic* NE spell, as written, since it only turns peeps evil, and not lawful. A CG caster tainted by it might go to CN and eventually CE, which, for the purposes of Hell, would be counterproductive!)
In PF the Good/Evil axis is stronger than the Law/Chaos axis. Devils also get DR/good (not DR/chaos), and the Pit Fiend gets Blasphemy, Magic Circle Against Good, and Unholy Aura, not the equivalents against Chaos.
(Odd that devils are as Lawful as they are Evil, and yet Infernal Healing isn't also a Lawful spell, and doesn't carry any sort of 'taint' of lawfulness. It doesn't thematically feel very 'infernal' at all, and would actually be a better *daemonic* NE spell, as written, since it only turns peeps evil, and not lawful. A CG caster tainted by it might go to CN and eventually CE, which, for the purposes of Hell, would be counterproductive!)In PF the Good/Evil axis is stronger than the Law/Chaos axis. Devils also get DR/good (not DR/chaos), and the Pit Fiend gets Blasphemy, Magic Circle Against Good, and Unholy Aura, not the equivalents against Chaos.
Yeah, you would think it would be DR/Lawful or Good for succubus and the like, but for some reason its DR/Good or cold iron. To get DR/lawful or DR/Chaos a creature is usually LN or CN instead. Oddly enough, outsiders who are chaotic or lawful also carry the chaotic/lawful subtype, which means they bypass chaos/lawful DR with their own attacks.
|
|
In PF the Good/Evil axis is stronger than the Law/Chaos axis. Devils also get DR/good (not DR/chaos), and the Pit Fiend gets Blasphemy, Magic Circle Against Good, and Unholy Aura, not the equivalents against Chaos.
True. Paladins are the same way. Detect evil. Smite evil. Gotta be careful associatin' wit' dem evil folks.
Oh, and you have to be Lawful Good, despite not giving a warm fragrant breeze from a rat's backside about law vs. chaos, because something-something backwards compatibility and 'Souls for my lord Arioch!'
Well, in the case of paladins, I think it's that their goodness is part of their paladinhood - being lawful is more of a personal requirement for them because they uphold a strict code, rely on their judgement etc.
That's how I've interpreted it at least. They're good the same way a cleric of saranrae is good, they're lawful the same way a monk is lawful.
But as said, that's just how i view it :3
Please tell me where it says that Good and Evil are what a particular god says it is. This is a doubly absurd stance for you to take when there are tons of different gods in the setting. What makes an evil god evil? It isn't because he goes around saying "This is evil!". What is called evil is not defined by him. It's not just some arbitrary label we slap on some gods and not others. He's evil based on the quality of his acts.
Try the paragraph that starts the Alignment Section, a few above the part you quoted:
This game assumes good and evil are definitive things. Evidence for this outlook can be found in the indicated good or evil monster subtypes, spells that detect good and evil, and spells that have the good or evil descriptor. Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement. Creatures with an evil subtype (generally outsiders) are creatures that are fundamentally evil: devils, daemons, and demons, for instance. Their redemption is rare, if it is even possible. They are evil to their very core, and commit evil acts perpetually and persistently. Mortals with an evil alignment, however, are different from these beings. In fact, having an evil alignment alone does not make one a super-villain or even require one to be thwarted or killed. The extent of a character's evil alignment might be a lesser evil, like selfishness, greed, or extreme vanity. Having these qualities might not even cause the character to detect as evil when subjected to detect evil, as creatures possessing 4 or fewer Hit Dice do not register to the spell (with the exception of clerics or other characters that radiate an aura).
It's all right there. Evil-Subtype Creatures are Fundamentally Evil. That baby was a Devil's. It is Evil, though as an innocent (at this point) not necessarily evil. Killing it is Good, but not necessarily good. Philosophical dilemmas are entirely obviated by having a very explicit Good-Aligned and Evil-Aligned planar topography.
Let me try this again: Good Deities wholly embody Good. Whatever they are doing, no matter how bizarre and terrible it may seem to Limited Mortal Eyes, is inherently Good. Same with Evil. Whatever those guys are trying to do... Evil. Inherently and fundamentally. That is the explicit definition. [Evil] spells? Also are Evil Acts. Why? Because they draw upon one of the Planes of Evil (and those planes have definitive Alignment-Based game mechanics -- it's one of the places where Alignment actually matters and has mechanical impact). Keep in mind that Alignment is a mechanical function in the game. Good Acts are Good because the Deity said so - they control their own Plane, and therefore control what would allow one to be Aligned with it, and whatever is Aligned with their plane, or uses the energy of their plane, is Good by definition. A Good act isn't necessarily good (by a common moral definition). Same with Evil. The qualities you quoted are implied, and they usually apply, and in general that's going to be true... but it's not explicit. The explicit part is that Planar Outsiders are fundamentally of that type, and here's some text about how that relates to Alignment.
Actions can also impact Alignment, but if you're going around using planar energy, or summoning Celestial or Fiendish creatures, that's allowing energy of that Plane to enter the Prime Material, and that energy apparently somehow impacts the Cosmic Balance. That's why it is inherently a Good or Evil act on its own -- minor, and for a given creature its probably not as important as the action taken with them, but it is Good or Evil inherently and fundamentally, and the planar energy related will adhere to the caster (changing that character's Alignment in a game-mechanics sense), as well as likely adhering to the target (though likely for less time). On a target that's relatively weak (e.g. a commoner under 4 HD), that may be more than their own inherent aura. If they get zapped by an [Evil] spell that doesn't kill them? They may show up as Evil per a Detect Evil, and get repulsed by a Protection From Evil, at least temporarily.
Note that this can be an entirely unconscious action. Infernal Healing, perhaps invested in a Magic Item and used by Good people who are unaware of the energy source, are slowly corrupting their area to Evil. Who knows what specific impact that may have -- maybe it makes it easier for Evil outsiders to come in, or opens people's minds for Evil thoughts -- the specific implementation isn't terribly important right now. What was asked here was about the [Evil] magic descriptor -- and that [Evil] means Evil energy is in play, and that Evil energy, coming from a Plane with Evil Alignment, and infused with Evil energies, has a definitive game-mechanics related impact. It is actually inherently and fundamentally Evil, no matter what action is taken with it.
Edit: Your later post agrees with (at least most of) this view, at least regarding the planar energies. Not well defined, certainly, but there is something there.
Good Deities wholly embody Good. Whatever they are doing, no matter how bizarre and terrible it may seem to Limited Mortal Eyes, is inherently Good. Same with Evil.
That's mostly a philosophical opinion. I thought Golarion was more Greek/Roman in that its gods could be flawed, make mistakes, or take mortal actions, in particular the ones that were mortal to begin with.
Also, could you show me the text that says that using an evil spell lets a little bit of evil into the world or taints the soul of the recipient?(the spell text actually says the opposite...)
Good Deities wholly embody Good. Whatever they are doing, no matter how bizarre and terrible it may seem to Limited Mortal Eyes, is inherently Good. Same with Evil.That's mostly a philosophical opinion. I thought Golarion was more Greek/Roman in that its gods could be flawed, make mistakes, or take mortal actions, in particular the ones that were mortal to begin with.
Also, could you show me the text that says that using an evil spell lets a little bit of evil into the world or taints the soul of the recipient?(the spell text actually says the opposite...)
Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil...
Committing acts of evil is what naturally leads to alignment change. There isn't a gauge necessarily, and if\when it occurs is left up to the GM, but it like water dropping into a bucket, at some point (unless the GM just ignores it) those drops will fill up to the "Evil now" line.
Good Deities wholly embody Good. Whatever they are doing, no matter how bizarre and terrible it may seem to Limited Mortal Eyes, is inherently Good. Same with Evil.That's mostly a philosophical opinion. I thought Golarion was more Greek/Roman in that its gods could be flawed, make mistakes, or take mortal actions, in particular the ones that were mortal to begin with.
Also, could you show me the text that says that using an evil spell lets a little bit of evil into the world or taints the soul of the recipient?(the spell text actually says the opposite...)
Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil...Committing acts of evil is what naturally leads to alignment change. There isn't a gauge necessarily, and if\when it occurs is left up to the GM, but it like water dropping into a bucket, at some point (unless the GM just ignores it) those drops will fill up to the "Evil now" line.
I said the recipient, not the caster.
Of course, GM whim is a mechanic with lots of table variation. It can also lead to a ridiculous amount of arguments, stupid, and jerkitude. Not a big fan of it, especially if your telling someone their morality, and even more so if its about healing people turning you evil and possibly losing your character's class features.
|
Creatures with an evil subtype (generally outsiders) are creatures that are fundamentally evil: devils, daemons, and demons, for instance. Their redemption is rare, if it is even possible. They are evil to their very core, and commit evil acts perpetually and persistently.It's all right there. Evil-Subtype Creatures are Fundamentally Evil.
Actually, the part I bolded above explicitly states that it is not necessarily an absolute.
That baby was a Devil's. It is Evil, though as an innocent (at this point) not necessarily evil. Killing it is Good, but not good
I do not think that I saw anywhere in the CRB anything saying that killing Evil is Good per se.
Actually, how you deal with innocent beings is one of the cornerstones of the Evil-Good axis. Killing an innocent (even an Evil one, if there is such a thing as an Evil innocent) is definitely not Good and is in fact Evil. Good would be protecting the innocent.
Philosophical dilemmas are entirely obviated by having a very explicit Good-Aligned and Evil-Aligned planar topography.
That Evil and Good are absolute metaphysical truths/realities of the Outer Spheres only obviate philosophical dilemmas for Outsiders. Things on the mortal plane are far less clear-cut because mortals do not have the near-perfect alignment nature/understanding of Outsiders, nor any exact understanding of what absolute alignments can mean.
Also, just because the Outer Spheres appear to be in perfect celestial order and truth at one moment does not mean that they do not change with time.
Oh - sorry, misread. In a minor after-lunch coma.
At a table level (I think I mentioned earlier) I ignore alignment descriptors on the majority of spells.
Oh - sorry, misread. In a minor after-lunch coma.
At a table level (I think I mentioned earlier) I ignore alignment descriptors on the majority of spells.
Lucky you, I had a PFS GM once try to make a paladin fall for taking infernal healing, and another home GM would count give you three strikes before making you fall from alignment(evil spells counted!). I remove alignment when I run a game, but that's because I find it easier and less to worry about.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Add my voice to those saying "it's really up to the GM." If the GM wants to basically ignore alignment descriptors on spells, that's their prerogative. On the other hand, it's entirely possible to have alignment descriptors actually mean something within the game world.
As this discussion is about infernal healing, I'll use that as an example. As the GM I want casting this spell to be an evil act, so I decide on my world that evil forces can't directly heal someone. Instead, every time the spell is used, it "steals" health from other random people. Not in any way that can be directly traced to the spell, but subtly. Every time it's cast, some child somewhere falls out of a tree and breaks their leg. Or an old woman comes down with pneumonia. Or a smith breaks his hand and can't work to support his family. Every casting makes the world a slightly worse place. Pure GM fluff but a good character who realized what they'd been inadvertently doing would be horrified. similar situations can be concocted for other Evil spells, and inverse scenarios for Good spells. Maybe every time you summon a lantern archon an orphanage finds a sack on coins buried in the back or other good fortune. Even making the possibility that this is true known to philosophers and theologians encourages good characters to use Good spells and avoid Evil ones.
Add my voice to those saying "it's really up to the GM." If the GM wants to basically ignore alignment descriptors on spells, that's their prerogative. On the other hand, it's entirely possible to have alignment descriptors actually mean something within the game world.
That sounds horrendously biased! Your example also requires a bit of refluffing how things work, which changes the game entirely, and definitely doesn't carry from game to game.
Edit: I could easily say fireball takes life force from everything around you and have the same effect. Its a different game then.(fluff wise.)
Edit: I could easily say fireball takes life force from everything around you and have the same effect. Its a different game then.(fluff wise.)
[Fire] spells contribute to global warming.
Pyromancers are the reason the polar ice caps are melting! Therefore, anyone who casts a [Fire] spell, is, in fact, Evil for murdering polar bears!
Polar bears in my setting are actually supervillains, your doing the world a favor by removing them. Its a good aligned act to cast fire spells now! In fact, if you cast 10 fire spells your next BBEG might even turn up dead for no reason!
Anyways, hopefully someone sees my point about making things up or adding details that just aren't there until you make them...
|
|
Polar bears in my setting are actually supervillains, your doing the world a favor by removing them. Its a good aligned act to cast fire spells now! In fact, if you cast 10 fire spells your next BBEG might even turn up dead for no reason!
Anyways, hopefully someone sees my point about making things up or adding details that just aren't there until you make them...
If your point was that you'd rather that alignment didn't mean anything, and that the good and evil descriptors had nothing to do with the effects or consequences of a spell being good or evil, then yeah, I guess I see your point.
I just don't agree with it. If something is evil (or good), then it should actually be doing something evil (or good). It shouldn't be free or 'mindlessly evil' or some sort of 'good because I say so' tautology / logic fail.
If a summoned fiend got an equal number of rounds free, to any it spent summoned by a caster, to go work wickedness on the world, then yeah, summoning one, even to rescue orphans from a fire, would end up bringing about evil, as it dashes off afterwards to start another orphanage fire or kill a bunch of homeless people or something. Similarly, if a summoned celestial got 10 rounds of 'liberty' after being summoned for 10 rounds, and could teleport over to the Worldwound and heal some injured knights or smite some demons, then the spell has a reason to have the [good] descriptor, since, even if a mean-spirited neutral wizard called up that archon and ordered it to drown a puppy, it's going to have a chance to perform some goodly deeds as well.
|
|
As this discussion is about infernal healing, I'll use that as an example. As the GM I want casting this spell to be an evil act, so I decide on my world that evil forces can't directly heal someone. Instead, every time the spell is used, it "steals" health from other random people. Not in any way that can be directly traced to the spell, but subtly. Every time it's cast, some child somewhere falls out of a tree and breaks their leg. Or an old woman comes down with pneumonia. Or a smith breaks his hand and can't work to support his family. Every casting makes the world a slightly worse place. Pure GM fluff but a good character who realized what they'd been inadvertently doing would be horrified. similar situations can be concocted for other Evil spells, and inverse scenarios for Good spells. Maybe every time you summon a lantern archon an orphanage finds a sack on coins buried in the back or other good fortune. Even making the possibility that this is true known to philosophers and theologians encourages good characters to use Good spells and avoid Evil ones.
See, this might be adding fluff, but it makes sense to me because it's "Infernal Healing is evil because it causes harm (your healing is at the expense of others)" rather than "Infernal Healing is evil because it deals with evil energies."
Of course this can have interesting implications if extended to other types of spells - for example, does Create Water lower the level of a well on the other side of the world?
Polar bears in my setting are actually supervillains, your doing the world a favor by removing them. Its a good aligned act to cast fire spells now! In fact, if you cast 10 fire spells your next BBEG might even turn up dead for no reason!
Anyways, hopefully someone sees my point about making things up or adding details that just aren't there until you make them...
If your point was that you'd rather that alignment didn't mean anything, and that the good and evil descriptors had nothing to do with the effects or consequences of a spell being good or evil, then yeah, I guess I see your point.
I just don't agree with it. If something is evil (or good), then it should actually be doing something evil (or good). It shouldn't be free or 'mindlessly evil' or some sort of 'good because I say so' tautology / logic fail.
If a summoned fiend got an equal number of rounds free, to any it spent summoned by a caster, to go work wickedness on the world, then yeah, summoning one, even to rescue orphans from a fire, would end up bringing about evil, as it dashes off afterwards to start another orphanage fire or kill a bunch of homeless people or something. Similarly, if a summoned celestial got 10 rounds of 'liberty' after being summoned for 10 rounds, and could teleport over to the Worldwound and heal some injured knights or smite some demons, then the spell has a reason to have the [good] descriptor, since, even if a mean-spirited neutral wizard called up that archon and ordered it to drown a puppy, it's going to have a chance to perform some goodly deeds as well.
Except that's not how summon spells work in the game. They are evil because they have a label. Those extra details about 10 rounds of liberty are details that you added in to justify it. Which was my point. People are adding in additional details to justify things. I could just as easily say fireball absorbs life force, and is therefore evil, or kills polar bears, or kills super villains. They aren't a part of the game until you add them, and if your only doing it to justify the label, then I think something is probably wrong. It also doesn't help from a standpoint about all games, or RAW, where those details don't exist.
Infernal healing either shouldn't be Evil or shouldn't be arcane.
