|
You put some very specific reasons to my dislike of opening up evil PCs that are very far from what I stated.@Patrick Harris: What are you talking about? When did I say I didn't like moral ambiguity or that I wish people would all play good characters? Did you even read my post that you quoted? I enjoy moral quandaries; heck, I was even a little bit let down by the low level of moral tension faced by my LG cleric in Rahadoum when I played Port Godless.
Please re-read my post, as I'm not saying anything remotely similar to what you seem to think I'm saying.
You said you don't want evil to become a legal choice. Your exact words: "Oh please no."
I'm explaining why I think it's silly that it isn't already. I thought the rhetorical question following all those examples made that clear, but apparently not.
What? No I didn't. (Or at least I certainly didn't mean to.) I'm saying it's impractical to follow your suggestion without changing the "no evil" rule. I have no idea what your motivation is, nor do I imagine it's relevant--I'm disputing the practicality of your idea.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A.) Many people's characters will need either retirement or a complete rebuild. This is due to having been built near exclusively around utilizing these handful of "evil" spells, the necromancer and diabolist sorts being two prime examples.
See my "people working with hazardous materials need to wash their hands" bit, above. Roleplaying gold, unless the person's character concept is actually evil and they just put "N" on their sheet to skirt the rules, in which case I'm fine with putting a stop to it. But for actual neutral necromancers, it creates roleplay opportunities.
B.) It will strip away access to at least one prestige class (and probably a few others that I haven't caught yet).
Which one's that?
C.) There is at least one tiefling variant (one of the better ones, at that) that would become unplayable in the event of a decision such as that.
No. You either misunderstand or are misrepresenting what's being talked about to make it look worse. The tiefling (and all variants) get a 1/day SLA. NO ONE is talking about a single casting of ANYTHING forcing an alignment shift.
D.) The list of available summons is already somewhat lackluster in a lot of ways. The evil outsiders you can call upon are probably the most useful ones, with some of the celestial types being a close second.
And now you have to think about what you summon, and whether the risk to your personhood is worth the power you think you need. Roleplaying opportunity! :) Unless, of course, you're again suggesting that someone's talking about a single spell instantly shifting you, which is not the case.
E.) Neutral clerics of evil deities would probably need to be looked at again. If evil descriptor spells start making you evil, I'd imagine drawing your "divine" powers from an entity such as Asmodeus would also be putting you at serious risk. Well, I guess on could argue a slow corruption on that one, like being lured down the dark path bit by bit.
See my earlier post about the roleplaying opportunities with this one. "Don't want to piss off Asmodeus by being too good, but I can't let myself slip all the way to evil either! Tension!"
F.) It would fail to take into account variables. Yes, that person just cast hellfire ray. However, they saved innumerable lives by doing so. Their willingness to risk condemnation of their own soul in order to safeguard the masses, in the eyes of many, would be an /exceedingly/ good act. However, removal of the exemption turns this from a intriguing question of morality to a case of "too bad."
Again, no. No one is suggesting that the casting of aligned spells become the ONLY metric of morality for a PC's actions, which your example suggests. Including aligned spells within existing PFS alignment rules actually takes your example from "Of course I'll cast it; why wouldn't I?" to the roleplaying gold of "Is this dark power worth the cost? I have to decide! Tension!" That seems like something we would want, right?
|
|
NO ONE is talking about a single casting of ANYTHING forcing an alignment shift.
You are assuming that all GMs are reasonable people.
I assure you that some are utterly blind to the idea that there are shades of grey in something like morality.
There is a reason that this clarification had to exist in the first place.
|
NO ONE is talking about a single casting of ANYTHING forcing an alignment shift.You are assuming that all GMs are reasonable people.
I assure you that some are utterly blind to the idea that there are shades of grey in something like morality.
There is a reason that this clarification had to exist in the first place.
+1
|
|
NO ONE is talking about a single casting of ANYTHING forcing an alignment shift.You are assuming that all GMs are reasonable people.
I assure you that some are utterly blind to the idea that there are shades of grey in something like morality.
There is a reason that this clarification had to exist in the first place.
In fact, I have had a GM or two tell me that casting animate dead was going to shift my alignment... Which is why I have to keep printed copies and links readily available for Mike's ruling.
|
|
No, I'm suggesting we shouldn't build our policies around those who aren't.NO ONE is talking about a single casting of ANYTHING forcing an alignment shift.You are assuming that all GMs are reasonable people.
So there's no reason not to have "evil" be an available alignment then?
You can't have it both ways. Either the campaign needs rules to protect itself from unreasonable people, or it doesn't.
If it does, we need this ruling. Keht's example just above my post is a perfect reason why.
If it doesn't, we should make a wider variety of characters open, because we've stopped catering to the lowest common denominator, and are no longer assuming that people are going to abuse every opening they can to be complete douchebags.
|
|
No, I'm suggesting we shouldn't build our policies around those who aren't.NO ONE is talking about a single casting of ANYTHING forcing an alignment shift.You are assuming that all GMs are reasonable people.
Yes, but this is one of the problem's with Living Campaign's. The goal is to keep the experience the same from table to table, with different GM's. Many time's this requires rulings to be made for the least common denominator no matter how small the occurrence would be. It's hard enough handling people's interpretations of printed rules, let alone trying to get everyone to agree on things that can be fiat.
|
Honestly, I can say that I would continue to use the evil aligned spells on my characters anyway. If I lose access to my creations as a result of playing them as they were created, then so be it. That sort of ruling would ruin the three that it matters to anyway, as they are literally built around the concepts. Better to lose them than rebuild them into something I would find to be at best a dismal attempt at replicating their original status. I couldn't care less about RPing out a moral dilemma if the game mechanics are going to penalize a character for using an evil spell in a good way regardless of the outcome.
As for the prestige class that might bye bye off that ruling? Diabolist. You must commit an extremely evil act in order to become one in the first place. Not only must you summon a devil through use of one of the planar spells, but you must bargain with it successfully. You must strike up a sufficient deal as to have it work for you for no less than one day in order to qualify for the prestige class at all. Failure to accomplish this means you may have to try again, and yes; it is the exception to the waiving of the active prerequisites that most prestige classes are given. Then the prestige class itself gives you some very interesting abilities, almost all of which I would say are considered outright evil.
Also, if evil spells are evil, what about negative energy? Shouldn't the use of that also be evil?
Since this is a rules based question we should stick with the rules. Only evil spells are evil. Negative energy is just a tool. The energy itself is not evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if evil spells are evil, what about negative energy? Shouldn't the use of that also be evil?
Since this is a rules based question we should stick with the rules. Only evil spells are evil. Negative energy is just a tool. The energy itself is not evil.
I believe negative energy is something more akin to a primordial unaligned force than anything evil, is it not? You can use it to COMMIT evil, but you could likewise commit acts of evil using positive energy.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So there's no reason not to have "evil" be an available alignment then?No, I'm suggesting we shouldn't build our policies around those who aren't.NO ONE is talking about a single casting of ANYTHING forcing an alignment shift.You are assuming that all GMs are reasonable people.
Oh! I get what our earlier misunderstanding was now. My comments about "oh please no" was a personal thing about one specific type of roleplaying that gets on my nerves personally, and was not supposed to be part of my actual position that I'm taking in the real discussion. Sorry about that, guess it was the context that wasn't clear. My bad.
|
|
I believe negative energy is something more akin to a primordial unaligned force than anything evil, is it not? You can use it to COMMIT evil, but you could likewise commit acts of evil using positive energy.
Also, if evil spells are evil, what about negative energy? Shouldn't the use of that also be evil?
Since this is a rules based question we should stick with the rules. Only evil spells are evil. Negative energy is just a tool. The energy itself is not evil.
deja vu, gun debate... lol
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh! I get what our earlier misunderstanding was now. My comments about "oh please no" was a personal thing about one specific type of roleplaying that gets on my nerves personally, and was not supposed to be part of my actual position that I'm taking in the real discussion. Sorry about that, guess it was the context that wasn't clear. My bad.So there's no reason not to have "evil" be an available alignment then?No, I'm suggesting we shouldn't build our policies around those who aren't.NO ONE is talking about a single casting of ANYTHING forcing an alignment shift.You are assuming that all GMs are reasonable people.
Oh! I thought you were objecting to the whole idea on personal grounds.
Which I found surprising from you, actually. But I get it now.
Well in that case, that's my compromise suggestion. Change the rule from "no evil" to "no poorly representing the Society." (Which, frankly, a lot of non-evil PCs are doing a fine job of screwing up already.) Then track alignment as closely as you want, once it's not going to get characters thrown out of the campaign at the whim of an uptight GM.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
deja vu, gun debate... lolI believe negative energy is something more akin to a primordial unaligned force than anything evil, is it not? You can use it to COMMIT evil, but you could likewise commit acts of evil using positive energy.
Also, if evil spells are evil, what about negative energy? Shouldn't the use of that also be evil?
Since this is a rules based question we should stick with the rules. Only evil spells are evil. Negative energy is just a tool. The energy itself is not evil.
"Negative energy doesn't commit evil acts. Clerics commit evil acts."
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...if the game mechanics are going to penalize a character for using an evil spell in a good way regardless of the outcome.
Then it's a good thing no one's suggesting that.
What's being proposed is "it's an aligned action to cast an aligned spell". The additional rider of "in a differently-aligned way regardless of the outcome" is something that has only been mentioned by those either trying to set it up to look worse than it is or trying to ward against jerkface GMs.
No one at all is proposing that the actual rule should become "no matter what you're doing or why, any aligned spell involved will determine the overall alignment of the entire process". I would appreciate it if you would stop representing the topic as such.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As for the "protecting from bad GMs" thing, that's a legitimate concern.
I think there's a continuum, with "reasonable precautions" at one end and "overzealous prevention" (or some other snazzier-sounding term) at the other. Somewhere, there's a line, and we need to find the right place to put it.
I mean, allowing rolled stats is only a problem if people are being idiots, right? Responsible people won't abuse that system. Ha, no. Point buy, people.
Evil PCs are further down the scale; the problems it would open up are less, but still many. I'm honestly not sure which side of the line this should be on, but that's another topic entirely.
Alignment in general: it's still entirely possible for a druid or barbarian or (more commonly) paladin/cleric to get nuked for alignment infractions due to an idiot GM. But apparently, this is on the "let's deal with issues as they arise" side of the line. And to my knowledge, it's working just fine.
So since we already have alignment in that "not guarded against" spot, but the campaign hasn't imploded, why would treating aligned spells in the exact same way change anything (in regard to the "jerk GM risk")? We already have (some) GMs saying "CdG? Fallen!" but we haven't hand-waved alignment in general or even just the paladin code. So why spells?
How does an alignment infraction from casting a spell carry more jerk-risk than an alignment infraction from a CdG?
|
|
As for the "protecting from bad GMs" thing, that's a legitimate concern. Post incoming via edit, as I'm tired of the ninjas. ;)
I think I am finally understanding this Ninja Jargon... so super quick replies that change the topic in a way that makes your post irrelevant? Is this the Ninja you speak of?
I feel you, keeping up with these mega threads is a full time job.
It's not lost on my that I am probably one of these Ninja's you speak of. Sorry, but hey without a live chat you got to do what you got to do. Oh, and I am constantly Ninja'd, so in my case because it suits me... Two wrong's make me write.
I believe negative energy is something more akin to a primordial unaligned force than anything evil, is it not? You can use it to COMMIT evil, but you could likewise commit acts of evil using positive energy.
Also, if evil spells are evil, what about negative energy? Shouldn't the use of that also be evil?
Since this is a rules based question we should stick with the rules. Only evil spells are evil. Negative energy is just a tool. The energy itself is not evil.
That is how I see it too.
As for using evil spells to commit a good act it is still evil. It just may be the lesser of two evils or choices.
I skipped a lot of post so this may have been mentioned.
If we want to judge how evil a spell is, and try to avoid too much table variation then I go with this judgement and quote.
Basically if there was a more difficult, even if it is more dangerous/difficult way to solve the problem a good character will choose that way instead of committing an evil act, even a small one.
This should be treated as a major offense, and two of them should warrant a change in alignment.
If the evil act happened to be the only solution, or if it was believed to be the only solution then as long as the character atones the act should still be marked down, but it won't be as bad.
2 minor transgressions should equal to one major transgression.
If you are a good or neutral character, but you keep finding yourself in positions that you can only use evil to solve a problem then you may need to put in more effort.<----Thoughts of a deity
4th wall view-->The number of scenarios that require you to perform an evil act is likely every small so it is likely a player choice more than anything else. Now the player has to live with that choice.
As for redemption it takes the casting of the expensive version of atonement to remove the major transgression from a character sheet.
PS: The same logic applies to other alignments also. To avoid arguments based on semantics it should be noted that trying to say a chaotic character that obeys a government official will not be given a penalty.<---That was just an exampe.
|
|
...How does an alignment infraction from casting a spell carry more jerk-risk than an alignment infraction from a CdG?
So I have no clue what CdG is, sorry... but Paladin's is a bad example druid and barbarian's probably easier to deal with..
Problem with Paladin's is they have a code. A specific written guideline. So it should be relatively easy to figure out when it's broken. IMHO it is very different than having a GM judge your alignment based on one scenario and allowing him to say you cast X more times than you did X this time therefore you are evil. We know that when a paladin lies (even for a good reason) its a violation of his code and therefore a violation of his alignment.
Does that make sense?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...How does an alignment infraction from casting a spell carry more jerk-risk than an alignment infraction from a CdG?So I have no clue what CdG is, sorry... but Paladin's is a bad example druid and barbarian's probably easier to deal with..
Problem with Paladin's is they have a code. A specific written guideline. So it should be relatively easy to figure out when it's broken. IMHO it is very different than having a GM judge your alignment based on one scenario and allowing him to say you cast X more times than you did X this time therefore you are evil. We know that when a paladin lies (even for a good reason) its a violation of his code and therefore a violation of his alignment.
Does that make sense?
CdG = Coup de grace. Sometimes folks run into GMs who will shift their alignment toward evil for performing a coup de grace, regardless of circumstances.
Anyway, if not paladins, there's still clerics. Every so often, there's a story of a GM who decided that good-cleric X's action was evil (or lawful or chaotic, depending), and boom, the deity revokes the cleric's powers. Yet even with that risk, we don't take any measures (at the policy level) to prevent it. What's different about spells?
Players don't live in fear of a jerk taking their cleric's powers for something piddly (even though it happens), players don't live in fear of being booted for using the coup de grace action (even though it happens), so why are people so afraid of being hit for casting an aligned spell?
|
|
...How does an alignment infraction from casting a spell carry more jerk-risk than an alignment infraction from a CdG?So I have no clue what CdG is, sorry... but Paladin's is a bad example druid and barbarian's probably easier to deal with..
Problem with Paladin's is they have a code. A specific written guideline. So it should be relatively easy to figure out when it's broken. IMHO it is very different than having a GM judge your alignment based on one scenario and allowing him to say you cast X more times than you did X this time therefore you are evil. We know that when a paladin lies (even for a good reason) its a violation of his code and therefore a violation of his alignment.
Does that make sense?
Coup de grace. Some people believe that the Paladin's code requires that the enemy be upright for the Paladin to strike a final blow. Even if it's, like, a pit fiend.
|
|
Players don't live in fear of a jerk taking their cleric's powers for something piddly (even though it happens), players don't live in fear of being booted for using the coup de grace action (even though it happens), so why are people so afraid of being hit for casting an aligned spell?
Yes, I do.
I won't play my Paladin for a GM I don't know well.
I won't CdG unless I have established a feel for the GM, and if they say "That's evil!" I'll drop it. (If they say "That WAS evil!" I point out that they should have warned me, and we can either retcon it, or they can suck it up. I can be pretty obstinate. (... I'm sure that comes as a big surprise.))
And I routinely use at least one 'evil' spell on every Sorcerer, Magus, and Wizard I have. I'm getting a headache just thinking about the hassle this would represent.
|
|
Those of us speaking of the potential damage it could do are currently doing so off of RAW, not any of the recommended revisions noted thus far in the thread. At present, the casting of an evil descriptor spell is generally considered to be a pretty major infraction (outside of PFS), not nearly so minor as some appear to believe. One could very easily shift themselves clear to evil if utilizing that kind of magic more than once in a blue moon.
That is the issue some of us are taking with it. We're not arguing that your alignment just instantly jumps, but that there are some pretty major and far reaching ramifications that would come with revocation of the exemption. It isn't hard to fall into evil alignment by any stretch of the word.
To Jiggy: The reason people worry about taking a hit for the casting of an aligned spell is very simple: Some character concepts are legitimately built very strongly around utilizing these abilities, be they good/evil/chaotic/lawful whatever. Admittedly, the evil ones are the only ones I know of with options available to commit so strongly to them. These people enjoy their characters, and played responsibly there shouldn't be any drama resulting from it.
Coup de grace. Some people believe that the Paladin's code requires that the enemy be upright for the Paladin to strike a final blow. Even if it's, like, a pit fiend.
Some people hold it to every circumstance, even if its not a paladin. I remember in a game one time an npc had a turn asleep before he'd attempt to kill an innocent. The DM was pretty vehemently against CdGing him still.
Those of us speaking of the potential damage it could do are currently doing so off of RAW, not any of the recommended revisions noted thus far in the thread. At present, the casting of an evil descriptor spell is generally considered to be a pretty major infraction (outside of PFS), not nearly so minor as some appear to believe. One could very easily shift themselves clear to evil if utilizing that kind of magic more than once in a blue moon.
Well... outside of PFS there isn't a magic number either, so its very much left to the GM. Some are okay with you almost focusing on it, others get onto you if you do it even once. Lots of interpretations.
|
|
Players don't live in fear of a jerk taking their cleric's powers for something piddly (even though it happens), players don't live in fear of being booted for using the coup de grace action (even though it happens), so why are people so afraid of being hit for casting an aligned spell?
Ahh very good, thanks for the clarification. I can only answer this by providing my own experience. That is that when people see the EVIL word in a spell they jump immediately to think there is something inherently wrong with its use. Perhaps that is, but not sure if that part is relevant right now.
I mentioned before about how I have had to prove a few different times that casting animate dead wast specifically evil act. The GMs calling it an evil act were not necessarily jerk's but they were assuming based on the EVIL word in the description that it was indeed evil.
So how do we change this for the better? Any policy or let call it a clarification on the matter is going to be read as a ban. Which will result in heated conversations about what it means. I see this being similar to when I have to explain Mike's ruling on animate dead. The difference will be that people will not read, they will just hear about some change about evil spells and make there own assumptions.
Does this mean we don't do anything? No, I am certainly not arguing that. I will say the more we talk about it I am not sure something can be done without creating some sort of mess. As said before, how much of a mess is everyone willing to clean up to change this problem?
|
|
Those of us speaking of the potential damage it could do are currently doing so off of RAW, not any of the recommended revisions noted thus far in the thread. At present, the casting of an evil descriptor spell is generally considered to be a pretty major infraction (outside of PFS), not nearly so minor as some appear to believe. One could very easily shift themselves clear to evil if utilizing that kind of magic more than once in a blue moon.Well... outside of PFS there isn't a magic number either, so its very much left to the GM. Some are okay with you almost focusing on it, others get onto you if you do it even once. Lots of interpretations.
I've spoken to quite a lot of people on this matter to get their takes, and we did arrive at one conclusion: There is a large number of people that would happily hand out alignment infractions for a miniscule number of castings of animate dead, once again finding it to be a good example here. Hence the concern. There would definitely have to be a set number of castings per scenario allowable before an infraction to properly enforce a reversal of this particular ruling. Fortunately, this last bit here seems to be something the people in favor of a reversal are at least willing to entertain. Could make for good middle ground, but it would be a lot easier on everyone to just leave the spells alone.
|
|
Well... outside of PFS there isn't a magic number either, so its very much left to the GM. Some are okay with you almost focusing on it, others get onto you if you do it even once. Lots of interpretations.
Right, and here lies the problem. Outside of PFS it really doesn't matter. A GM can kick someone out of a game, allow them to be evil, not call it an evil act, whatever. In PFS, where the experience is supposed to be the same from table to table is where we have issues. Unlike home game's where players know what GM's expect its a crap shoot in PFS.
|
|
I've spoken to quite a lot of people on this matter to get their takes, and we did arrive at one conclusion: There is a large number of people that would happily hand out alignment infractions for a miniscule number of castings of animate dead, once again finding it to be a good example here. Hence the concern. There would definitely have to be a set number of castings per scenario allowable before an infraction to properly enforce a reversal of this particular ruling. Fortunately, this last bit here seems to be something the people in favor of a reversal are at least willing to entertain. Could make for good middle ground, but it would be a lot easier on everyone to just leave the spells alone.Those of us speaking of the potential damage it could do are currently doing so off of RAW, not any of the recommended revisions noted thus far in the thread. At present, the casting of an evil descriptor spell is generally considered to be a pretty major infraction (outside of PFS), not nearly so minor as some appear to believe. One could very easily shift themselves clear to evil if utilizing that kind of magic more than once in a blue moon.Well... outside of PFS there isn't a magic number either, so its very much left to the GM. Some are okay with you almost focusing on it, others get onto you if you do it even once. Lots of interpretations.
Yeah, if a change needs to be made (still not convinced this is the case) than I don't see any other way to do it and keep it fair from table to table.
|
|
I've spoken to quite a lot of people on this matter to get their takes, and we did arrive at one conclusion: There is a large number of people that would happily hand out alignment infractions for a miniscule number of castings of animate dead, once again finding it to be a good example here. Hence the concern. There would definitely have to be a set number of castings per scenario allowable before an infraction to properly enforce a reversal of this particular ruling. Fortunately, this last bit here seems to be something the people in favor of a reversal are at least willing to entertain. Could make for good middle ground, but it would be a lot easier on everyone to just leave the spells alone.
Raise an unholy horror from beyond the grave once, shame on me.
Raise an unholy horror from beyond the grave twice ...
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yeah, if a change needs to be made (still not convinced this is the case) than I don't see any other way to do it and keep it fair from table to table.
I bet we could make it work without an exact number. Something like this:
"Casting spells with alignment descriptors are considered minor acts of that alignment, and their excessive use has the potential to result in an alignment shift unless measures are taken to the contrary (such as performing actions or casting spells of the opposite alignment, or seeking an atonement). The ends to which aligned spells are used must also be taken into account before enforcing an alignment shift."Anyone who can read that as "one and done" needs to be reported, but we still haven't had to pick an arbitrary number. How would that be?
|
|
Yeah, if a change needs to be made (still not convinced this is the case) than I don't see any other way to do it and keep it fair from table to table.I bet we could make it work without an exact number. Something like this:
"Casting spells with alignment descriptors are considered minor acts of that alignment, and their excessive use has the potential to result in an alignment shift unless measures are taken to the contrary (such as performing actions or casting spells of the opposite alignment, or seeking an atonement). The ends to which aligned spells are used must also be taken into account before enforcing an alignment shift."Anyone who can read that as "one and done" needs to be reported, but we still haven't had to pick an arbitrary number. How would that be?
"So two, then. I have to let you do it once, but two is definitely over the line."
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"So two, then. I have to let you do it once, but two is definitely over the line."Yeah, if a change needs to be made (still not convinced this is the case) than I don't see any other way to do it and keep it fair from table to table.I bet we could make it work without an exact number. Something like this:
"Casting spells with alignment descriptors are considered minor acts of that alignment, and their excessive use has the potential to result in an alignment shift unless measures are taken to the contrary (such as performing actions or casting spells of the opposite alignment, or seeking an atonement). The ends to which aligned spells are used must also be taken into account before enforcing an alignment shift."Anyone who can read that as "one and done" needs to be reported, but we still haven't had to pick an arbitrary number. How would that be?
"Hey, remember that guy who tried to ban me for a CdG? He's at it again."
Seems fine to me.
|
|
"Hey, remember that guy who tried to ban me for a CdG? He's at it again."
Seems fine to me.
"Okay, fine. Three, though, three is good, right? Because I don't think--for whatever hypothetical reason--that you should be able to do this at all, and it's left to GM's discretion, which means I get to say how many. So if it's not two, it's gotta be three, or there's no point in having a limit, right?"
|
|
It's almost as though you think you need to convince me just how unreasonable some people can be.
You don't.
You need to convince me there's materially more people who will act like that on this topic than there are who already act like that on existing topics.
I don't think the number will increase. I think that same set of unreasonable people will have more fuel for the fire.
Edit: Come to think of it, though, I have had at least one GM tell me I couldn't cast an evil spell, then when I pointed out the clarification he grumpily gave up, and alignment never came up again. So it's possible that some people who're just too annoyed by this ruling to bother enforcing alignment at all will take this as a blessing to go ahead.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t often post in the PFS forums as I’ve not been playing as long as many folks and don’t feel that my play experiences in PFS are broad enough yet to contribute as well as I can in other threads.
That said, the two main reasons I was so late in getting involved in PFS was the lack of support for higher level play and the alignment restrictions.
In the end my desire to be exposed to variant gaming styles & cultures and the desire to game with my girlfriend more often won out over concerns about playing at the “oh, I tripped and died!” level of play and we tried out PFS. (Fortunately, my very first PFS game we ended up with a gnome villain and I was sold on PFS when I discovered I could take out those innately treacherous little… ahem, apologies, I digress…)
Both of these initial concerns, however, remain to some extent. They also causes a chilling effect when I try to recruit folks that I game with outside of PFS into trying it out – especially those who have tried out other organized play campaigns in the past. I guess it goes towards my grognard nature that I feel more dirty mentioning that gunslingers are legal, but that lawful evil characters are not.
Removing a safety net between a player and a PFS GM who may have VERY different views on how alignments should impact and interact with character & player choices seems like a very large step backwards to me. Of all of the points of gamer contention, gaming alignments are probably the biggest area of contention amongst a whole hotbed of things that cause gamers to go into full-on Nerd Rage™ *. I think that PFS is best served by continuing in its current trend of looking at the circumstances more than the spell descriptor when casting spells to determine alignment infractions rather than opening the TARDIS full of worms that would occur from changing it to match rules clarifications aimed at non-PFS play.
-TimD
*TimD’s use and interpretation of the terminology of Nerd-Rage™ does not imply that Jim Butcher has either participated in such alignment debates on the internet or concurs with behaviors described.
|
|
Don't know about you, but it's a bit discouraging to hear the 25 VO's & 4+ Star DMs are not going by the rules.Maybe I missed part of the conversation, certainly possible since this thread doubled since last night, but what rule/s are you referring to?
Specifically in this case not using the Inventory Tracking Sheets or Signing off on things.
|
Basically, if a PC is about to commit an alignment infraction (not just evil, but anything deviating from their chosen alignment), the GM warns them first and asks if they want to do it. If, over the course of a scenario, a PC commits enough alignment infractions in that one scenario, the GM can enforce an alignment shift and note it on the chronicle sheet.
Currently, there's an inconsistency in that aligned spells are exempted from that. I'd personally like that exemption removed.
If that's what you want then "no", that's just terrible gaming. Alignment debates are bad enough, everyone has their own opinion on it. It would be crappy to have a GM judge every PCs actions to see if they are within their alignment limits every scenario. Call the alignment police!! Not fun, not the kind of game I'd want to play.
Alignment was never meant as a straightjacket, it was meant as a shorthand for the character's basic attitudes. That's it. It wasn't meant to define their each and every action.
|
|
Yeah, if a change needs to be made (still not convinced this is the case) than I don't see any other way to do it and keep it fair from table to table.I bet we could make it work without an exact number. Something like this:
"Casting spells with alignment descriptors are considered minor acts of that alignment, and their excessive use has the potential to result in an alignment shift unless measures are taken to the contrary (such as performing actions or casting spells of the opposite alignment, or seeking an atonement). The ends to which aligned spells are used must also be taken into account before enforcing an alignment shift."Anyone who can read that as "one and done" needs to be reported, but we still haven't had to pick an arbitrary number. How would that be?
Like I said in an earlier post, my character cast Infernal Healing fifteen times yesterday. Fifteen is a big number. Is that too many? But it prevented a TPK several times over, and allowed us to defeat an ancient evil. How many castings does that mitigate? How about my daily obeisance to Andoletta that I performed afterwards -- how many does that absolve me of?
Here's the thing. People treat things you can measure with numbers -- such as casting [Evil] spells -- as having more standing than things we can't -- like letting innocents die. So there's a real danger that we treat minor things we can track as larger alignment infractions than major ones that we can't -- just cause we don't know how many tick marks the big ones should be.
|
|
Basically, if a PC is about to commit an alignment infraction (not just evil, but anything deviating from their chosen alignment), the GM warns them first and asks if they want to do it. If, over the course of a scenario, a PC commits enough alignment infractions in that one scenario, the GM can enforce an alignment shift and note it on the chronicle sheet.
Currently, there's an inconsistency in that aligned spells are exempted from that. I'd personally like that exemption removed.
If that's what you want then "no", that's just terrible gaming. Alignment debates are bad enough, everyone has their own opinion on it. It would be crappy to have a GM judge every PCs actions to see if they are within their alignment limits every scenario. Call the alignment police!! Not fun, not the kind of game I'd want to play.
Alignment was never meant as a straightjacket, it was meant as a shorthand for the character's basic attitudes. That's it. It wasn't meant to define their each and every action.
.... Yeah, I can't say I disagree with anything this one just said. Alignment really isn't there to be some all consuming black hole where fun goes to die, but people just insist on fighting over it. Pathfinder Society play offers a middle ground, a blanket if you will, that keeps some of the more stringent GMs from dropping the infraction hammer at the drop of a hat.
Like that will save you. :p
To be fair, I'd be afraid of what people we attract when we start using choke collars...
Hey, you never know! If the change DOES go through, keeping them on a leash might be the only thing that saves us from being thrown into a pit full of angry chickens. :P And we all know what happens to people with pointy ears when someone makes the chickens mad.
More chickens? We'll never go hungry again! Even better, we can save a few for trapfinding and dungeoneering purposes!... or maybe that's just me.
|
Like that will save you. :p
Actually, you'd be surprised. I find the scenarios are quite fair in general as long as they are run as written and no personal spin thrown in for "good measure".
I see no good coming out of having the alignment gestapo running around. Even though I have three PCs that still aren't sitting with a necro. But I have three that will. So its all good.