|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
There are more than a few huge problems with this.
First of all, you'd be tracking something constantly. Neutrals would have to track even more since they have to keep track of spells going both ways: did i cast 3 protections from good and two protections from evil or was it 2 protections from good and three from evil... so that means i net one darkside or one light side point right? Its a PITA.
Secondly clerics of evil deities are going to be on a one way track to evil. They can't cast spells opposite of their deities alignment to balance things out the way a wizard or TN cleric of a TN deity can. While that's cool and thematic, it effectively kills the character.
Third, clerics out of step with their deity at all are going to be hosed. The LN pharasmite someone brought up before can cast protection from evil a few times, BAM, they're LG... and now they can't cast any spells to balance the scales.
Fourth: You're going to tell the necromancer that the reason his undead abominations don't last in between sessions is because its too much trouble to track, but then you're going to keep the mark on his soul on his permanent record?
Do you really think this would make the game better for the people involved?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
It's a long thread so maybe you missed my earlier post, but I specifically pointed out that (even under current rules) we should be watching non-evil aligned acts as well, especially when it comes to monks, barbarians, druids, and neutral clerics of evil deities. They all have things to lose from doing too much law/chaos/good, and we should be enforcing that. Monks who put enough gusto into Severing Ties should risk needing an atonement before leveling up. Barbarians who have to behave themselves in Fortress of the Nail should be chomping at the bit for the chance to clean all the rulesiness off them when they get out. Neutral clerics of evil gods, who risk their own lives to rescue/protect NPCs (I could name several scenarios), should fear their evil patrons getting fed up and revoking their powers.
That should already be happening now.
You know, typing all that makes me realize: this issue about aligned spells is actually a bit like the introduction of the ITS. When that came out, people moaned about the extra work it would create, which revealed how often people weren't doing what they were supposed to already be doing (tracking their purchases). The ITS just made it harder to ignore that element of the campaign.
In the same way, we're already supposed to be tracking aligned actions and enforcing alignment shifts, but most of us (including me!) have failed to do so on a grand scale. This talk of also including aligned spells in that looks like it's adding lots of work, until you realize that (just like with tracking purchases) we were already supposed to be paying attention to this stuff. Adding aligned spells (just like adding the ITS) just makes this duty harder to ignore because suddenly it's more concrete.
So with that thought in mind, I'd have to say that I now DO support removing the PFS houserule that "sanitizes" aligned spells. Taking the alignment infraction rules that we're already supposed to be enforcing, and adding something that's more concrete and straightforward than the rest, seems pretty trivial to add to the mix.
And I guess it's time for me to step up my GMing.
|
any system to track alignment changes based on the casting of spells wouldn't just be a PFS overhaul, it'd be a core game overhaul that only impacts PFS.
the system is already there where it counts: clerics of blank or blank alignment can't cast oppity-blank descriptor spells. So clerics of good deities can't conjure hellhounds and whatnot, nor cast protection from good.
arcanists ( are we going to need new words to describe arcane classes ? ), the magi (oh... ), magic ... gah. the arcane casters, aren't tied to divine restrictions where some patron will say 'nope not going to grant you that spell', and can conjure [good] or [evil] creatures.
but considering that alignment is so wishy washy anyway ( detect evil will ping yes, even if its detecting a paladin who is LG but currently experiencing something with an evil intent ), and that Light Side/Dark Side isn't build into PF ( this is not the system you're looking for ::waves hand:: ).
it boils down to some players not liking that other players get to kinda ignore the rules, or act a little evil now and then ( infernal healing, constantly, even on paladins [ well, as long as they're unconscious ]).
Why don't we just get rid of Alignment altogether? It seems like instead of trying to craft a system to track alignment change, it might be easier to shore up the system and remove alignment altogether. Making it not a PFS problem, but a PF version 2.0 problem, so people can pipe down about it until some time far far away.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Secondly clerics of evil deities are going to be on a one way track to evil. They can't cast spells opposite of their deities alignment to balance things out the way a wizard or TN cleric of a TN deity can. While that's cool and thematic, it effectively kills the character.
Third, clerics out of step with their deity at all are going to be hosed. The LN pharasmite someone brought up before can cast protection from evil a few times, BAM, they're LG... and now they can't cast any spells to balance the scales.
Why are you acting like the only way to commit a good or evil (or whatever) act is to cast an aligned spell? If someone casts some aligned spells but doesn't want their alignment to change, they can take other actions besides casting opposed-alignment spells. Your portrayal of these PCs' helplessness is therefore pretty contrived.
|
|
It's a long thread so maybe you missed my earlier post, but I specifically pointed out that (even under current rules) we should be watching non-evil aligned acts as well, especially when it comes to monks, barbarians, druids, and neutral clerics of evil deities. They all have things to lose from doing too much law/chaos/good, and we should be enforcing that. Monks who put enough gusto into Severing Ties should risk needing an atonement before leveling up. Barbarians who have to behave themselves in Fortress of the Nail should be chomping at the bit for the chance to clean all the rulesiness off them when they get out. Neutral clerics of evil gods, who risk their own lives to rescue/protect NPCs (I could name several scenarios), should fear their evil patrons getting fed up and revoking their powers.
That should already be happening now.
Yeah, at one point, the GM and I agreed that my character (for a class where it didn't matter, oracle) was being too good-aligned and wound up switching to Lawful Good and losing his evil deity. I was considering an atonement for a while, but I managed to lose the alignment shift anyway, though, a few scenarios later, via an evil act. It was important to me to do what Lazeril would do in each situation, though. And I don't think he would have wanted an atonement. Fortunately, the NPCs were so horrible that they made him angry enough with righteous zeal to lapse his judgment about how to punish them.
|
|
Why are you acting like the only way to commit a good or evil (or whatever) act is to cast an aligned spell?
I'm not.
If someone casts some aligned spells but doesn't want their alignment to change, they can take other actions besides casting opposed-alignment spells.
That's assuming the Player and the DM they may not know very well agree on what that is, AND the scenario offers a chance to do so. Scenarios are often short on time and shorter on flexibility.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@BNW: So we're talking about all this happening in a single scenario? If someone doesn't want their alignment to change, they shouldn't be hyper-spamming spells with alignments different than their own* so hard that they shift in a single scenario.
Why are you acting like the only way to commit a good or evil (or whatever) act is to cast an aligned spell? If someone casts some aligned spells but doesn't want their alignment to change, they can take other actions besides casting opposed-alignment spells. Your portrayal of these PCs' helplessness is therefore pretty contrived.Secondly clerics of evil deities are going to be on a one way track to evil. They can't cast spells opposite of their deities alignment to balance things out the way a wizard or TN cleric of a TN deity can. While that's cool and thematic, it effectively kills the character.
Third, clerics out of step with their deity at all are going to be hosed. The LN pharasmite someone brought up before can cast protection from evil a few times, BAM, they're LG... and now they can't cast any spells to balance the scales.
I think because if we open it up to PC actions, we are likely to see a lot of interpretation and conflict on what is a good act, an evil act, lawful act, chaotic act.
If my choatic character, while in a very rules oriented location, cracks very unappropriate jokes to his team mates, does that counter act their abiding by the rules? Some would say yes, some would say no.
But I do have a couple of questions for those that think it would be a good idea to track alignment. Will it add something beneficial to the game, making it a better game? And more importantly, will it make the game more enjoyable/fun?
|
|
Barbarians who have to behave themselves in Fortress of the Nail should be chomping at the bit for the chance to clean all the rulesiness off them when they get out.
And this is exactly why this should NOT be implemented.
I do not want Yngvar, beauty school dropout, to have to track how many times he uses a salad fork on salad vs how many times he picks his toes with it, OR feel that I need to pick my toes with it or risk loosing my rage powers. (endangering the mission)
I think your're giving the textbook example of treating an alignment like a strait jacket, NOT a guideline. It also completely ignores character motivations that may change the alignment ramifications: saving the princess because she's an innocent is good. Saving the princess because she's worth her weight in gold is neutral. These differing motivations are incredibly hard to track when the DM doesn't know the character that well and the scenarios aren't tailored to the PCs.
You know those alignment arguments that crop up when you either kill a power or take away their powers? That much nerd rage? Imagine that cropping up EVERY single time you put a mark on the character towards any alignment infraction. If you think paladins can be problematic because "Hey, i have to do this or I'm going to lose my class powers" wait till the barbarians are in on the act...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"good" priest: hold on! i can't save the world from the demon horde, first i must help yonder old hag cross the street so that I can again be blessed by my god and cast spells! Now come on ya old bag, you're crossing the street.
old woman: but i don't want to
"good" priest: you're going, no backtalk!
Neutral Druid: sorry, I can't stop him, that'd be a good act, I don't want to lose my powers.
|
Barbarians do not have to be Chaotic, they just can not be Lawful. And if they are acting so Lawful that an double Alignment shift is being considered, then they probably are not playing their character anywhere near where it should be, straightjacket or guideline.
Secondly, said characters would be entitled to the mandatory DM warning before hand, and would have to opt freely to continue.
"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."
This is something that should be happening already, not something new.
Also "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."
It's not a one time act, it's after being warned, the player continues to do acts that the DM considers outside of their Alignment and bordering on "wanton evil".
At the end of the Scenario, if it comes to that, we are talking 500gp/2PP unless they are a Divine Class and the ramifications are much worse, (3,000gp/8pp).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think because if we open it up to PC actions...
wait till the barbarians are in on the act...
But this is already in the rules! There is nothing in the Guide or FAQ stating that the alignment restrictions of monks, barbarians, druids and non-good clerics get waived in PFS. This is why I compared this to the ITS; people (including me, typically) have been ignoring a rule already in place, and at the mention of adding something that's comparatively very minor, we're acting like that thing that we've been failing to do is being added out of nowhere.
It's already in the game rules that lawful barbarians (for example) suffer consequences, and it's in the Guide that we're supposed to track alignment infractions. If paying attention to a barbarian's lawful actions seems like something we're talking about "adding", that's because your GMs have (like me) failed to follow those rules up to this point. Aside from aligned spells, this is all part of the rules already; it is not something new being talked about adding.
EDIT: Also note, per Beckett's quote from the Guide, that the alignment infraction language is all speaking universally; the only mention of the evil alignment in particular is in regard to removing a PC from the campaign. All the stuff about handling alignment infractions is in the context of deviating from the PC's alignment.
Holy word to kill neutral innocents is a good act.
|
|
This is something that should be happening already, not something new.
It absolutely is not. We are not talking about changing a characters alignment because they burned down an orphanage. We're talking about some sort of long term tracking system BETWEEN scenarios for everyone to regulate alignment. There's no call in the guide for tracking any such thing. The rules you quoted specify an alignment change, not a note in their permanant record.
|
|
This is something that should be happening already, not something new.It absolutely is not. We are not talking about changing a characters alignment because they burned down an orphanage. We're talking about some sort of long term tracking system BETWEEN scenarios for everyone to regulate alignment. There's no call in the guide for tracking any such thing.
Oh, my mistake, I thought we where talking about characters not acting according to their listed alignment and how it is/should be handled.
Oh wait. . .
As usual, the contrived situation needed to justify certain positions requires a level of discontinuity only possible in the hands of a player deliberately playing the alignment opposite of what he wrote on his sheet.
Actually, a neutral can use holy word if their deity is also neutral. It's still a good act, so you become good aligned through slaughter.
Using protection from evil as an evil character is a good act, even if using it to fight other evil forces, for no other reason then to steal their souls and eat their power....
Still a good act to cast the spell.
|
|
Holy word to kill neutral innocents is a good act.As usual, the contrived situation needed to justify certain positions requires a level of discontinuity only possible in the hands of a player deliberately playing the alignment opposite of what he wrote on his sheet.
Well, in all honesty, setting aside the ridiculousness of the specific example, the idea of using holy power and catching innocents in the crossfire is worth looking at.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is something that should be happening already, not something new.It absolutely is not. We are not talking about changing a characters alignment because they burned down an orphanage. We're talking about some sort of long term tracking system BETWEEN scenarios for everyone to regulate alignment. There's no call in the guide for tracking any such thing. The rules you quoted specify an alignment change, not a note in their permanant record.
Oh, good point; I was under the impression that we're supposed to mark individual actions, rather than just the shift itself, but from the quote it looks like that's not the case.
Even so, that doesn't change much about what I've been saying. We're still supposed to be watching aligned acts, and they do carry risks for PCs with alignment-restricted classes. With that already in place, is adding aligned spells to the mix really that big of a change?
Alignment tracking is the domain of the GM, and only if he chooses to track it. In PFS, the GMs are more or less arbiters of the PFS Rules (the true GM). The Rules have chosen NOT to track it.
PFS is, by it's nature, very modular/episodic so that any PCs may play any scenario, in no set order. This obliterates inter-scenario tracking of cumulative effects...or makes the GMs job (the Rules, that is) very difficult.
Leave alignment gray and nebulous, as it was meant to be.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Actually, a neutral can use holy word if their deity is also neutral. It's still a good act, so you become good aligned through slaughter.
As usual, the contrived situation needed to justify certain positions requires a level of discontinuity only possible in the hands of a player deliberately playing the alignment opposite of what he wrote on his sheet.
And an actually-neutral-not-just-neutral-on-paper-but-actually-evil PC doesn't actually do that in the first place. Hence, contrived. That's not helpful to any intelligent discussion about the campaign.
Using protection from evil as an evil character is a good act, even if using it to fight other evil forces, for no other reason then to steal their souls and eat their power....
Still a good act to cast the spell.
Thanks for at least giving a legitimate example this time. Even so, you're talking like the fact that a single minor good act involved in the process somehow determines the final alignment of the soul-stealing power-grab. It doesn't. Okay, so the mountain of evilness included a droplet of good. Why is that an issue? Are you honestly worried that calling that PfE a good action is going to suddenly categorize all the other stuff it was used for as good? I really hope you're not honestly using that as an argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just like Poitou things out like that.
Spells shouldn't be inherently evil or good unless they can only be used for evil or good.
Otherwise, it should just be how the spell is used
Obviously the solution is to just get rid of alignment altogether.
More seriously, leaving a subjective ideal up to total strangers can get weird results. One DM I had threatened to make a paladin fall for taking an infernal healing while unconscious, some I know think CDG should drop you to evil on the spot, another told me redemption was evil, and another let someone urinate on a corpse and didn't think that was bad at all. One day your with a guy who lets you do anything you want, next your with a guy who only lets you play his way.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Alignment tracking is the domain of the GM, and only if he chooses to track it. In PFS, the GMs are more or less arbiters of the PFS Rules (the true GM). The Rules have chosen NOT to track it.
This is provably untrue, per the quote from the Guide a few posts up. No matter how many GMs fail to comply, it's still in the rules that alignment infractions are a thing and the GM has the responsibility of applying an alignment shift if a pattern presents itself. It's right there in plain text.
And more on-topic, including aligned spells within existing PFS alignment rules would be a very minor change.
And more on-topic, including aligned spells within existing PFS alignment rules would be a very minor change.
More like a can of worms imo. (provided you mean the idea that they change your alignment)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Spells shouldn't be inherently evil or good unless they can only be used for evil or good.
Otherwise, it should just be how the spell is used
Well, that's the current PFS houserule. But as PFS tries to match the game rules as much as possible, I personally think that houserule should be repealed. You're welcome to disagree, of course. :)
Obviously the solution is to just get rid of alignment altogether.
*Draws shotgun*
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even so, that doesn't change much about what I've been saying. We're still supposed to be watching aligned acts, and they do carry risks for PCs with alignment-restricted classes. With that already in place, is adding aligned spells to the mix really that big of a change?
It ISN"T in place. And its not in place for a very good reason. Do you see anywhere on the chronicle sheet to note minor alignment infractions? Do you see anywhere to rack up "brownie points" so that when your CN druid uses a salad fork and the dm threatens to toss him up to TN they can say "well what about when i turned into an otter and swam around in the punch bowl? That was worth at least 50 chaos points..." ?
You would have to track every instance of a character acting IN their alignment as well as out of it in order to establish which is the more pervasive pattern.
You can not get a fix on a characters alignment in one 4 hour session where the plot is on rails, you don't know the other player from adam, the adventure isn't tailored to the characters, and there is a very heavy incentive to just go along with the group because the alternative is driving 45 minutes back home and watching netflix. That's how an organized campaign like PFS has to be set up. Sometimes that means losing something, and in this case its the ability to see a long term pattern of behavior in the PC.
Alignment is like climate, not weather. As a PFS dm you can only count on seeing weather.
True, but you're deaf for 1d4 rounds, and the commoners are dead.
Well, that's the current PFS houserule. But as PFS tries to match the game rules as much as possible, I personally think that houserule should be repealed. You're welcome to disagree, of course. :)Spells shouldn't be inherently evil or good unless they can only be used for evil or good.
Otherwise, it should just be how the spell is used
I disagree. I should ask why we should repeal it? Just because its the base rule doesn't mean its a good one to follow for PFS. Its a highly subjective one controlled by whim that's probably best left to a campaign where you can talk it out with your players and make plans and apply fiat where necessary, as opposed to PFS which remains more impersonal and there isn't an arching story for a character planned out for the player. Table variation is wild dontcha' know it.
|
|
I do not want Yngvar, beauty school dropout
... I am so naming a barbarian that.
You know, typing all that makes me realize: this issue about aligned spells is actually a bit like the introduction of the ITS. When that came out, people moaned about the extra work it would create, which revealed how often people weren't doing what they were...
The thing about this rule is that it represents a disconnect between best practices and actual practices. The leadership is never going to abandon this rule, because they see it as infinitely practical; most GMs are never going to follow it, because they see it as a complete waste of their time. The outcry, in my opinion, was mostly centered around the initial idea that GMs would have to initial the ITS, which would force us to follow the rule (and also be insanely impractical for all the already-argued reasons). Once that was set aside, and everyone realized they would be moving from "ignoring this rule on one piece of paper" to "ignoring this rule on two pieces of paper," they went on with their lives.
The ITS itself is no problem. I just use a Google spreadsheet for mine, and it's actually pretty convenient, although I still do dislike having to do the same math in three different places. Does give me something to check if I screw up one of them, though--if the other two are in agreement, I know where the error probably is.
I bring up this sidebar partly because I can't resist a good tangent but also to illustrate an important point: Tracking alignment in the way you describe is just not ever going to happen. I'm sorry. I'm not saying it wouldn't be beautiful. I'm just saying it won't be, at least not in this campaign. Something like that would require a reboot of the entire campaign and rules system. Now, this too shall pass--so maybe there's a reboot some day, or maybe you can just save that for the next big OP campaign. But here and now, in this campaign, people just won't do it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Even so, that doesn't change much about what I've been saying. We're still supposed to be watching aligned acts, and they do carry risks for PCs with alignment-restricted classes. With that already in place, is adding aligned spells to the mix really that big of a change?It ISN"T in place. And its not in place for a very good reason. Do you see anywhere on the chronicle sheet to note minor alignment infractions? Do you see anywhere to rack up "brownie points" so that when your CN druid uses a salad fork and the dm threatens to toss him up to TN they can say "well what about when i turned into an otter and swam around in the punch bowl? That was worth at least 50 chaos points..." ?
You would have to track every instance of a character acting IN their alignment as well as out of it in order to establish which is the more pervasive pattern.
You can not get a fix on a characters alignment in one 4 hour session where the plot is on rails, you don't know the other player from adam, the adventure isn't tailored to the characters, and there is a very heavy incentive to just go along with the group because the alternative is driving 45 minutes back home and watching netflix. That's how an organized campaign like PFS has to be set up. Sometimes that means losing something, and in this case its the ability
Alignment is like climate, not weather. As a PFS dm you can only count on seeing weather.
I'm wondering if maybe you misread my post that you quoted, specifically the part you didn't quote? Your reply doesn't make much sense as a response to what I said. Let's see if I can recap a little better, perhaps:
The Guide does NOT require the GM to note individual actions on the chronicle sheet.
The Guide DOES require the GM to pay attention to individual actions and then enforce an alignment change (noted on the chronicle in "conditions gained") if enough infractions happen in that scenario.
So that's where the Guide stands. Can we get that established and go from there?
|
|
thats why its hard to see track history on characters.
you might play with one guy that will mark it on your sheet,
but thats only if a future GM ever looks at your sheet.
while grabbing your sheet and tearing it up is taking it a little too far, at the other extreme.
really the only way to manage it is to decentralize it.
check boxes next to the PCs name on the tracking sheet, so it gets recorded upstream, and tracked upstream. Then have VL/VC/Campaign Staff send a missive from on high: Reform. Repent. or lose your character.
But its still arbitrary. How many violations before a shift or a warning happens?
5 in 5 scenarios? "He burned down an orphanage?", why wouldn't the table GM just handle it then. Does a single spell shift alignment? is it one protection from Good really on par with an [evil] artifact tied to a Runelord? Does it take 10 castings? that's still arbitrary. is it 10 castings in a day? the scenario could all take place in a few hours, or over a few weeks, so its hard to say how many incidents occurred in that one scenario, that should be recorded or tracked.
but like some wildly irresponsible (kidding) GMs have said: its too much to ask GMs to track that sort of thing. They have enough to worry about. And its hard to arbitrate from hearsay whether its appropriate to piss on a corpse one day, and inappropriate to cast animate dead on an evil goblin to save a young innocent human girl the next.
in certain fantasy settings the morality curve is wildly different. and each GM is a mini universe within PFS, there's going to be hard to adjudicate cases in the best circumstances. There's no good way to handle it absolutely without making it black and white, eliminating the grey area, and making it less fun for everyone involved. PFS is a campaign that started with a faction of Devil-binders. If thats not a morally ambiguous role-playing idea, I don't know what is.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I disagree. I should ask why we should repeal it? Just because its the base rule doesn't mean its a good one to follow for PFS. Its a highly subjective one controlled by whim that's probably best left to a campaign where you can talk it out with your players and make plans and apply fiat where necessary, as opposed to PFS which remains more impersonal and there isn't an arching story for a character planned out for the player. Table variation is wild dontcha' know it.Well, that's the current PFS houserule. But as PFS tries to match the game rules as much as possible, I personally think that houserule should be repealed. You're welcome to disagree, of course. :)Spells shouldn't be inherently evil or good unless they can only be used for evil or good.
Otherwise, it should just be how the spell is used
Waitwaitwait... I think we're talking about different things. The thing I labeled as a PFS houserule and that I said we should repeal is "aligned spells are exempt from existing PFS alignment rules". How would treating aligned spells as aligned actions be any more subjective than the existing PFS alignment rules? Seems to me that, being labeled and all, they'd be LESS subjective.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Vincent: Some of your concerns go away by the fact (and something I missed until this morning) that you don't mark alignment infractions on the chronicle; you only mark the chronicle if enough alignment infractions happened in one scenario to merit an actual alignment shift.
Waitwaitwait... I think we're talking about different things. The thing I labeled as a PFS houserule and that I said we should repeal is "aligned spells are exempt from existing PFS alignment rules". How would treating aligned spells as aligned actions be any more subjective than the existing PFS alignment rules? Seems to me that, being labeled and all, they'd be LESS subjective.I disagree. I should ask why we should repeal it? Just because its the base rule doesn't mean its a good one to follow for PFS. Its a highly subjective one controlled by whim that's probably best left to a campaign where you can talk it out with your players and make plans and apply fiat where necessary, as opposed to PFS which remains more impersonal and there isn't an arching story for a character planned out for the player. Table variation is wild dontcha' know it.Well, that's the current PFS houserule. But as PFS tries to match the game rules as much as possible, I personally think that houserule should be repealed. You're welcome to disagree, of course. :)Spells shouldn't be inherently evil or good unless they can only be used for evil or good.
Otherwise, it should just be how the spell is used
Alignment is itself subjective in the degree and measure of how evil/good something is. As I said earlier, one guy lets you get away with murder*, the other guy pins you for one(or two) casting of infernal healing. There's an objective number to judge actions on, and its one more thing to worry about that at the moment we don't have to from either side of the screen. As I said, alignment change is GM fiat, and best handled when proper communication and story are involved.
* all of us do regularly when you think about it...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Guide does NOT require the GM to note individual actions on the chronicle sheet.
The Guide DOES require the GM to pay attention to individual actions and then enforce an alignment change (noted on the chronicle in "conditions gained") if enough infractions happen in that scenario.So that's where the Guide stands. Can we get that established and go from there?
Let me sum up my post then, so you can see how it IS a response.
the Guide DOES require the GM to pay attention to individual actions and then enforce an alignment change (noted on the chronicle in "conditions gained") if enough infractions happen in that scenario.
My point is that you are not going to have enough individual actions to enforce an alignment change in one scenario unless they're really, really,really bad/egregious actions. To me that includes aligned spells because while they are good/evil/chaos/ law they're not HUGE chunks of good/evil/chaos/ law.
I would add that alignment is so horribly subjective that even IF a character were fully fleshed out and perfectly role played by the player (which rarely happens) AND the character was perfectly consistent (which most real people aren't) that different DM's would be ping ponging his alignment all over the place based on viewing a small segment of their life.
Waitwaitwait... I think we're talking about different things. The thing I labeled as a PFS houserule and that I said we should repeal is "aligned spells are exempt from existing PFS alignment rules". How would treating aligned spells as aligned actions be any more subjective than the existing PFS alignment rules? Seems to me that, being labeled and all, they'd be LESS subjective.
Actually, its most objective when its "No" without additional details left to anyone's whim.