|
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.
... and even if people started noting this religiously, of my 110 sessions as player or GM, can you guess how many audits I've seen?
(Hint: Zero.)
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
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.
Or really, really, really frequent. But yes, I agree with this statement, and it also matches my experience.
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.
Well if the first statement I responded to is true, then this should only be happening when the GM is way off base, at which point it's no longer about alignment but about a GM getting wacky. Wacky GMs mess up more things than alignments, and shouldn't really be how we decide what to do with our alignment rules. That's like saying that we shouldn't have rules against modifying encounters because some GMs do wacky things to get the results they want.
|
@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.
how often do the chronicles get checked by table GMs?
I've never had cause to even think to write an infraction on a player's sheet. The only incidents were really young kids at the table, that ... didn't quite know the rules, and just wanted to do whatever they wanted. that's not an issue for infraction tracking, that's part parenting / part educating them on the rules.i don't sit down and ask my players: "whats your alignment, and do you have any infractions i should know about? ", so I don't notice when the druid is being too good, or when the bard isn't being chaotic enough, or whatever is necessary for an infraction. They only really jump out at you when the paladin decides to lob off someone's head after they surrender and desecrate their corpse.
even the current infraction system isn't a great one. it only works when aided by word of mouth. ( watch out for that guy's paladin, he's close to losing his alignment. ). if we add spells to the mix for shifting alignments, its still a matter of "did he cast enough evil spells that i should give him an infraction?", "will anyone check to see if he's had an infraction marked every scenario in his stack?", "does it matter" ?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Vincent, that really looks like you didn't read my post. I said you DON'T have to record alignment infractions. Only alignment SHIFTS, and then only if there were enough infractions JUST IN THAT ONE SCENARIO to cause said shift WITHOUT LOOKING AT ANY OTHER SHEETS AT ALL.
I said the opposite of what you're acting like I said.
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?
1. A good cleric can't cast evil spells but inexchange can cast good spells along with all the other. An evil clerif can't cast good but can cast evil spells along with all the others. Nuetral is neither good NOR evil but they have access to all the spells? If u look up all the domains of the deities, do any of the nuetral deities give any good or evil spells as domain powers? Does a good deity give any evil spells as domain powers? Does an evil deity give any good spells as domain powers? It seems the groundwork is already there because if we were to say nuetral was both good and evil and not the absence of both, then why don't any LN or CN give ajy good and evil spells as domain powers?
2. Nope they won't have to. Looking it up I've only found 2 domains that had evil spells as domains and that's death and evil. And here's the thing, a person can take one of those domains and another one, get the powers and other spells frombthe same domain and justbswitch out the evil ones with a nonevil/good spell from another domain. Already in the ground work of making it happen.3. Doing this would reinforce casters to fonsider their alignemnts not only thru roleplay actions but casting actions as well. It would reinforce the alignemnt of their deity. They get their spells feom their deity and if they go with a nuetral deity, why are they having access to "good" or "evil" spells whenbtheir own deity in whom they follow is neither good nor evil. How is something that neither good nor evil giving u power of u gaining a force of said alignemnt that evenlopes u and protects u from the opposite alignment when ur deity isn't even one of those alignments?
Its more of choice and consequence. U wanna ay a choatic nuetral character, then the consequence would be that u can't cast good or evil spells whenever u feel like it, because u ARE nuetral. What do u care about good or evil being nuetral? That's the whole reason why u picked nuetral because u don't care about either so much and why if ur a cleric of a nuetral deity are u casting alignment spells that aren't of ur deity?
If they imement this, this will reinforce and add consequences and rewards for alignemnts on another level.
4. Necromancers, eh got me there. If they did this this will force necromancers to start sweating their actions into basically if they don't want to be evil, they will start doing things to ease their conscious (aka performing good works). In a fps where its against the rules to play an evil character, it will make it harder to play a necromancer who just resses the dead of anybody all willy nilly and start making them protect and want to find ways of strengthening the undead tehy summon insteadbof just relying on sheer numbers etc etc.
But I will admit that I will concede the necromancer part because of lack of knowledge in how to play one that mass summons without eventually becoming evil. So I will admit I don't know exactly about necromancers.
But clerics I pointed out already seem to have the groundworkbalready established in what alignemnt can cast what etc.
Neutrals can cast all alignment of spells so long as their deity is also Neutral.
This is established.
|
|
yah reading your last word helps. o.o. sorry. this thread rolls by pretty fast.
still leaves the problem: who checks, who audits. if they're not playing with the same GM's each time, who's going to notice. At a con, it could go unnoticed the whole weekend. It doesn't matter if the witch shifts from LG to LN. if the shift is only noted on the chronicle sheet, but the player never changes their sheet, or does and then erases it, what really changed? Sure if the Paladin shifted alignments, then he's losing his paladinhood that scenario. If he shuts his mouth and acts a little better next scenario, no one will notice unless they do an Audit.
Separately:
How many evil spells do I have to cast to shift my alignment towards evil in one scenario and the GM decides to note my shift on the chronicle? 10 spell levels worth? the whole problem is there's no set amount, and by setting any amount, the staff sets a precedent and gets rid of the grey area / increases what GMs have to watch out for.
sorry, this thread rolls by pretty fast.
|
Or really, really, really frequent. But yes, I agree with this statement, and it also matches my experience.
Ok, and how frequent does it have to be?
Is it even possible to be that frequent in a pfs scenario? I don't see how that would be possible except with a wand. Do you really want to kill a character for spamming infernal healing? Or take away someone's powers for keeping up Protection from evil?
Well if the first statement I responded to is true, then this should only be happening when the GM is way off base, at which point it's no longer about alignment but about a GM getting wacky.
Very few things make DM's whackier than alignments.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
this thread rolls by pretty fast.
Tell me about it. Why do alignment threads come with free boots of striding and springing?
still leaves the problem: who checks, who audits. if they're not playing with the same GM's each time, who's going to notice. At a con, it could go unnoticed the whole weekend. It doesn't matter if the witch shifts from LG to LN. if the shift is only noted on the chronicle sheet, but the player never changes their sheet, or does and then erases it, what really changed? Sure if the Paladin shifted alignments, then he's losing his paladinhood that scenario. If he shuts his mouth and acts a little better next scenario, no one will notice unless they do an Audit.
Fair point, but then we're simply talking about cheaters. I could change my PC's ability scores every scenario if I wanted and no one would notice (even if they DID check all my past chronicles). People could buy consumables once and then never mark them as used/take them off their character sheet. Should that really have any bearing on what rules we make/follow/change/remove?
Separately:
How many evil spells do I have to cast to shift my alignment towards evil in one scenario and the GM decides to note my shift on the chronicle? 10 spell levels worth? the whole problem is there's no set amount, and by setting any amount, the staff sets a precedent and gets rid of the grey area / increases what GMs have to watch out for.
Another fair point (one it looks like BNW has also made while I've been typing/reading). But is it any different from what we already have? How many surrendered NPCs does a PC have to kill before there's an alignment shift? We're already supposed to decide both which alignment (if any) a given action represents and then also determine severity/number required for a shift. With that already in place, do aligned spells really change anything? At least with spells, we remove the first of those two questions, leaving only the "how much?", which we already face.
That's why I think removing the sanitization of aligned spells shouldn't be that big of a deal; everything it requires of us is already required of us, and more. Now if we wanted to argue to remove existing alignment rules, that would be something else altogether...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy,
ITS is fact based: A +1 cold iron great sword purchased on xx ITS ##
Alignment is very subjective - tracking would be difficult, and likely cause for complaints/disputes/etc..
The current rule for alignment shifts is writ large, not detailed. i.e. the often used examle of burning down an orphanage vs casting protection from good (or animate dead).
This thread is moving fast, so I am not 100% sure if you have changed your stance or not.
But if you still believe that we should be tracking use of aligned spells, could you answer the questions of how this will make the game better, and will it make the game more fun?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy,
ITS is fact based: A +1 cold iron great sword purchased on xx ITS ##
Alignment is very subjective - tracking would be difficult, and likely cause for complaints/disputes/etc..The current rule for alignment shifts is writ large, not detailed. i.e. the often used examle of burning down an orphanage vs casting protection from good (or animate dead).
This thread is moving fast, so I am not 100% sure if you have changed your stance or not.
See my last post before yours for more details.
But if you still believe that we should be tracking use of aligned spells, could you answer the questions of how this will make the game better, and will it make the game more fun?
It's a stated goal of the campaign to diverge from the base Pathfinder game rules as little as possible. The sanitization of aligned spells is such a divergence. Therefore, the default stance would be to NOT sanitize them unless there's a good reason TO do so.
Also, it hurts my brain to watch allegedly good or neutral PCs spam infernal healing like it ain't no thang, just like it hurts my brain to see a paladin going all murder-hobo or seeing the barbarian protest the breaking of a law for convenience or seeing the LN Asmodean cleric say we should sneak past some hellknights to save the orphans at great risk to ourselves.
To me at least, the game is more fun when people don't piss all over my sense of immersion by claiming to be/serve X type of person and then acting completely contrary to that. Making aligned spells be aligned spells would help mitigate that.
|
|
Another fair point (one it looks like BNW has also made while I've been typing/reading). But is it any different from what we already have? How many surrendered NPCs does a PC have to kill before there's an alignment shift? We're already supposed to decide both which alignment (if any) a given action represents and then also determine severity/number required for a shift. With that already in place, do aligned spells really change anything? At least with spells, we remove the first of those two questions, leaving only the "how much?", which we already face.
the thread has terminal velocity =D
i'm totally in favor of ignoring it for most spells. ( and if this were a rules forum and not a PFS form, i'd say certain spells should indicate whether they should cause alignment to shift. I'm all too sorry that Infernal Healing goes out of its way to say the opposite, considering you're anointing someone in demon blood, and few things ring out as evil with a capital E more than unholy baptism spells ). Some spells do clearly cross the line as soon as they're being cast, but that should be noted with the spell. The Descriptor should just matter for things like "+1 CL with Good spells" , "SR vs Evil spells", etc. like all Descriptors. It shouldn't instantly put your alignment/soul in jeopardy in case of an untimely demise, or strip you of your rage/performance/animal companion/priesthood/whatever.
I often find it hard to set the tone in my games to Grim and Gritty reality. Bar fights always erupt, do we penalize PCs because they get a crit on a first level warrior in a bar fight that kills them instantly? or for not staunching wounds after a fight? adjudicating it gets hard. Do you say he instantly shifts towards evil? Is the player really going to roleplay his character racked with grief over killing someone? or is it just another guy that tried to shoot him in a bar? Whats too Evil? too Good? does walking around with an Ioun stone with constant PFE charge up your character with goodness?
any system that does start counting spells has to first determine how the scales slide. are spells neutral by default so you only slide if you start casting Good/Evil or Chaotic/Lawful spells? Do they only balance out if you cast opposite? how long does that kind of impression linger? Alignment is always fluid, there's nothing to stop me from shifting alignment every game session, other than some classes that rely on being in a certain alignment or certain range of alignments.
|
|
one guy lets you get away with murder*...
* all of us do regularly when you think about it...
Forgot to reply to this earlier; for the record, I can't think of any instances of any of my characters murdering anyone, so please just speak for yourself.
You murderer, you. ;)
What scenarios have you played in that sentient beings have died? I find this HIGHLY unlikely.
one guy lets you get away with murder*...
* all of us do regularly when you think about it...
Forgot to reply to this earlier; for the record, I can't think of any instances of any of my characters murdering anyone, so please just speak for yourself.
You murderer, you. ;)
Every scenario ever. You usually do stab a few bad guys.
|
|
It's a stated goal of the campaign to diverge from the base Pathfinder game rules as little as possible. The sanitization of aligned spells is such a divergence. Therefore, the default stance would be to NOT sanitize them unless there's a good reason TO do so.
This is what I think is a good reason:
The spells are evil, but not evil enough to change you in one session.
Since it can't be done in one session, and its a PITA to track across sessions, the game is a lot more fun if we just handwave it and make "you'll be evil if you keep doing that!" the pfs version of "your face will stick like that!" or "you'll go blind if you do that enough!"
|
I feel aligment is essentially by defined actions...if you summon that evil creature to fight another evil creature, is that evil? depends on the reasons and the whys.
Likewise, neutral characters that summon good monsters shouldn't be expected to transition to good as many of these spells are simply tools.
Would good characters that summon neutral monsters be expected to transition to neutral?
Essentially; magic spells are simply tools unless there is a certain "moral" roleplay activity associated; like planar ally or binding can be obvious, charm and dominate or in their own league and dependant upon the circumstances.
Murdering townspeople, dealing with demons / devils, etc....should push someone towards a evil tilt.
Stealing, not reporting corruption, double dealing, ignoring laws,.etc...should push someone towards chaotic.
Personally, except for a few very rare exceptions, every pathfinder would be Chaotic Good.
TL;DR - I'm against any enforced alignment apart from in game presented moral decisions. There would be too much table variation to not cause a fuss. The poeple in my area like PFS just because of the edgier nature (i.e Cheliax).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's a stated goal of the campaign to diverge from the base Pathfinder game rules as little as possible. The sanitization of aligned spells is such a divergence. Therefore, the default stance would be to NOT sanitize them unless there's a good reason TO do so.This is what I think is a good reason:
The spells are evil, but not evil enough to change you in one session.
Since it can't be done in one session, and its a PITA to track across sessions, the game is a lot more fun if we just handwave it and make "you'll be evil if you keep doing that!" the pfs version of "your face will stick like that!" or "you'll go blind if you do that enough!"
Currently, that's where we're at with aligned spells (but not with alignment in general). And yeah, the likelihood of enough castings in one session to shift your alignment is low, unless we set a pretty low bar. (Though for IH, the likelihood goes up as you level, with your HP pool getting bigger...)
|
|
Currently, that's where we're at with aligned spells (but not with alignment in general)
Back to the post that you said wasn't a response... that IS where we're at with alignment in general. You either murderate enough surrendered foes to change your alignment in one session or your alignment never changes. The difference is that its possible to murderate enough surrendered foes (under the right conditions) to shift your alignment in one session, while I don't think that's likely enough to worry about with aligned spells.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have given this matter a great deal of thought lately, and I think that I have come to the following conclusion.
The use of spells with evil descriptors should be scrutinized by GMs, but should not, in and of themselves, warrant an alignment infraction.
If a PC is focused on raising an undead army to fight, but saves orphanages with them, the two balance out and the character is neutral. If a PC is using Infernal Healing but uses it to keep a good-aligned character alive, the two balance out.
By and large, though, it's not the alignment OR the spell that causes problems. The problems are caused by problem players who try to dance far too closely against the evil line. There are certain players who play their characters primarily to squick the good-aligned characters at the table, and those people should be disciplined not only under alignment rules, but also under the Don't Be a Jerk clause.
As for the issues that arise when a cleric of Pharasma sits down with a necromancer in the party, I'm reminded of a passage in the Journal of Eando Kline, which I will quote below.
"The Society places no moral obligations upon its members, so agents span all races, creeds, and motivations. At any given time, a Pathfinder lodge might house a fiend-summoning Chelaxian, an Andoran freedom fighter, an antiquities-obsessed necromancer, and a friendly halfling raconteur."
The Society itself is not a good-aligned organization, although Pathfinder Society Organized Play does not allow evil-aligned characters. This is less a reflection on the organization and more a reflection of the fact that, historically, the Society has had conflict between agents in the field. Because PVP is not a great deal of fun in an organized play campaign, PFS has chosen to focus on the good-aligned characters. Therefore, storyline-wise, PCs must swallow their pride and occasionally work with those whom they consider to be distasteful. Handled well, this can be a great opportunity for roleplay. Currently, my Taldan Cleric of Shelyn is having a grand time debating philosophy with a neutral-aligned Sczarni "priest" of Razmir. Alternatively, we could have been sparring the entire time. Either would have worked out well, because both me and the other player understand how to play our characters and how not to bring that beyond the gaming table.
I think that the best solution, therefore, is threefold:
1) Write more scenarios that stress what it means to be a Pathfinder. Perhaps even include some evil-aligned enemy Pathfinders in a scenario who are trying to beat the party to a particular find. As it stands, the Society is something of a one-dimensional organization as presented in most scenarios, some recent ones notwithstanding.
2) Add language to the Guide which indicates that it is important for all characters to have a working relationship, and indicate within the guide that if a PFS character cannot work with other PCs on a routine basis, they will be expelled from the Society.
3) Add language to the GM section of the Guide which reminds us all that RPG rules, especially those rules regarding alignment, are not, cannot and will never be absolute. Alignment must be a gray area if it is not to become simply another stat. Furthermore, no set of RPG rules will be able to conveniently accommodate every circumstance. Rather than distress about a lack of rules regarding something, we should embrace the opportunity that it gives GMs to be fluid in responding to PC's interactions with the game world.
4) Create more scenarios where the PC's actions have consequences. I think that the Wardstone Patrol is a great example of this. I have ran it for PCs who are routinely rude and obnoxious, and it was nice to see an NPC finally react to that. I don't think that the players of those PCs had ever had a negative reaction to their PCs like that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are mechanical benefits attached to given alignments, both in terms of class features and in terms of vulnerabilities to certain spells. These are not really choices a character makes, to be immune to unholy blight or whatever; they are consequences of the character's alignment, which is a reflection of the way they act.
A character can't cherry-pick mechanical benefits they like by choosing an alignment and not acting within it. The rules require this, Can it happen in a single scenario? Probably not. But I have a player whose monk who is becoming chaotic so he can multi-class into barbarian, by carefully role-playing the change over several games. We'll sign off on it when it "feels" right. A hard-and-fast rule will prevent this sort of voluntary switch from occurring.
We have GMs. Most of them are pretty good. Let them do their job. If you are really worried about table variation, have a chat before the game and suss the GM out. Anyone who is playing with a lot of different GMs probably also has choices over which table to sit it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
We have GMs. Most of them are pretty good. Let them do their job.
I wish my job allowed me to say something when a NG magus who claims his dervish dancing is in honor of Sarenrae whips out his infernal healing wand as casually as a refreshing juice box. Currently it doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Planar binding angels into being housemaids is the best way to stay good aligned, pretty sure.Oh good, I'm not the only one that noticed this.
Maybe they like being housemaids? Do I need to get a succubus housemaid to work with her if I want to remain neutral?
The spell summon monster might send you on a wild ride with alignment.
Neutrals can cast all alignment of spells so long as their deity is also Neutral.
This is established.
Yes and if they implement this, this would be added to the checks and minuses.
Good cleric can only cast good or nuetral spells, and cannot cast evil spells. Being able to cast good spells would be the plus in being a good cleric and not being able to cast evil spells would be the drawback.Vice versa for evil clerics.
A nuetral cleric benefit for being nuetral would be that they are able to cast both good and bad spells. What this would do is add a drawback in deciding to be nuetral in that u would have to keep track of or otherwise shift alignments.
Because atm there's really no drawbacks for being nuetral is imo? They already have in place that good can't cast evil and that evil can't cast good. This would simply add a nonexisting already imo drawback in being nuetral. That way a nuetral person would be regulated in what alignment spells they cast. Its a small amount of spells that are already denied from both good and evil sides of the alignement, being nuetral opens up all sides to you but the cost is that u keep casting good spells A LOT then u will eventually shift to good and vice versa with evil spells. A nuetral person would have access to those spells but at a cost. Good and evil characters already pay the cost, why can't a nuetral player pay as well? They are getting something that both evil and good casters don't have access to with really no downside of it.
|
It seems that most of the strife is coming from Infernal Healing. What if the Campaign pushed forward a non-evil version of the spell or banned just it?
I kind of get the feeling all these necromancer arguments have contributed their fair share of problems as well. What it boils down to, in my opinion, isn't even a matter of the rules, per say. It looks more like there are just so many people unable to just agree to disagree that it may have been creating problems; infernal healing, animate dead, hellfire ray -- all these spells carry the evil descriptor, and all of them see frequent use in PFS. The spells themselves do not, at least in my opinion (with the possible exception of hellfire ray considering: Go directly to hell; do not pass go, do not collect 100 dollars happens) constitute need for an alignment shift. Heck, even hellfire ray isn't THAT bad when you consider that almost everything you zap with it was going to burn in the pit anyway. All you're really doing by casting it is saving a certain someone from having to bother judging the soul.
A character can't cherry-pick mechanical benefits they like by choosing an alignment and not acting within it.
One of the larger complaints about aligned spells is that I can act within my alignment and still be changed to another one by GM's whim, and confirmation bias is human nature and happens without thinking about it.
|
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.
I think the one thing people are missing in this discussion, is that when something carries an [evil] descriptor, we aren't talking about some act of ethics, morality, or philosophy.
This is pure evil. There is no mitigating it. As Jiggy said, its like the One Ring. Its "Heavy Metal" evil. It corrodes and corrupts absolutely, and without some form if extreme outside influence (such as an atonement ) you can't escape it.
[Evil] descriptor spells carry the energy of such a source.
That being said, I have no problem with these being handwaved for PFS. Indeed, by the very nature of organized play and thevpotential lack of any viable healing ability, a spell like infernal healing is necessary.
But let's not forget that we aren't talking about human evil. We are talking about alien evil by which its very nature we can't comprehend its scope and as such without extreme measures mitigate its corruption.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A character can't cherry-pick mechanical benefits they like by choosing an alignment and not acting within it.One of the larger complaints about aligned spells is that I can act within my alignment and still be changed to another one by GM's whim, and confirmation bias is human nature and happens without thinking about it.
Another one of the larger complaints is that I can cast spells with a different alignment than my own and still think that I'm acting within my alignment, and confirmation bias is human nature and happens without thinking about it.
|
Well, banning evil spells completely breaks my Necro.
If there is a ban on PvP and we are required to do non-evil things for the most part to complete mission than why does anyone care about evil spells.
Seems to me like people want to force others to play the game as they see fit. Any diversion from their vision of how the game must be played, well that's just heresy and requires an immediate rage fit.
Another one of the larger complaints is that I can cast spells with a different alignment than my own and still think that I'm acting within my alignment, and confirmation bias is human nature and happens without thinking about it.A character can't cherry-pick mechanical benefits they like by choosing an alignment and not acting within it.One of the larger complaints about aligned spells is that I can act within my alignment and still be changed to another one by GM's whim, and confirmation bias is human nature and happens without thinking about it.
Reversing what I said doesn't really work.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, banning evil spells completely breaks my Necro.
If there is a ban on PvP and we are required to do non-evil things for the most part to complete mission than why does anyone care about evil spells.
Seems to me like people want to force others to play the game as they see fit. Any diversion from their vision of how the game must be played, well that's just heresy and requires an immediate rage fit.
Are you and I reading the same thread?
First, "banning evil spells"? Although a couple of people have suggested it, it's always been in the form of "because it would be easier than X", not because they'd actually prefer to get rid of them. (Unless there's a post I missed?)
The majority of the discussion of aligned spells has been about whether to treat them the same way we treat other aligned actions, not about banning evil spells.
Also, this thread has for the most part been incredibly civil, and with most discussion centering around logistical concerns, handling alignment in general, etc. If you're reading posts in this thread and thinking "heresy" and "rage fit", you might need to take a step back to cool off and then re-join the discussion later.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Reversing what I said doesn't really work.Another one of the larger complaints is that I can cast spells with a different alignment than my own and still think that I'm acting within my alignment, and confirmation bias is human nature and happens without thinking about it.A character can't cherry-pick mechanical benefits they like by choosing an alignment and not acting within it.One of the larger complaints about aligned spells is that I can act within my alignment and still be changed to another one by GM's whim, and confirmation bias is human nature and happens without thinking about it.
Is it not possible to have a complaint of people casting opposed-alignment spells while thinking they're acting within their alignment? Are you saying that it doesn't happen? Or maybe that I'm not supposed to complain about it? Or just that phrasing it the same way you phrased your own thought somehow invalidates it? What specifically about my comment "doesn't work"?