Well, I dont really see it that way and with the ruling from Reynolds you can't really say that either. Factually in pathfinder they are now not the same because weapons dont make you evil and evil spells do.
I am not reading SKR's quote the same way that you are.
The example he used was about murdering infants to gain healing, with what appears to be a spell made up on the spot.
Because of the introduction of murdering infants, it brings a significant amount of grey into the discussion - was SKR referring to the murder of infant act, or the spell descriptor, or was he saying that clerics cannot cast forbidden spells even if they are in scroll form. I suspect that he was talking about clerics using scrolls to cast forbidden spells.
I don't think that spells with an evil descriptor should be pulled.
I also don't think that we should track how many "evil" spells were cast by a PC, otherwise we will need to track how many "good", "lawful" and "chaotic" spells were cast. To see if there were an imbalance. I can see this leading to a lot of metagaming - player knows that they used 4 spells with evil descriptors in the scenario (infernal healing twice, animate dead twice), so makes sure that they cast protection from evil four times before the scenario is done (say, on the way back to see the VC). I don't want any additional accounting in PFS.
U could have it where only the spells that are the opposite of ur alignment are tracked. If ur CG, then u would only need to track ur lawful or evil spells. If ur NG then u would have to track ur evil, lawful, and choatic spells.
If they make spells actual acts of whatever alignment they give it, then theirs consequences and pluses for ur alignment and in a way makes alignment even more important to keep track of which can be a good thing. It can add another level to he gameplay by strengthening an imo weak practice of playing by alignment and tracking of it.It basically means if ur LG then u are gonna be more in tuned to be using and focusing on the good and lawful spells over the evil and choatic ones thus reinforceing ur character roleplay.
If ur NG then ur gonna be focuing more on good spells and staying away from lawful and choatic spells because u are nuetral. If a soft cap can be implemented then this can be a great way to reinforce and make alignments more important and players actually aware of their alignments.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
U could have it where only the spells that are the opposite of ur alignment are tracked. If ur CG, then u would only need to track ur lawful or evil spells. If ur NG then u would have to track ur evil, lawful, and choatic spells.
I do not want to track more stuff in a PFS session as a player.
I do not want to supervise tracking more stuff in PFS session as a DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Otherwise the only baring I can really see at all would be Good Arcane characters not being able to Summon Demons and Devils freely. :)Partial list of things that would be affected
- The entire chelaxian faction
- Anyone that routinely animates dead
- The entire scarzini faction
- Anyone that routinely uses wands of infernal healing (which is a fair number of folks)
- The entire chelaxian faction
- Neutral clerics of evil deities (who are so close to the line that they will actually detect as evil) Including the ever popular Asmodeus.
- The entire chelaxian faction
- Anyone using summon monster for demons or devils: especially clerics of evil gods, since they can't summon the good monsters.
- Anyone using the undead negative energy to heal your part trick
- The entire chelaxian faction.
- A few tiefling spell like abilities.
You forgot about the chelaxian faction.
|
Good people wind up in Asmodeus' clutches all the time, do they not?If you mean Good people then no, as they go to the Good aligned planes when they die.
Then the gods of Pathfinder must be significantly less stringent in their judgments than those presented in D&D, even more so than I had initially believed.
|
Then the gods of Pathfinder must be significantly less stringent in their judgments than those presented in D&D, even more so than I had initially believed.Good people wind up in Asmodeus' clutches all the time, do they not?If you mean Good people then no, as they go to the Good aligned planes when they die.
Alignment is pretty stringent judgement. Either you are Good and go to the Good aligned planes or you aren't and you don't.
-It makes NO sense to track Evil spells and not Good.
-Morally ambiguous or ambivalent characters do not necessarily cast Good or Evil spells for some greater Good or Evil, nor does the morally ambiguous/ambivalent (and damn mysterious altogether) Pathfinder Society have Good or Evil as its prime motivators.
-I like the idea Furious Kender posed about a legal rather than moral system against disruptive behaviour from Pathfinders. A necromancer who wantonly exhumes granny, a child-sacrificig diabolist, a witch-burning cleric, or a paladin who attacks another player's minions should be reported as FIRED, just as a wantonly evil character is reported as DEAD
-I'd like to mark a few of BigNorseWolf's posts as uber-favorite, but can't find the proper button...
Explore, report, cooperate- or be FIRED
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Because of the nature of PFS where the GM has less of a control over the ongoing campaign than they would in a more home-style campaign, I think the "evil spells are evil" needs to be hand-waived. We already allow divine characters to be neutral and worship evil deities.
The key thing with those two elements ("evil spells are evil" and "neutral worshiping evil"), though, is that they are both how the Pathfinder game rules work. PFS's current stance of allowing worship of evil deities and also allowing open season on evil spells is not two things working the same, it's the opposite: following the game rules for one but houseruling the other.
Last I heard, we wanted PFS to follow default Pathfinder game rules except where necessary to do otherwise. We're currently not doing that with regard to evil spells.
Ultimately, this is a question of whether logistics justify a houserule which is not just a mechanical houserule, but also a sort of "canonical houserule". That is, in-character, someone who consistently uses evil spells will—just like someone repeatedly wearing The One Ring—eventually be corrupted. By houseruling that out, we have the laws of (magical) physics applying differently to PCs versus NPCs.
On the other hand, logistics.
Personally, it bugs me that spells that are supposed to have a slow effect on your personhood with repeated use, don't. Hurts my sense of immersion, based on what I know is supposed to be true of the game world. On the other hand, I recognize the practical issues for the campaign. I'm honestly not sure where I stand in the end.
Maybe we re-write in-character canon such that the evil-handwaving applies to everone? ;)
Last I heard, we wanted PFS to follow default Pathfinder game rules except where necessary to do otherwise. We're currently not doing that with regard to evil spells.
other stuff
Personally, it bugs me that spells that are supposed to have a slow effect on your personhood with repeated use, don't. Hurts my sense of immersion, based on what I know is supposed to be true of the game world. On the other hand, I recognize the practical issues for the campaign. I'm honestly not sure where I stand in the end.
Jiggy, you seem to be only looking at the evil spells. What about all of the good, lawful or chaotic spells? Shouldn't they also be having a slow effect on your personhood?
Wouldn't it be reasonable (and not break immersion) to say that for the most part, the casting of the various aligned spells balance each other out?
|
Otherwise the only baring I can really see at all would be Good Arcane characters not being able to Summon Demons and Devils freely. :)Partial list of things that would be affected
- Anyone that routinely animates dead
- The entire scarzini faction
- Anyone that routinely uses wands of infernal healing (which is a fair number of folks)
- The entire chelaxian faction
- Neutral clerics of evil deities (who are so close to the line that they will actually detect as evil) Including the ever popular Asmodeus.
- Anyone using summon monster for demons or devils: especially clerics of evil gods, since they can't summon the good monsters.
- Anyone using the undead negative energy to heal your part trick
- A few tiefling spell like abilities.
Depends of if you mean that doing so will have consequences or doing so is absolutely banned. I was thinking the first. You might also be misunderstanding/exaggerating the entire Cheliaxian Faction a bit, too. Infernal Healing is already established to be fine. The Tiefling Death Knell issue was discussed above. You might be confusing dark with Evil?
Ultimately, this is a question of whether logistics justify a houserule which is not just a mechanical houserule, but also a sort of "canonical houserule". That is, in-character, someone who consistently uses evil spells will—just like someone repeatedly wearing The One Ring—eventually be corrupted. By houseruling that out, we have the laws of (magical) physics applying differently to PCs versus NPCs.
To be fair, the when your PCs turn evil is all left up to fiat, as is NPCs. Its not really a mechanic if its all powered by fiat and whim. NPCs are usually very much at the DMs whim themselves.
Depends of if you mean that doing so will have consequences or doing so is absolutely banned. I was thinking the first. You might also be misunderstanding the entire Cheliaxian Faction a bit, too.
Hmm... Is Cheliax the kind of faction that claims 'law at all cost' then send me to go fetch a whip because its faction leader is a weird gal'?
|
|
My first reaction to this was that it wouldn't work.
Alignments and alignment changes in normal campaigns work with a GM who constantly runs with that character and can tell when they've made "enough" of an infraction or several infractions for the alignment to consider changing. This is entirely subjective; something that's usually "worked out" with your GM. In a living campaign, this isn't possible - different GMs mean at any time you could get a GM who's strict and another who's lenient, and that's not even considering taking the nightmare of tracking infractions into account. So it wouldn't work in PFS.
But that's not right - the PFS guide has a specific section, and specific rules under Alignment Infractions, which is what we really should be thinking about.
If you have another read over it, it's pointing towards the kinds of infractions such as torture, or the like. Obvious acts of evil. It makes a pretty clear point at warning you that alignment infractions shouldn't be taken lightly. The message is make sure it's clear, and warranted. It says that over and over in different ways.
Putting all this in the context of evil descriptor spells, the tracking (which is currently already done), and all the tippy-toeing we'd have to do - we certainly could implement infractions on evil descriptor spells, but is it really worth worrying about?
Even the long-term pattern would be awkward - anyone with a wand of an evil spell (hello, infernal healing), would likely be either ejected from the campaign or out of pocket. Maybe even purchasing it is an evil act?
In this context, I think alignments are really better left in the hands of character flavour and extreme circumstances.
U could have it where only the spells that are the opposite of ur alignment are tracked. If ur CG, then u would only need to track ur lawful or evil spells. If ur NG then u would have to track ur evil, lawful, and choatic spells.
I don't think that that will help.
the first thing that will happen, is that you will have a slew of true neutral caster appear - no tracking of their alignment, they don't have an opposite alignment. I think that a lot of the necromancer builds are already true neutral - so no effect on them.
I also don't think that it would be fair to only apply a negative accounting system to a PC, but not allow their use of aligned spells to counter act the negative actions.
|
-It makes NO sense to track Evil spells and not Good.
-Morally ambiguous or ambivalent characters do not necessarily cast Good or Evil spells for some greater Good or Evil, nor does the morally ambiguous/ambivalent (and damn mysterious altogether) Pathfinder Society have Good or Evil as its prime motivators.
-I like the idea Furious Kender posed about a legal rather than moral system against disruptive behaviour from Pathfinders. A necromancer who wantonly exhumes granny, a child-sacrificig diabolist, a witch-burning cleric, or a paladin who attacks another player's minions should be reported as FIRED, just as a wantonly evil character is reported as DEAD
-I'd like to mark a few of BigNorseWolf's posts as uber-favorite, but can't find the proper button...
Explore, report, cooperate- or be FIRED
I would recuse myself from the table before I'd get myself fired.
|
|
But that's not right - the PFS guide has a specific section, and specific rules under Alignment Infractions, which is what we really should be thinking about.
Which leads us right back to the beginning of this whole debate.
Its still an evil act (the [evil] is still there in the brackets, good clerics/clerics of good deities can't cast it.. for a reason) it just won't affect your alignment."Simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself."
** spoiler omitted **
Actually, you might want to take another look at the PFS Guides. That was specifically in reference to the 4.3 Guide and about evil actions and spells done for the Faction Heads, not in general (hence raising undead vs Infernal Healing), and no longer applies. :)
Season 5 Guide:Alignment Infractions
Players are responsible for their characters’ actions. Killing an innocent, wanton destruction, and other acts that can be construed as evil by the GM may be considered alignment infractions. “That’s just what my character would do” is not a defense for behaving like a jerk.
Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Ultimately, the GM is the final authority at the table, but she must warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment. This warning must be clear, and the GM must make sure that the player understands the warning and the actions that initiated the warning. The PC should be given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences. We believe a deity would forgive a onetime bad choice as long as the action wasn’t too egregious (such as burning down an orphanage full of children, killing a peasant for no good reason but sport, etc.). Hence, the GM can issue a warning to the player through a “feeling” he receives from his deity, a vision he is given, his conscience talking to him, or some other similar roleplaying event. If infractions continue in the course of the scenario or sanctioned module or adventure path, an alignment change may be in order.
If the GM deems these continued actions warrant an alignment change, she should note it on the character’s Chronicle sheet at the end of the session in the Conditions Gained box. The character may remove this gained condition through an atonement spell. If the condition is removed, the GM should also note it on the Chronicle sheet. Characters who become wantonly evil, whose actions are deliberate and without motive or provocation, are retired from the campaign. This measure is a last resort; there is more than one way to play a given alignment.
If a character has become wantonly evil as defined above, the GM should escalate the report to the convention coordinator, or the local Venture- Captain or Venture-Lieutenant. If they agree with the GM, then the character is deemed wantonly evil and considered removed from the campaign. Again, these measures should be taken as a very last resort.
In the event of a wantonly evil character, record the character as “Dead,” and the person who enters the tracking sheet should check that box as well. If the convention coordinator, Venture-Captain, or
Venture-Lieutenant decides the character fits the criteria for being wantonly evil, she will then email the campaign coordinator to advise him of the situation, including the player’s name, Pathfinder Society Number, character name, and email address. She will advise the player of these actions and offer the player the campaign coordinator’s
email address so the player may present his case.
The Campaign Coordinator will present all facts to the Venture- Captains and Venture-Lieutenants at large with all names (both player and character) removed. If the majority of Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants feel that the act was wantonly evil and the character is
irrevocably evil, then character will remain removed from the campaign. If the majority feel the character should be able to atone for his actions, the campaign coordinator will contact the player and advise him of such. The email may be printed and taken to the next game session so the GM may adjudicate the atonement and document it on the
Chronicle sheet of the that game.Season 4 Guide:Alignment Infractions
Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.) while following specific orders from their faction or the Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions.
These are cases where karma applies to those making the orders, not their tools. However, “that’s just what my character would do” is not a defense for behaving like a jerk.
Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Ultimately, the GM is the final authority at the table, but she must warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment. This warning must be clear, and the GM must make sure that the player understands the warning and the actions that initiated the warning. The PC should be
given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences. We believe a deity would forgive a one-time bad choice as long as the action wasn’t too egregious (such as burning down an orphanage full of children, killing a peasant for no good reason but sport, etc.). Hence, the GM can issue a warning to the player through a “feeling” he receives from his deity, a vision he is given, his conscience talking to him, or some other similar roleplaying event.
If infractions continue in the course of the scenario or sanctioned module, an alignment change may be in order. If the GM deems these continued actions warrant an alignment change, she should note it on the character’s Chronicle sheet at the end of the session in the Conditions Gained box. The character may remove this gained condition through an atonement spell. If the condition is removed, the GM should also note it on the Chronicle sheet.
Characters who become wantonly evil, whose actions are deliberate and without motive or provocation, are retired from the campaign. This measure is a last resort; there is more than one way to play a given alignment. If a character has become wantonly evil as defined above, the GM should escalate the report to the convention coordinator, or the local Venture-Captain or Venture-Lieutenant. If they agree with the GM, then the character is deemed wantonly evil and considered removed from the campaign. Again, these measures should be taken as a very last resort.
In the event of a wantonly evil character, record the character as “Dead,” and the person who enters the tracking sheet should check that box as well. If the convention coordinator, Venture-Captain, or Venture-Lieutenant decides the character fits the criteria for being wantonly evil, she will then email the campaign coordinator to advise him of the situation, including the player’s name, Pathfinder Society Number, character name, and email address. She will advise the player of these actions and offer the player the campaign coordinator’s email address so the player may present his case.
The Campaign Coordinator will present all facts to the Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants at large with all names (both player and character) removed. If the majority of Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants feel that the act was wantonly evil and the character is
irrevocably evil, then character will remain removed from the campaign. If the majority feel the character should be able to atone for his actions, the campaign coordinator will contact the player and advise him of such. The email may be printed and taken to the next game session so the GM may adjudicate the atonement and document it on the
Chronicle sheet of the that game.The reason people keep saying Clerics of Pharasma is because they are not Good, but every article about her faith indicates that not destroying undead when they can or to control undead for any purpose but to destroy them, are major taboos (a ban or absolute prohibition). The meta part is the PFS special guidelines, not playing the character according to the tenets of the faith. :)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, it bugs me that spells that are supposed to have a slow effect on your personhood with repeated use, don't. Hurts my sense of immersion, based on what I know is supposed to be true of the game world. On the other hand, I recognize the practical issues for the campaign. I'm honestly not sure where I stand in the end.
We let paladins stay pathfinders despite a preponderance of subterfuge, lawbreaking, murder, mayhem, and a willingness to work with more than a few disreputable people because it doesn't become a pattern pervasive enough to change their alignments thanks to the episodic nature of PFS. I think we can cut the necromancer the same slack. (rigamortis be damned!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an organization, yes, but I have some characters who would refuse to cooperate.
Well... Cooperation is one of the big things your supposed to do as a pathfinder. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!... wait, no, that's not our motto.
As an organization, yes, but I have some characters who would refuse to cooperate.
...
I realize this. That's why I'd play a different character or skip that table.
Fair enough, Mr. Bowles, but often an unnecessary extreme
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!... wait, no, that's not our motto.
Actually it's Reduce, Reuse, Reanimate! ;D
|
|
As an organization, yes, but I have some characters who would refuse to cooperate.
...
I realize this. That's why I'd play a different character or skip that table.Fair enough, Mr. Bowles, but often an unnecessary extreme
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!... wait, no, that's not our motto.Actually it's Reduce, Reuse, Reanimate! ;D
I'd say three of my six characters would refuse to work with someone reanimating dead. I'm not sure what makes it unnecessary. I do try to do some level of roleplay here.
Creating undead is evil because it prevents a soul from leaving the mortal coil properly.m
This was stated by a developer somewhere, but i don't remember where, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt.
I think that very few spells should be inherently evil.
Some of them, however, deserve that placement. A notable one is hellfire ray.
Only one of the golems do that, to my knowledge, and that is the clay golem.
Also, the elemental is (to my knowledge) freed anyway.
That, and as far as the planes are concerned, elementals are usually fair game- they aren't a limited recorsce, as when they die, they mold back into the plane and reform.
And there is one good reason for undead being evil that i personally like-
It helps restrict players from having it.
Because my goodness, casters aren't powerful enough without their legion of undead.
|
|
Creating undead is evil because it prevents a soul from leaving the mortal coil properly.But creating a golem isn't despite binding an elemental to servitude.
You know, that's a good point.
Side note: Creating a skeleton out of the corpse of someone that's already come to an end through ordinary means does not in any way, to my knowledge, prevent their soul from moving on. That aspect has already gone to be judged despite that their body is soon to become a puppet.
Creating undead is evil because it prevents a soul from leaving the mortal coil properly.But creating a golem isn't despite binding an elemental to servitude.You know, that's a good point.
Side note: Creating a skeleton out of the corpse of someone that's already come to an end through ordinary means does not in any way, to my knowledge, prevent their soul from moving on. That aspect has already gone to be judged despite that their body is soon to become a puppet.
Read up on it, one of the developers said otherwise. (I'd link it if i could find it...)
|
|
Only one of the golems do that, to my knowledge, and that is the clay golem.
Golems are magically created automatons of great power. They stand apart from other constructs in the nature of their animating force—golems are granted their magical life via an elemental spirit, typically that of an earth elemental. The process of creating a golem binds the spirit to the artificial body, merging it with this specially prepared vessel and subjecting it to the will of the golem's creator.
And as far as i can tell, the elemental is freed upon death.
Also, binding outsiders has never been an evil act (for some reason.)
Personally, I'd file that under slavery.
Anyway, i found the post.
Undead prevent a soul from being judged. As long as you're undead, your soul is trapped. That's why pretty much all undead are evil. Being undead throws a monkey wrench into the cycle of souls and life, and that's why Pharasma hates them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From simply a mechanical view, and at the risk of sounding like a defiant Venture-Captain, if we were to create some intensive tracking method for good/evil/law/chaos points to monitor and enforce alignment shifts, I would not do it. I honestly have plenty to track already from various GM responsibilities, to organizing events, to administering to the expectations of a V-C, not to mention maintaining my own characters and their alignment challenges.
As has been said, this is an issue that has plagued RPGers since the beginning. We should/could easily add this to politics and religion as a topic that should never be discussed. There is never gonna be a consensus, which is exactly why it HAS to be table variation, at least in some form. The existing system, while not ideal, works just fine. There is no system that is not going to require the GM to adjudicate the "what ifs." I think in the VAST majority of cases, things as they are allow the widest possible creativity and fun at the table. It is only the very limited minority of times where it truly becomes a problem at the table and even then it is usually due a player (or players) being uncompromising. "That's just what my character would do" is not an excuse for being a jerk.
|
|
Undead prevent a soul from being judged. As long as you're undead, your soul is trapped. That's why pretty much all undead are evil. Being undead throws a monkey wrench into the cycle of souls and life, and that's why Pharasma hates them.
Huh, that's odd. I would have thought turning someone into a skeleton several hours after their soul has departed would not impact their afterlife at all, all things considered. I could see it working that way if say, they were slain by a wraith and became one in turn. Oh well, guess that's that.
But, back to the topic at hand. It still shouldn't cause someone's alignment to shift in PFS. That will destroy a lot of nifty character concepts, including those that are not necromancers. Like the diabolist? Have to commit an act of evil to become one. It would toss that prestige class right out the window.
I find it interesting how some opponents of necromancy use roleplay as their reasoning for not being able to cooperate. The thing I enjoy is when there can be dramatic tension, intra-party trust issues perhaps, ruffled feathers- YET a chance to RESOLVE issues through roleplay.
How does Pogrist (necromancer, bloodmage, amateur taxidermist)react when accompanying a party of Pharasmites? Pretend to be an evoker or conjurer? Try to strike a deal to only seize control of encountered undead but relinquish them at the end of the mission? Animate only animals or other less offensive types, and only under extreme circumstances? Engage in civil discourse with them with disagreements and possibly attaining middle ground somewhere (likely nearer their side, but whatever)? These are roleplay options. Leaving the table is not.
Now you bring golems in, what if Pogrist creates a hound flesh golem at level 7? Not undead, but what's the difference?
I'm not speaking of PFS myself. I'm just saying why create undead has the evil descriptor.
I'm staying out of most alignment things.
Very few spells should force alignment shifts.
(Hellfire ray is one of a few- it's blatantly evil- it's use is to burn people, and if it kills them, it damns them to a random Lower plane.)
Personally, i /hate/ pc necromancers.
They get 4 times their HD in minions, and they are a pain to deal with.
And i didn't even have to deal with them when they learned to create them, i just had to deal with them having controlled undead. 3-4 undead muck up the flow of a game so bad, it's not even funny.
|
|
I find it interesting how some opponents of necromancy use roleplay as their reasoning for not being able to cooperate. The thing I enjoy is when there can be dramatic tension, intra-party trust issues perhaps, ruffled feathers- YET a chance to RESOLVE issues through roleplay.
Because not all players are capable of that level of role-play or some just don't want the mental exercise required for it. Some players just want a casual game where everyone, oh I don't know, COOPERATES, towards the primary (and secondary) goals. Afterall isn't this one of the (many) reasons faction missions as they existed in the first four seasons were changed?
Those spells that are evil inherently like hellfire ray only really should have an effect on your alignment (and slowly) because it is simply an evil thing to do, like stealing or killing innocents- there really is no non-evil use for the spell.
If you do use it in a non evil way, that's fine. My favorite quote from a game is
"It's not the weapon that does evil things, but the user."
Or something like that.
Though, making undead is evil, neutrals exist on a balance of good and evil acts. So if they make undead and do good things with them, they suit "neutral" quote well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because not all players are capable of that level of role-play or some just don't want the mental exercise required for it. Some players just want a casual game where everyone, oh I don't know, COOPERATES, towards the primary (and secondary) goals. Afterall isn't this one of the (many) reasons faction missions as they existed in the first four seasons were changed?
Because in a professional setting, no two people ever argue.
Seriously, a necromancer should be able to explain his actions. If not, the characters, though they should still work with him, may not be reserved in voicing their detest.
Bob softly mumbles to himself...
"If you weren't a member of our society... Ooh boy..."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil spells may be used for good endsAll the devils in hell would agree with you and eagerly await your arrival :-)
Let's try:
Good spells may be used for evil ends.All the angels in heaven would agree with you and eagerly await your arrival.
Does this still make sense to you?
Apparently the road to heaven is paved with protection vs evil, and summoned celestial badgers.
|
|
Because in a professional setting, no two people ever argue.
Of course they do, but that is real life and not everyone wants that experience in their fantasy game.
Bob softly mumbles to himself...
"If you weren't a member of our society... Ooh boy..."
**chuckle**
Is it bad that my paladin has done that? ;-)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it bad that my paladin has done that? ;-)
You see, this is what i mean. A necromancer should cause controversy, but still, the controversy shouldn't really escalate past passive-aggressive conflict.
Because not all players are capable of that level of role-play or some just don't want the mental exercise required for it. Some players just want a casual game where everyone, oh I don't know, COOPERATES, towards the primary (and secondary) goals. Afterall isn't this one of the (many) reasons faction missions as they existed in the first four seasons were changed?
I would :LOVE the OPPORTUNITY to roleplay this out, I wouldn't muck up the whole table if I saw this wouldn't fly. Hence, my other listed options. I'd still play, however, just differently. If I couldn't cooperate, I'd expect to be fired.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A friend of mine that is heavily involved with Pathfinder Society brought up an interesting point. He feels that it is a lot easier to deal with issues (as a GM) while PFS remains in this grey area it's done so well in. It allows judgment to be made on a case by case basis rather than a giant blanket of "well, too bad." It permits greater flexibility while still denying people the ability to go burning orphanages or things of that nature. I will say that I both see and agree with his point. I'm sure some will argue that it is easier simply to have these things covered by one big blanket ruling, but really... where's the fun in that? Variety is the spice of life. Besides, there are always going to be numerous variables to be taken into account. Having the option of flexibility makes it far easier to acknowledge those.
I know it's sort of pseudo-off topic, but it does tie in quite well if one thinks about it. Even the use of spells of the evil descriptor should allow for variables to be taken into account. For example, say you're playing a diabolist. Your spells are exhausted, and you therefore resort to the two hellfire rays provided by the class. Successfully slaying your opponent may well condemn their soul to the lower planes on a failed will save, but you did just rescue the party in this last ditch effort. THAT is the very definition of blurring the line. Even more so if it's a situation where you also happened to save a hostage or hostages from certain doom in the process. These sorts of situations would no longer be able to be handled at GM discretion, and with knowledge of the variables accounted for, if utilizing that spell of the evil descriptor just gives you the boot right off the bat.
Admittedly, a change to the ruling on evil spells would render diabolist inaccessible to start with, but it seemed like a good way to provide an example.
|
My take on this matter is this - we have to strive to have a balance between in-character ramifications when using alignment based magic, and out of character mechanics that are not a hassle for everyone involved. I personally feel PFS already handles this in a reasonable (but not perfect) manner, which to me comes off as a mix of measuring that you have cast an alignment based spell in-character, but weighing the casting of that spell by the actions you took with it when it comes to determining if such will affect you alignment out of character.
If a player feels a GM moves their alignment unjustly, they can always appeal to their VC or Mike directly, and from all I have witnessed, all of those folks seem to be very good about getting things sorted if a bad call has taken place. Can that be a bit of a hassle? Sure. But not as much hassle as having an alignment tracking system or the like, and keeping track of every alignment based spell cast.
If GMs just strive to be fair and use reasonable judgement, and players strive to game with some measure of responsibility for their actions, then we'd all do just fine for the most part.
My personal opinion: Animating undead? Kind of foul. Using them to pursue good deeds or to otherwise maintain reasonable stability and balance? Kind of cancels things back out to a gray area, and rightly so.
U could have it where only the spells that are the opposite of ur alignment are tracked. If ur CG, then u would only need to track ur lawful or evil spells. If ur NG then u would have to track ur evil, lawful, and choatic spells.I don't think that that will help.
the first thing that will happen, is that you will have a slew of true neutral caster appear - no tracking of their alignment, they don't have an opposite alignment. I think that a lot of the necromancer builds are already true neutral - so no effect on them.
I also don't think that it would be fair to only apply a negative accounting system to a PC, but not allow their use of aligned spells to counter act the negative actions.
Actually it will effect them. The way I proposed would have an effect on true nuetrals because then they have to keep track of good, evil, lawful, and choatic spells. That's what I was talking about a system with a soft cap could make alignment more important and even certain spells more important. They would have to be more selective of their spells which could add even more flavor to a very same build but would be casting different spells.
For a LN or a CN caster, mass protection from evil will be more desirable than just the single protection from evil spell because the spell would be cast a single time and effect many different characters and not be as hurtful towards their softcap as if they were to cast the spell a single time multiple times.This could help reinforce ur actual alignment and the actions of it. A good caster isn't going to want to cast evil spells UNLESS its aof grave importance and there's no other way. A nuetral caster isn't gonna cast good and evil spells all willy nilly, they would actually wanna stay away from good or evil spells because they are nuetral. They aren't nuetral because they wanna do both good and bad, they are nuetral because they are neither and stay away from good or bad actions.
U could see alignments change more often and players would have to counter that if they wanted to stay a certain alignment. But what it would do is reinforce the actual alignemnt in that a true nuetral casting mostly good spells or mostly evil spells would actually start changing and refelcting ur actions.
Necromancers. What this would do is not destroy the class but change its focus. Instead of its focus of raising up armies lf undead for its bidding, iy would cut down on the amount they can raise and make them focus on raising bigger and stronger undead and protecting that undead to not get destroyed instead of viewing it as dispensable canon fodder.
Just food for thought. Just throwing up opposition views to keep it going and to view new ideas. I'm thinking of incorporating an idea like this into my home game and trying it out and seeing how it does. I have a lot of nuetral players and would like to see what their actions and playstyles would be if evil and good casting started effecting their alignment and how many times it would change.
|
|
From simply a mechanical view, and at the risk of sounding like a defiant Venture-Captain, if we were to create some intensive tracking method for good/evil/law/chaos points to monitor and enforce alignment shifts, I would not do it. I honestly have plenty to track already from various GM responsibilities, to organizing events, to administering to the expectations of a V-C, not to mention maintaining my own characters and their alignment challenges.
As has been said, this is an issue that has plagued RPGers since the beginning. We should/could easily add this to politics and religion as a topic that should never be discussed. There is never gonna be a consensus, which is exactly why it HAS to be table variation, at least in some form. The existing system, while not ideal, works just fine. There is no system that is not going to require the GM to adjudicate the "what ifs." I think in the VAST majority of cases, things as they are allow the widest possible creativity and fun at the table. It is only the very limited minority of times where it truly becomes a problem at the table and even then it is usually due a player (or players) being uncompromising. "That's just what my character would do" is not an excuse for being a jerk.
+1
I'm with Bob on this as well.