"Casting spells or using items with the [Evil] descriptor is an evil act, and affects your alignment"Sadly, and to this game's great detriment, this one is not a misconception. It is true.
Why is that sad? If you're channeling the power of an evil god or twisting the essence of a departed soul to make it unwillingly serve you in some perverse mockery of its former being, shouldn't such malign use of power go to your head a little bit? No one's saying you turn evil after X castings, but it should start to have an effect eventually.
Granted, I do think that some spells have the [evil] descriptor when it's not needed, but that's a problem with the spells themselves more than this particular facet of magic overall.
"Casting spells or using items with the [Evil] descriptor is an evil act, and affects your alignment"Sadly, and to this game's great detriment, this one is not a misconception. It is true.Why is that sad? If you're channeling the power of an evil god or twisting the essence of a departed soul to make it unwillingly serve you in some perverse mockery of its former being, shouldn't such malign use of power go to your head a little bit? No one's saying you turn evil after X castings, but it should start to have an effect eventually.
Granted, I do think that some spells have the [evil] descriptor when it's not needed, but that's a problem with the spells themselves more than this particular facet of magic overall.
Because absolute morality is silly, to put it politely as I can.
The fact that there are actions that, regardless or circumstance, intent, or use, are Evil is a detriment to roleplay and reduces the number of 3-d moral dilemmas the game can support.
It leads to things like "That guy's a Necromancer! Evil! Smite!" even when said Necromancer was animating the corpses of the fallen in order to defend the town from bandits or Orcs or summat.
It leads to thinks like drinking blood being okay if you do it JUST FOR FUN, but not if you gain some sort of benefit from it (<---Conversation I had with SKR on the Dhampir Blood Drinker Feat for reference).
It adds NOTHING to the game, and takes away so much. It's a ridiculous, and IMO poorly thought out addition to the game that I take every opportunity I can to houserule out and try to pretend said embarrassment never existed.
Because absolute morality is silly, to put it politely as I can.
The fact that there are actions that, regardless or circumstance, intent, or use, are Evil is a detriment to roleplay and reduces the number of 3-d moral dilemmas the game can support.
It leads to things like "That guy's a Necromancer! Evil! Smite!" even when said Necromancer was animating the corpses of the fallen in order to defend the town from bandits or Orcs or summat.
It leads to thinks like drinking blood being okay if you do it JUST FOR FUN, but not if you gain some sort of benefit from it (<---Conversation I had with SKR on the Dhampir Blood Drinker Feat for reference).
It adds NOTHING to the game, and takes away so much. It's a ridiculous, and IMO poorly thought out addition to the game that I take every opportunity I can to houserule out and try to pretend said embarrassment never existed.
When the gods DO exist and entire planes of existence are more or less dedicated to the very ideals that certain alignments are all about, is it really that silly? No one's saying that there isn't some wiggle room here or there for role-playing the grey aspects of morality. In fact, your necromancer is the perfect example. He's doing something objectively horrible yet putting it to a benevolent and noble purpose. Which side wins out overall? Do continued actions like that eventually lead to a shift in her perspective on things, maybe a change in personality to accompany it? Or is the willpower and selflessness necessary to taint the purity of his own soul with such dark magic in order to safeguard the lives of innocent civilians exactly the shield this necromancer needs to protect the core of his conscience that lets him be the hero he is? Call me crazy, but this sort of thing sounds like role-playing gold.
SKR actually said that? That's...weird, to say the least. Especially since James Jacobs said the opposite, where doing it purely for necessary sustenance didn't count as evil but doing it purely for pleasure did. One is far more in line with the idea of the classic evil vampire and predators in general. Could you link me that thread SKR said that in? I've already looked and your first dozen pages of post history don't seem to be it.
When the gods DO exist and entire planes of existence are more or less dedicated to the very ideals that certain alignments are all about, is it really that silly?
Yes.
This is basically saying "Is it really silly if there's a justification for the silliness that relies on the silliness existing in the first place?", the answer to which is "Yes. 1000x yes."
In fact, your necromancer is the perfect example. He's doing something objectively horrible yet putting it to a benevolent and noble purpose.
These two bolded terms are contradictory. That's why it's silly.
Something can't be "objectively horrible" (that is, factually, undeniably, indisputably horrible), and "benevolent and noble" are not compatible concepts.
Which side wins out overall? Do continued actions like that eventually lead to a shift in her perspective on things, maybe a change in personality to accompany it? Or is the willpower and selflessness necessary to taint the purity of his own soul with such dark magic in order to safeguard the lives of innocent civilians exactly the shield this necromancer needs to protect the core of his conscience that lets him be the hero he is? Call me crazy, but this sort of thing sounds like role-playing gold.
Look at it from the opposite direction as well.
Summoning angels to be your slaves makes you more good.
Justify that one.
SKR actually said that? That's...weird, to say the least. Especially since James Jacobs said the opposite, where doing it purely for necessary sustenance didn't count as evil but doing it purely for pleasure did. One is far more in line with the idea of the classic evil vampire and predators in general. Could you link me that thread SKR said that in? I've already looked and your first dozen pages of post history don't seem to be it.
Quote in question:
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.
t leads to thinks like drinking blood being okay if you do it JUST FOR FUN, but not if you gain some sort of benefit from it
So yeah, then based upon you quoting SKR later, no he didn't say that. You're being disingenuous.
It's the difference between killing someone is self defense and doing it for fun. One is moral, the other is not.
You may think having a set of morals to live by is "silly" but it's been part of civilization for over 4000 years. Thus, it is quite properly part of a game written by and played by folks from that same world.
There are games for sociopaths, D&D is not one of them.
SKR actually said that? That's...weird, to say the least. Especially since James Jacobs said the opposite, where doing it purely for necessary sustenance didn't count as evil but doing it purely...
No, SKR didn't say that. Rynjin is being disingenuous.
Denied Dex bonus == Flat footed
Misconception: Grappled = denied dex bonus
t leads to thinks like drinking blood being okay if you do it JUST FOR FUN, but not if you gain some sort of benefit from itSo yeah, then based upon you quoting SKR later, no he didn't say that. You're being disingenuous.
He said it right there.
If you drink it just because, it's just creepy, not evil.
If you drink it to gain a few temporary HP, EVILLL!!!!!!
It's the difference between killing someone is self defense and doing it for fun. One is moral, the other is not.
Not really. It's more like the difference between killing someone in combat and killing someone in combat and looting their corpse for more ammo.
The difference in morality is nonexistent. The difference in practicality is pretty huge.
You may think having a set of morals to live by is "silly" but it's been part of civilization for over 4000 years. Thus, it is quite properly part of a game written by and played by folks from that same world.
No set of morals is absolute, and no action in real life is inherently evil. There is nothing in real life that will "turn you evil" like some things will in this game, regardless of context, intent, or outcome.
Using Necromancy to save people in this game turning you evil is the real world equivalent of something like starting a second fire to smother a first.
"Starting forest fires is evil no matter the intent! You lose d100 alignment points!"
Even people who believe in an all powerful God don't believe this if they've actually read their holy texts.
"There is a time for everything..." is one of my favorite passages from the Bible.
Like I said. Silly.
There are games for sociopaths, D&D is not one of them.
Please, spare me this tripe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys (Cerberus Seven, Rynjin DrDeth) can you take the threadjack somewhere else? This is a fun thread reading and It sure would be frustrating if all the good stuff got lost within your walls of text.
I too like this thread. However, it is not the place to argue over ideology. If it is in the rules, fine. If not, another thread please.
Well actually this isn't a rule thread. This is a "tell us a story from your game" thread.
Yes.
This is basically saying "Is it really silly if there's a justification for the silliness that relies on the silliness existing in the first place?", the answer to which is "Yes. 1000x yes."
Maybe it's the overuse of the word 'silly', but I'm having a hard time making out your meaning. The existence of gods and aligned planes has been around in D&D for decades now, Pathfinder simply imported the concept. 3rd edition had certain spells, including Animate Dead, listed as evil subtyped. Are you asking Paizo to dismiss that entire part of the Pathfinder multiverse? Or are you saying that magic simply shouldn't be allowed to have any impact on a characters alignment at all?
These two bolded terms are contradictory. That's why it's silly.
Something can't be "objectively horrible" (that is, factually, undeniably, indisputably horrible), and "benevolent and noble" are not compatible concepts.
Counterpoint: Hiroshima. We dropped a bomb that killed tens of thousands, almost entirely civilians, on a foreign city. Then we did it again to even greater effect a couple days later at Nagasaki. And yet, both sides are hard-pressed to admit anything other than the war would have gone on with a land invasion of Japan to the tune of hundreds of thousands, maybe MILLIONS, dead if we hadn't use this new technology for such an utterly horrible purpose. The act was terrible, but the purpose for which we undertook it was not. Remember, just because something is horrible does not mean that it is evil. Sometimes, horrible acts are what is necessary to end that which evil has brought about.
Look at it from the opposite direction as well.
Summoning angels to be your slaves makes you more good.
Justify that one.
Depends on WHY you're doing it. Pleasure? Yeah, that's wrong. Slave force? Very wrong. Doing it to form an army to combat a threat no one else on your world can possibly fight that will wipe out whole civilizations if you don't bring outsiders unwillingly into it? It's a far-fetched example, but then so is a necromancer deciding to elevate a skeleton army to save a village.
Guys (Cerberus Seven, Rynjin DrDeth) can you take the threadjack somewhere else? This is a fun thread reading and It sure would be frustrating if all the good stuff got lost within your walls of text.
Apologies, but outside of starting a new thread on the topic or taking this to PMs with Rynjin (neither of which I really feel inclined to initiate), I'm not sure how to remove our mini-back-&-forth from the thread. I will stop with this 'threadjack' here, though. Rynjin, if you want to continue this interesting discussion elsewhere, let me know. Otherwise, anything further you say here will be the last word.
|
In fact, your necromancer is the perfect example. He's doing something objectively horrible yet putting it to a benevolent and noble purpose.These two bolded terms are contradictory. That's why it's silly.
Something can't be "objectively horrible" (that is, factually, undeniably, indisputably horrible), and "benevolent and noble" are not compatible concepts.
"The end justifies the means" up to a point.
What Cerberus is saying is that some means tend to corrupt the ends and the game system support that.What you seem to be saying is that the means are totally indifferent, only the final goal matter.
Not necessarily.
Actions, in and of themselves, in the simplest form, are "non-aligned". They are indifferent of morality.
Killing someone is an action. It is inherently indifferent to morality.
MURDER is not (both not an "action" in itself and not moral in many cases). Murder is unlawful killing, and often an immoral act because of the REASONS it is done for (jealousy, greed, hatred).
The ends do not justify the means, but neither do the means invalidate the ends, if that makes sense.
It all has to do with your intent, and the final outcome, and other more complicated things I find hard to put into words that determine the morality of an action, not just the action itself. Any action has the potential to be good or evil, but none are good or evil in and of themselves.
With only 1,800 peasants and myself I can throw any light object at mach 8.
That is also the speed our grapple ball travels at when we all work together.
I think -not- threadjacking would be a good idea, so I'll make this quite short, and very RAWsy. I am not trying to prolong the discussion, merely to provide basis for my claim, that you may read and accept at face value, or look further in to, should you want to.
Ahem
@Rynjin, DrDreth, and Cerberus Seven:
As far as I am aware, there is no rule in the game that tells us that casting an [Evil] spell, or using an [Evil] item, is by itself an evil act. There is an item in the game, though I'll be damned if I can remember which, that has in its description, that using it makes the user more evil. As opposed to other items, that -might- have the [Evil] descriptor, but which do not specify such a thing in their description.
Nowhere in the magic chapter, even in the specific decription of the alignment descriptors, provided in ultimate magic, is it ever stated that using anything tagged with such a descriptor changes the alignment of the action, or the person performing them. The closest we come to this, at any time in the rules, is the following line:
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
which can indicate a number of things, but does NOT provide rules basis for assuming that an alignment descriptor can magically undermine the content or intent of the action that is being performed, thereby changing its alignment.
I am aware that SKR has said that the descriptors signify that it is evil to cast [Evil] magic, but SKR's words are not RAW. The text in the rulebook is RAW. The official FAQs and Erratas are RAW. I am unaware of any such thing "clarifying" that [Evil] is evil, and likely with good reason. Find the thread where SKR made that statement originally, and watch Ashiel tear it to little, tiny shreds.
The rules, as they are presently written and presented, as far as I am aware, do not claim that using [Evil] is evil. The game tells you when you are doing something evil, and it does so in the alignment chapter, and in the descriptions of certain items (and maybe in certain spells, that I haven't read?).
I believe that one of the reasons people think [Evil] is evil, is because the SRD has the following line in their opening paragraph of their alingnment chapter:
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
Which as far as I am aware, is completely their own decision and not quoted from or based on anything in the rules. I could be wrong here, so if it IS a quote from official paizo material don't hesitate to tell me. The PRD however, says what it has always said: nothing about [alignment] breaking alignment.
With that I step back from this discussion, so we can let the thread move on as intended. :)
-Nearyn
Find the thread where SKR made that statement originally, and watch Ashiel tear it to little, tiny shreds.
Apologies for this rather opinionated line, in what was supposed to be a straightforward response to the discussion. :(
Didn't catch it quick enough to edit.
-Nearyn
I believe that bit is from Paths of Purity (I think that's what it's called?).
I'm like 99.99% certain it is official material, but not present in the CRB.
I believe that bit is from Paths of Purity (I think that's what it's called?).
I'm like 99.99% certain it is official material, but not present in the CRB.
You'd be correct. Just bought it and checked.
With that, I retract my claim. It is now officially supported by the pathfinder rules system that using [Evil] is evil. This is a sad, sad thing indeed.
Guess I'm house-ruling from here on in. Man... thought they'd know better.
Thanks Rynjin :)
-Nearyn
"Casting spells or using items with the [Evil] descriptor is an evil act, and affects your alignment"Sadly, and to this game's great detriment, this one is not a misconception. It is true.
But it doesn't really matter. You can just use your downtime to cast summon monster to call a celestial guinea pig. That's a good spell and counters evil spells cast.
In other words if casting evil spells is an evil act casting good spells is a good act, too.
Spells: One of my players only reads what he wants to read in the spell descriptions.
EG:
Ice armour: can I take the armour off and use it as a sheet of ice.
Stoneshape: river 20ft wide, 20ft deep, fast flowing in a cavern 4oft high. Looking at the volume of the spell can I make a sheet 1 inch thick to stretch from one bank to the other so it will stop the flow of water. (This one REALLY hurt my brain, maybe possible but without a degree in maths I had no idea).
and countless others
Skills:
Knowldge nature: Can I spot of creatures in the area that can sense the precence of a ghost.
and this one last night, fog shrouded city...
Can I disperse the fog? How, what spell are you think of using..none but can I do it?
For the love of....not strickly a rules misconception but still, face palm..
Oh!! Wait a damn second. Champions of purity is a setting specific book :D
Thank goodness, that means that horrid, horrid addition is not a core rule. whew.
Okay, in that case I'll change my addition:
A rules misconception: Casting spells or using items with the [Evil] descriptor is an evil action and affects the alignment of the character.
When in truth that "rule" is an optional addition to the game from a setting book, and not a rule.
-Nearyn