Not sure what the best forum to put this on would be. Advice kinda feels like CharOp sometimes, but it's not really. So General seems as good a place as any.
And the reason is because Good has a 2x force multiplier against Evil via Litany of Righteousness.
Ways to have the Aura of Good: Be a Paladin or a Cleric or a Collegiate Arcanist (full casting PrC for wizards).
Litany of Righteousness is a lvl2 spell for Paladins and a lvl3 spell for inquisitors (which is weird since inquisitors don't have an aura near as I can tell). If you want to be especially mean, the Cleric could Samsaran it for more casts and sooner.
Then Good can enjoy some rounds of double damage smite evils, flame strikes, and fireballs against a villain of their choice. Assuming you don't want class duplicates, you could round the party out with a critfisher TWF ranger to give crits to the Paladin via Butterfly Sting. I would suggest the Paladin grab a scythe or similar in such a case.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because evil is dumb? No wait, I think that's the other way around.
If the forces of good get themselves killed blundering into traps and superior strategy, evil wins.
Evil has some great monsters on its side too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good generally doesn't have to worry about their allies turning on them. From an organizational standpoint, good has a lot of advantages:
1.) You don't have to spend time hiding your failures from your boss, because he won't kill you for them. More time to do your actual job, or fix those mistakes you made.
2.) You're not framing your fellow lieutenants for your failures, getting them killed and weakening your organization.
3.) You're not embezzling money/resources from your boss to your personal slush fund, weakening the organization.
4.) You don't have to spend time protecting yourself against jealous lieutenants trying to frame you or take your job.
The list goes on...
Bah, there is a balance between the two and one spell doesn't make or break it. If there was an "easy button" spell as you suggest that always makes good triumph over evil there would be no evil left. There will always be both sides and they will always balance each other out in the grand scheme of things.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I see someone say evil is more fun to play I always think they just have an inner psychopath/sociopath just waiting to come out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I see someone say evil is more fun to play I always think they just have an inner psychopath/sociopath just waiting to come out.
True, but at least they have the restraint to limit their "coming out" to roleplaying games. I hope.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I see someone say evil is more fun to play I always think they just have an inner psychopath/sociopath just waiting to come out.True, but at least they have the restraint to limit their "coming out" to roleplaying games. I hope.
I guess killing ink people is better than killing actual people.
Still, deciding to cut off the vampires head and literally skull f*** it isn't exactly something that belongs in every campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's good because Duke Nukem style "I'll rip off your head and s+~+ down your neeecck" brutality isn't what all Evil is.
Neither is all Evil going to have people getting killed for failing their job, rampant disloyalty, or backstabbing among the ranks either.
Perhaps with Demons and Daemons, but not Devils, or Hobgoblins, or many Evil mortal organizations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I see someone say evil is more fun to play I always think they just have an inner psychopath/sociopath just waiting to come out.True, but at least they have the restraint to limit their "coming out" to roleplaying games. I hope.I guess killing ink people is better than killing actual people.
Still, deciding to cut off the vampires head and literally skull f*** it isn't exactly something that belongs in every campaign.
That's not evil, it's kinky. I'd be more concerned about the fangs.
And besides, it was a vampire. Probably deserved it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good always wins? Asmodeus just p*ssed himself laughing!
It's easy for Evil to win- all it has to do is redefine Good as evil. For example, all you have to do is get a line editor to say Lawful Good is totalitarianism, and Bob's yer uncle!
I haven't seen any Evil magics or powers to tempt one from the Litany.
Infernal healing
Infernal healing helps everyone! Litany... doesn't help evil at all to my knowledge. I mean, unless taking double damage is a good thing.
|
Infernal healingInfernal healing helps everyone! Litany... doesn't help evil at all to my knowledge. I mean, unless taking double damage is a good thing.
Well not a great argument, not everyone on team good will be actually good. And in some fringe cases it could be used by evil for evil. I think there are ways to get a good aura by an evil guy.
Also spells exist that are not in rule books. Which are focused on heros more than villains.
Edit: I've seen a post on these forums about being killed due to using infernal healing. A case of mistaken alignment and perceived trickery.
Good has a vested interest in promoting other good, and eliminating evil.
Evil has a vested interest in eliminating good, and eliminating other evil.
So, yeah, evil is always doomed to self-destruct, even if (or rather because) it gains a temporary advantage.
But, if you're just talking about one spell... Yeah, Litany is pretty great. It's not a "Good-Guy-Auto-Win" though.
Good can fight good, evil doesn't always fight itself(Otherwise good's job would be a lot easier!) but these things aren't mechanics. Mechanically, the game is built for good I thought and not every good/evil thing has a reciprocal(undead for example, or litany of righteousness), which I think is what people get at sometimes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few people have noted that evil can turn on evil, whilst it's always good versuse evil. This is not strictly true. Good can turn on good when there are philosophical differences. This is most obviously expressed in Law v Chaos but could be LG v LG or CG v CG where one side's definition contravenes anothers. E.g. Your laws on ensuring there is a well drilled and armed militia contravenes our no weapons law or your freedoms are stopping us from enjoying our freedoms.
I've had a few campaigns end up with the forces of good bickering amongst themselves on the best way to comabt the growing evil.
If the forces of good get themselves killed blundering into traps and superior strategy, evil wins.
Evil has some great monsters on its side too.
Always remember the first tactical rule of gaming
"Brilliant Strategy and Poor Rolls will never triumph over Poor Strategy and Brilliant Rolls."
Oh yes, pray to the dice gods.
A few people have noted that evil can turn on evil, whilst it's always good versuse evil. This is not strictly true. Good can turn on good when there are philosophical differences. This is most obviously expressed in Law v Chaos but could be LG v LG or CG v CG where one side's definition contravenes anothers. E.g. Your laws on ensuring there is a well drilled and armed militia contravenes our no weapons law or your freedoms are stopping us from enjoying our freedoms.
I've had a few campaigns end up with the forces of good bickering amongst themselves on the best way to comabt the growing evil.
Do I have a thread for you!
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p3gi&page=1?Paladins-and-other-LGs-against -the-feudal-order
So yes, I agree.
Aligned mind-control spells can be overcome with a simple level 1 spell, Protection From.
There is only one true alignment for those who seek power.
Neutrality dominates all!
Well Prot. From X only gives a bonus and a second save, not complete immunity. You can still fail the second save.
It does give immunity to any new attempts of mind control, but it gives a 2nd save instead of retroactive immunity to those already under someone's control.
I still think it's pretty crazy how easy it is to give nearly your entire party (going with my Cleric-Paladin-Wizard (Collegiate Arcanist)-Ranger) double damage as a swift action against an evil foe, no save. This doesn't even take a significant amount of specialization, at least not in the sense that the party is any less ready to take on non-evil foes. Sure the Paladin isn't as great without Smite Evil, but he still has his sword and his LoH. Everyone else is 100% effectiveness (rather than 200% effectiveness against BBEGs)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aligned mind-control spells can be overcome with a simple level 1 spell, Protection From.
There is only one true alignment for those who seek power.
Neutrality dominates all!
Damn Neutrals! You never know where they stand.
And Litany of Righteousness does hit like a mack truck at times, especially if the paladin's smite mojo lets him bypass the monster's DR.
I've had multiple fiends die from massive damage thanks to it (and to rolling 1s and 2s on the d20, muttergrumble).
On the more philosophical angle though it does rankle me when folks try to force 'balance' on the settings with such comic book-inspired chestnuts as 'too much good is evil.'
It just sets my teeth on edge and makes me do the Jackie Chan face.
|
Good generally doesn't have to worry about their allies turning on them. From an organizational standpoint, good has a lot of advantages:
1.) You don't have to spend time hiding your failures from your boss, because he won't kill you for them. More time to do your actual job, or fix those mistakes you made.
2.) You're not framing your fellow lieutenants for your failures, getting them killed and weakening your organization.
3.) You're not embezzling money/resources from your boss to your personal slush fund, weakening the organization.
4.) You don't have to spend time protecting yourself against jealous lieutenants trying to frame you or take your job.The list goes on...
Sounds like a typical corporation to me.
Good generally doesn't have to worry about their allies turning on them. From an organizational standpoint, good has a lot of advantages:
1.) You don't have to spend time hiding your failures from your boss, because he won't kill you for them. More time to do your actual job, or fix those mistakes you made.
2.) You're not framing your fellow lieutenants for your failures, getting them killed and weakening your organization.
3.) You're not embezzling money/resources from your boss to your personal slush fund, weakening the organization.
4.) You don't have to spend time protecting yourself against jealous lieutenants trying to frame you or take your job.The list goes on...
You describe some corporate cultures to a tee. Just replace kill with terminated.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly the whole cliche evil thign is just a silly response to the cultural flotsam that continues to produce self righteous paladins and their cheerleading squad.
Let me give you a peek of reality. Evil's already won. I mean think about it why would we have so many adventurers running around cutting the heads off innumerable hordes of dumb bastards who thought the way to go was to put on some dark robes and carry an onyx dagger around in case they find an infant to gut?
Because evil's in charge! And because we're in charge we don't want those dumb bastards ruining it for us by blowing it all up or doing something nonsensical like blotting out the sun, or gods forgive, awakening some forgotten god to kick us out of our comfortable chair. So we throw the good guys a bone and sometimes pay them to go after the stupid ones for the sake of society. Culling the weak if you will.
I mean for every "just" and "fair" ruler we've got about twenty different tyrants and corrupt politicians working through perfectly legitimate channels to oppress the masses in small but truly significant ways.
Take our watch. Last week we cut their budget because they were not "Arresting enough criminals". Ha! Turns out we just made the criminals life easier. And we get to enjoy the extra pay raise made from cutting that budget as a congratulations to ourselves for being so bloody efficient.
Now if you'll excuse me I have an underling to torment before a dinner date with his mother and a sexy rendezvous with your sister. The pretty one. With the curls.
|
A few people have noted that evil can turn on evil, whilst it's always good versuse evil. This is not strictly true. Good can turn on good when there are philosophical differences. This is most obviously expressed in Law v Chaos but could be LG v LG or CG v CG where one side's definition contravenes anothers. E.g. Your laws on ensuring there is a well drilled and armed militia contravenes our no weapons law or your freedoms are stopping us from enjoying our freedoms.
I've had a few campaigns end up with the forces of good bickering amongst themselves on the best way to combat the growing evil.
While this can be true, I would expect it to happen far less often than the typical LE vs CE feuds. And when it does spill over, to be less intense and more easily resolved.
The defining traits of Goodness include empathy, being able to consider another's point of view, and altruism, a willingness to help others, even when it brings no personal gain - remember the parable of the Good Samaritan? I don't recall him offering help to the injured man, but only on condition he convert to the stranger's faith, sign over his worldly goods, and enter a contract of bonded servitude to pay off the debt...
|
|
That's why I'm wary of the Great Wheel cosmology, as it's not generally understood to be an abstraction, a mnemonic aid, just like the Periodic Table of Elements.
"Plane K? Oh, yes, it's between Planes J and L, which means its got the following planar traits....".
But Plane K no more lies 'between' Planes J and L, as it lies 'between' Planes B and D. They all float in the Astral Sea. (And always have done, which is why the rage at the 'sudden change' of 4E cosmology was both amusing and ridiculous.)
I'm not sorry to see the end of the Great Wheel, if it forces players to think in a bit more detail about the motivations of the inhabitants, rather than simply declare that 'Outsider Race X is this many places removed from Outsider Race Y, so they must be mortal enemies'.
The idea that 'Law and Chaos are just as fundamentally opposed as Good and Evil', may be a holdover from Moorcock's Eternal Champion stories, but is really only workable if you base a campaign around that as the central schism. And even in Moorcock's work, Law was, 99% of the time, a euphemism for Good, and Chaos was almost as often a euphemism for Evil. Only rare individuals such as Elric bucked that trend, and even he was less 'Chaotic Good' than 'leave me the hell alone, or I'll cut you, whether you're aligned to Law or Chaos'.
Put it this way; if a GM (or publisher) often features LG Solars fighting CE demonkind, and pondering whether they should ally with the CG azata, or the LE guys with the pointy beards and pitchforks, because 'Well, they're both two alignment steps away, so they're equally hateful to us', then I would prefer not to play in such a game, because I would consider it to have lost a great deal of internal believability.
Similarly, if CG azata are desperate for allies vs the LE forces of Hell, and are actually torn between calling on the angels, or calling on the tanari'i, or (lord help us) the qlippoth?
Seriously? Is this even a dilemma? Is this a trick question?
The angels may be stodgy, and rigid in their ways, but they haven't declared war on all other life forms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Put it this way; if a GM (or publisher) often features LG Solars fighting CE demonkind, and pondering whether they should ally with the CG azata, or the LE guys with the pointy beards and pitchforks, because 'Well, they're both two alignment steps away, so they're equally hateful to us', then I would prefer not to play in such a game, because I would consider it to have lost a great deal of internal believability.
Similarly, if CG azata are desperate for allies vs the LE forces of Hell, and are actually torn between calling on the angels, or calling on the tanari'i, or (lord help us) the qlippoth?Seriously? Is this even a dilemma? Is this a trick question?
I call it Planescape and I thought it was awesome thank you very much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good implies a certain amount of philosophical tolerance. If the Law/Chaos axis of alignment was more important than the Good in their alignments, then none of them could really be qualified as 'good' to begin with.
|
The idea that 'Law and Chaos are just as fundamentally opposed as Good and Evil', may be a holdover from Moorcock's Eternal Champion stories, but is really only workable if you base a campaign around that as the central schism. ...
Put it this way; if a GM (or publisher) often features LG Solars fighting CE demonkind, and pondering whether they should ally with the CG azata, or the LE guys with the pointy beards and pitchforks, because 'Well, they're both two alignment steps away, so they're equally hateful to us', then I would prefer not to play in such a game, because I would consider it to have lost a great deal of internal believability.
Similarly, if CG azata are desperate for allies vs the LE forces of Hell, and are actually torn between calling on the angels, or calling on the tanari'i, or (lord help us) the qlippoth?Seriously? Is this even a dilemma? Is this a trick question?
The angels may be stodgy, and rigid in their ways, but they haven't declared war on all other life forms.
I actually am working on a setting built around the Law/Chaos split, and it does have Arcon-Devil and Azata-Demon alliances (the latter a bit tenuous). The reasoning works out this way:
Archons: The Azata may be well-intentioned, but if they persist in flouting the law they will destroy everything civilization depends on, and that will do more harm than making a few compromises with Devils in order to ensure stability.
Devils: It's better to beat the Archons in a battle of wits and play the laws that we'll help write, than to get into a battle of brawn with the demons. We want to rule the world, not destroy it.
Azata: It's better to die than submit to the authoritarian state the Archons have planned, especially now that they've allowed devils to taint it. We'd better point the demons in their direction and hope that keeps them all in check.
Demons: We're willing to kill the archons and devils first.
However, this whole exercise has mostly proved just how much the standard game is skewed in favour of the Good/Evil conflict (as it should be unless you're trying something fancy). Paladins smite evil, antipaladins smite good. Channel energy is split along good/evil lines. LG and CG outsiders both have DR/evil and not DR/law or DR/chaos. You can tell at a glance whether a dragon is good or evil (are their scales shiny?), but not whether they are lawful or chaotic. I'm having to make a number of mechanical changes to support the cosmological shift.
|
|
Exactly; the fact that paladins don't get smite chaos, the fact that people know the dragons are split down the metallic-good/chromatic-evil lines (but have to go check if brass or bronze are NG or CG), the fact that most of the good outsiders have minimal cosmetic differences ('noble' dude with feathered wings - check. Wait, is this guy an angel or a deva? What do you mean? Are they not the same thing? What? Since when?), all point to the Law/Chaos divide being far less significant than the divide between Good/Evil.
I totally get that these races who share a [good] descriptor can still have their differences of opinion.
But there's a huge difference between finding someone irritating, and them being diametrically opposed to your health, safety and existence.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly; the fact that paladins don't get smite chaos, the fact that people know the dragons are split down the metallic-good/chromatic-evil lines (but have to go check if brass or bronze are NG or CG), the fact that most of the good outsiders have minimal cosmetic differences ('noble' dude with feathered wings - check. Wait, is this guy an angel or a deva? What do you mean? Are they not the same thing? What? Since when?), all point to the Law/Chaos divide being far less significant than the divide between Good/Evil.
I totally get that these races who share a [good] descriptor can still have their differences of opinion.
But there's a huge difference between finding someone irritating, and them being diametrically opposed to your health, safety and existence.
Here's a secret Ima let you in on. From a game design perspective it's far easier to write stories about good vs. evil rather than Law vs. Chaos.
Questions of order and inevitable progress versus the purity of anarchy tend to fly over the heads of a lot of players.
The thing is Law vs. Chaos is one of those delightful conflicts that work well when done right. What you have to understand is that Lawful Good and Chaotic Good are not Lawful and Good or Chaotic and Good respectively. But they are LAWFULGOOD and CHAOTICGOOD. Which are two different things. They are both "good" but from two different perspectives so different in fact that conflict is something of an inevitability.
You see CHAOTICGOOD would view the concepts and philosophies of LAWFULGOOD as foreign and alien. LAwful good tries to create a benevolent and orderly universe where progress and order abide over a realm of peace adn prosperity. For people and things of LWAFULGOOD it is the structure of law that allows good to thrive and to flourish. Without a code of morality to follow then it's easier to fall prey to the excesses of chaos and the horrors of evil. They are willing to take the long, slow path because their way is the way of an inevitable march forward.
For CHAOTICGOOD, however structure, in and of itself is a cage. Law is the illusion tyrants create to enslave the weak and regardless of intent a benevolent tyrant is still a tyrant. It's up to the individual to decide for themselves what is good and right and just and take the fight as they feel to the enemy. The reason they don't feel the need to rip apart the gates of celestia is that greater enemies are always about to be opposed.
So yes I can see why ARchons and Azatas would brawl, hell even kill, one another over philosophical differences. For them it's not about fighting evil it's about preventing a much more subtle and terrible evil from taking advantage of the fooolishness of the other.
Thank the gods Angels are there to deal with the stuff that really matters.
And bear in mind that a "pure" universe of any of these alignments would be terrible for any mortal man to dwell in let alone conceive of. Even the most LAWFULGOOD paladin would find the orders and philosophies of the archons stifling as is there absolute strictness of moral purity.
And that's the final thing to remember. Outsiders aren't human. They're alien beings molded from soulstuff purged of impuriteis and hammered by ineffable forces into a soulless being bent on the advancement of a single unerring philosophy. Sometimes this is tempered by the wisdom of a deity. Sometimes not. The point being is that these beings are so ancient, so farseeing, and so alien that mortal views on an alignment don't necessarily apply.
A few people have noted that evil can turn on evil, whilst it's always good versuse evil. This is not strictly true. Good can turn on good when there are philosophical differences. This is most obviously expressed in Law v Chaos but could be LG v LG or CG v CG where one side's definition contravenes anothers. E.g. Your laws on ensuring there is a well drilled and armed militia contravenes our no weapons law or your freedoms are stopping us from enjoying our freedoms.
I've had a few campaigns end up with the forces of good bickering amongst themselves on the best way to combat the growing evil.
While this can be true, I would expect it to happen far less often than the typical LE vs CE feuds. And when it does spill over, to be less intense and more easily resolved.
The defining traits of Goodness include empathy, being able to consider another's point of view, and altruism, a willingness to help others, even when it brings no personal gain - remember the parable of the Good Samaritan? I don't recall him offering help to the injured man, but only on condition he convert to the stranger's faith, sign over his worldly goods, and enter a contract of bonded servitude to pay off the debt...
It largely depends on whether the alignment is absolute or relative. Two different cultures, which in absolute terms are both defined as lawful good could see the other as chaotic and/or evil relative to their own stance.
|
|
If I do say so myself, there's a much more in-depth look at alignment (in a good way!) in a new book that's just come out.
One of the things it tries to do is spell out the differences between the various alignments in greater detail and in ways that apply to the game more concretely rather than philosophically.
If I do say so myself, there's a much more in-depth look at alignment (in a good way!) in a new book that's just come out.
One of the things it tries to do is spell out the differences between the various alignments in greater detail and in ways that apply to the game more concretely rather than philosophically.
There are a few books I've found on alignment actually. I'm not a big fan of them because they tend to put forth one person's idea of what morality is and lay that down as the concrete idea. I guess that works for some people, just not a fan of it myself.
|
|
There are a few books I've found on alignment actually. I'm not a big fan of them because they tend to put forth one person's idea of what morality is and lay that down as the concrete idea. I guess that works for some people, just not a fan of it myself.
Certainly, its not for everyone, but making moral judgements is something you just can't avoid when talking about Alignment, for better or worse. Still, I was aware of that as a pitfall when writing the book and did my best to minimize the impact.