If an evil wizard character frequently casts Protection From Evil (a spell with the Good descriptor), in order to better fend off the fiends summoned by his diabolical rival, after how many castings should I tell him he has become Neutral? How many additional castings before he becomes Good?
On a related note, how many castings of [Fire] descriptor spells are necessary to cast before gaining the Fire subtype? If casting [Evil] spells makes one more evil, surely [Fire] spells make one more fire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment descriptors do not directly affect your alignment. He will never become good just by spamming a spell with the good descriptor. Similarly, you will never gain the fire subtype by casting fire desccriptor spells.
Here's a FAQ on the matter. Yes, it's a PFS-specific ruling, but it's still useful to this discussion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If an evil wizard character frequently casts Protection From Evil (a spell with the Good descriptor), in order to better fend off the fiends summoned by his diabolical rival, after how many castings should I tell him he has become Neutral? How many additional castings before he becomes Good?
Well, what else is he doing? Is he just standing in a room casting the spell all day? Or is he going around doing Evil?
Because casting Protection From Evil isn't very Good. It's probably equivalent to, oh, being nice to your waiter. If being nice to all your waiters was enough to make you suddenly no longer Evil...maybe you weren't very Evil to start with, y'know?
Casting spells in and of itself is just a little bit the alignment in question. It's enough to mean Paladins can't cast [Evil] spells without falling...but not enough to actually change people's Alignment unless they do it all the time and aren't doing much to counteract it.
On a related note, how many castings of [Fire] descriptor spells are necessary to cast before gaining the Fire subtype? If casting [Evil] spells makes one more evil, surely [Fire] spells make one more fire.
Yes, because nobody has ever made that joke before...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment descriptors do not directly affect your alignment. He will never become good just by spamming a spell with the good descriptor. Similarly, you will never gain the fire subtype by casting fire desccriptor spells.
Actually...to quote Champions of Purity:
Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement.
So...that's a thing. It's also (I believe prior to appearing in print) been discussed quite a bit on the forums here by Sean K. Reynolds...who made it clear that the intent was that yes they did and it applies to all Alignment descriptor spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many licks to the center of a Chaotic Evil Tootsie Pop? Nobody knows!
I like PFS' way of handling it, since Champions of Purity leads to allowing people to cast spells to play alignment hopscotch. Which is great in Devil Summoner, but less so here.
On a related note, how many castings of [Fire] descriptor spells are necessary to cast before gaining the Fire subtype? If casting [Evil] spells makes one more evil, surely [Fire] spells make one more fire.Yes, because nobody has ever made that joke before...
It's only partly a joke. One, [Fire] simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, and casting it is not assumed to have any greater effect upon you. The other [Evil] also simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, but is somehow thought to have a lasting (if minor) impact upon you. There's no logical reason the two should be different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
37 castings would do it.
Not too different from my idea, I was leaning towards 42. :P
I like PFS' way of handling it, since Champions of Purity leads to allowing people to cast spells to play alignment hopscotch. Which is great in Devil Summoner, but less so here.Oh? And what's that? Not everyone plays a lot of PFS and I certainly don't know to what you refer.
Dasrak posted it above, but I'll copypasta it into the thread here:
Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
Welcome to 'alignment is bad and you should feel bad for using it' thread number eleventy billion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's only partly a joke. One, [Fire] simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, and casting it is not assumed to have any greater effect upon you. The other [Evil] also simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, but is somehow thought to have a lasting (if minor) impact upon you. There's no logical reason the two should be different.
Who says it doesn't? A lot of people tend to favor one element of spells ore than others. Maybe the more you use [Fire] spells, the more you like fire, and are inclined to use and enjoy both mundane and magical fire. Never to a pathological degree, at least not just from the spell use, but a clear preference nonetheless. Maybe one of your kids will even be an Elemental (Fire) Bloodline Sorcerer.
However, unlike Alignment, there aren't mechanics for simply liking fire, so all that's a lot less notable than the (mechanically relevant) alignment shift.
And before anyone brings up subtypes...alignment descriptor spells don't give you those either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casting aligned spells does not change your alignment.
However, your motives for doing so can be informative. Casting protection from evil because of an intra-evil turf war or magic circle against evil to bind a demon are not really going to be good.
But summoning a devil when summoning an archon could do the same job is not something a Good character should want to do: a Good character shouldn't want to summon a devil at all, and would only do so if it were absolutely necessary.
That is, it is not that frequent casting of Evil spells warp your mind and change your alignment: it is that a willingness to cast those spells frequently means you may not be Good in the first place.
I like PFS' way of handling it, since Champions of Purity leads to allowing people to cast spells to play alignment hopscotch. Which is great in Devil Summoner, but less so here.Oh? And what's that? Not everyone plays a lot of PFS and I certainly don't know to what you refer.Dasrak posted it above, but I'll copypasta it into the thread here:
Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
See, this is consistent. Casting a [Fire] spell doesn't make you fire, casting an [Evil] spell doesn't make you evil, it's what you do with the spells that matter.
Welcome to 'alignment is bad and you should feel bad for using it' thread number eleventy billion.
I've no problem with alignment, my problem is with the uneven meaning given to spell descriptors. I'm curious why some have soul changing metaphysical ramifications, and others just tell you what kind of spell it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's only partly a joke. One, [Fire] simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, and casting it is not assumed to have any greater effect upon you. The other [Evil] also simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, but is somehow thought to have a lasting (if minor) impact upon you. There's no logical reason the two should be different.
On a related note, how many castings of [Fire] descriptor spells are necessary to cast before gaining the Fire subtype? If casting [Evil] spells makes one more evil, surely [Fire] spells make one more fire.Yes, because nobody has ever made that joke before...
Does casting a [Fire] spell bring more fire into the world?
Does casting a [Fire] spell bring more fire into the world?
As much as casting protection from good brings evil into the world.
And yes, actually it can! Or not. Depends a lot on the spell.
btw, being more [fire] would be totally awesome!
The descriptors are just there to let you know how they interact with other creatures. A spell making you become evil which is a mindset is not the same as changing you on a metaphysical level.
They could have subcategorized them much farther, but it would just be a waste of ink and the game is complicated enough as it is.
Actually...to quote Champions of Purity:Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement.So...that's a thing.
Thankfully, you can safely ignore that since it's in a campaign setting book.
It's also (I believe prior to appearing in print) been discussed quite a bit on the forums here by Sean K. Reynolds...who made it clear that the intent was that yes they did and it applies to all Alignment descriptor spells.
Thankfully, you can also safely ignore THAT since it's not a FAQ/Errata, and that's the only thing that counts involving changes to the rules, and dev commentary is specifically ruled out as being able to do that.
So, we can all ignore the dumb rule and get on with our lives, unless for some reason we'd rather use it.
Casting aligned spells does not change your alignment.
However, your motives for doing so can be informative. Casting protection from evil because of an intra-evil turf war or magic circle against evil to bind a demon are not really going to be good.
But summoning a devil when summoning an archon could do the same job is not something a Good character should want to do: a Good character shouldn't want to summon a devil at all, and would only do so if it were absolutely necessary.
That is, it is not that frequent casting of Evil spells warp your mind and change your alignment: it is that a willingness to cast those spells frequently means you may not be Good in the first place.
So [Alignment] spells are magical "No true Scotsmen"? A good character would only cast evil spells because the character isn't actually good? That's a novel idea.
I've had players cast Create Undead to make zombie farmers that can tend huge fields of crops without tiring. If motive is important, why give alignment descriptors any additional significance?
Casting aligned spells does not change your alignment.
However, your motives for doing so can be informative. Casting protection from evil because of an intra-evil turf war or magic circle against evil to bind a demon are not really going to be good.
But summoning a devil when summoning an archon could do the same job is not something a Good character should want to do: a Good character shouldn't want to summon a devil at all, and would only do so if it were absolutely necessary.
That is, it is not that frequent casting of Evil spells warp your mind and change your alignment: it is that a willingness to cast those spells frequently means you may not be Good in the first place.
So [Alignment] spells are magical "No true Scotsmen"? A good character would only cast evil spells because the character isn't actually good? That's a novel idea.
I've had players cast Create Undead to make zombie farmers that can tend huge fields of crops without tiring. If motive is important, why give alignment descriptors any additional significance?
Wait, is making slaves evil or good?
I've had players cast Create Undead to make zombie farmers that can tend huge fields of crops without tiring. If motive is important, why give alignment descriptors any additional significance?
I think ideally the spells are pretty evil to begin with, undead tend to be evil for instance(though some people think that's a stupid rule too), but you end up with awkwardness like healing someone being evil and shattering their bones to cause them pain(boneshatter) not being evil.
Wait, is making slaves evil or good?
Is making robots evil or good? They lack sapience after all.
Does casting a [Fire] spell bring more fire into the world?It's only partly a joke. One, [Fire] simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, and casting it is not assumed to have any greater effect upon you. The other [Evil] also simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, but is somehow thought to have a lasting (if minor) impact upon you. There's no logical reason the two should be different.
On a related note, how many castings of [Fire] descriptor spells are necessary to cast before gaining the Fire subtype? If casting [Evil] spells makes one more evil, surely [Fire] spells make one more fire.Yes, because nobody has ever made that joke before...
In many cases, yes, momentarily. Then it's gone, with only the results left. [Fire] spells don't automatically have a continuing burning effect, so there's no lasting increase in the world's fire. Likewise, [Evil] spells don't automatically have a continuing corruption effect, so they must not have a lasting increase in the world's evil.
Neither has reason to have a lasting effect on the caster.
I've had players cast Create Undead to make zombie farmers that can tend huge fields of crops without tiring. If motive is important, why give alignment descriptors any additional significance?I think ideally the spells are pretty evil to begin with, undead tend to be evil for instance(though some people think that's a stupid rule too), but you end up with awkwardness like healing someone being evil and shattering their bones to cause them pain(boneshatter) not being evil.
Wait, is making slaves evil or good?Is making robots evil or good? They lack sapience after all.
Robots are made of people? Curse you, Soylent Robot, Inc.!
Does casting a [Fire] spell bring more fire into the world?It's only partly a joke. One, [Fire] simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, and casting it is not assumed to have any greater effect upon you. The other [Evil] also simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, but is somehow thought to have a lasting (if minor) impact upon you. There's no logical reason the two should be different.
On a related note, how many castings of [Fire] descriptor spells are necessary to cast before gaining the Fire subtype? If casting [Evil] spells makes one more evil, surely [Fire] spells make one more fire.Yes, because nobody has ever made that joke before...In many cases, yes, momentarily. Then it's gone, with only the results left. [Fire] spells don't automatically have a continuing burning effect, so there's no lasting increase in the world's fire. Likewise, [Evil] spells don't automatically have a continuing corruption effect, so they must not have a lasting increase in the world's evil.
Neither has reason to have a lasting effect on the caster.
But by your logic, [evil] spells bring more evil into the world. Isn't that at least a little bit evil?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that Champions of Purity text had instead came from the CRB then I'd give it much more weight, but coming from a relatively obscure (by Paizo standards) sourcebook it has to be weighed against other materials that are either conspicuously silent on the matter or take the opposite stance. It's clear that some designers (such as SKR) were of the opinion that alignment desciptor spells should affect alignment. The actual published material conveys that this was not the creative consensus amongst the Pathfinder writers and developers, with at least one source (the PFS FAQ) coming out explicitly against it, and others remainingly completely silent on the matter (implying there is nothing to discuss).
I'm of the opinion that this was intentionally left ambiguous in the Core Rulebook. There is no rule that alignment spells affect your alignment. However, it's left sufficiently ambiguous that you could "Airbud clause" it and say there's no rule that alignment spells don't affect your alignment. It gives an easy out for GM's who want to do this, without actually codifying it officially. Given that hotbed of disagreement that alignment can become, that works for me. Still, the RAW is that alignment descriptors don't affect alignment.
Wait, is making slaves evil or good?Casting aligned spells does not change your alignment.
However, your motives for doing so can be informative. Casting protection from evil because of an intra-evil turf war or magic circle against evil to bind a demon are not really going to be good.
But summoning a devil when summoning an archon could do the same job is not something a Good character should want to do: a Good character shouldn't want to summon a devil at all, and would only do so if it were absolutely necessary.
That is, it is not that frequent casting of Evil spells warp your mind and change your alignment: it is that a willingness to cast those spells frequently means you may not be Good in the first place.
So [Alignment] spells are magical "No true Scotsmen"? A good character would only cast evil spells because the character isn't actually good? That's a novel idea.
I've had players cast Create Undead to make zombie farmers that can tend huge fields of crops without tiring. If motive is important, why give alignment descriptors any additional significance?
Can unintelligent undead be slaves?
Can unintelligent undead be slaves?Wait, is making slaves evil or good?Casting aligned spells does not change your alignment.
However, your motives for doing so can be informative. Casting protection from evil because of an intra-evil turf war or magic circle against evil to bind a demon are not really going to be good.
But summoning a devil when summoning an archon could do the same job is not something a Good character should want to do: a Good character shouldn't want to summon a devil at all, and would only do so if it were absolutely necessary.
That is, it is not that frequent casting of Evil spells warp your mind and change your alignment: it is that a willingness to cast those spells frequently means you may not be Good in the first place.
So [Alignment] spells are magical "No true Scotsmen"? A good character would only cast evil spells because the character isn't actually good? That's a novel idea.
I've had players cast Create Undead to make zombie farmers that can tend huge fields of crops without tiring. If motive is important, why give alignment descriptors any additional significance?
Are they paying them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can unintelligent undead be slaves?
I think that's more a matter of semantics than a meaningful distinction. Yes, it's a slave in the sense that it must do your bidding, but the moral implications of slavery aren't there because the "slave" is a mindless husk and not an intelligent being.
But by your logic, [evil] spells bring more evil into the world. Isn't that at least a little bit evil?Does casting a [Fire] spell bring more fire into the world?It's only partly a joke. One, [Fire] simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, and casting it is not assumed to have any greater effect upon you. The other [Evil] also simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, but is somehow thought to have a lasting (if minor) impact upon you. There's no logical reason the two should be different.
On a related note, how many castings of [Fire] descriptor spells are necessary to cast before gaining the Fire subtype? If casting [Evil] spells makes one more evil, surely [Fire] spells make one more fire.Yes, because nobody has ever made that joke before...In many cases, yes, momentarily. Then it's gone, with only the results left. [Fire] spells don't automatically have a continuing burning effect, so there's no lasting increase in the world's fire. Likewise, [Evil] spells don't automatically have a continuing corruption effect, so they must not have a lasting increase in the world's evil.
Neither has reason to have a lasting effect on the caster.
And [Fire] spells bring more fire into the world, but casting them doesn't bring you any closer to being fire.
Are they paying them?
What would they even spend it on?
Are they paying them?Can unintelligent undead be slaves?Wait, is making slaves evil or good?Casting aligned spells does not change your alignment.
However, your motives for doing so can be informative. Casting protection from evil because of an intra-evil turf war or magic circle against evil to bind a demon are not really going to be good.
But summoning a devil when summoning an archon could do the same job is not something a Good character should want to do: a Good character shouldn't want to summon a devil at all, and would only do so if it were absolutely necessary.
That is, it is not that frequent casting of Evil spells warp your mind and change your alignment: it is that a willingness to cast those spells frequently means you may not be Good in the first place.
So [Alignment] spells are magical "No true Scotsmen"? A good character would only cast evil spells because the character isn't actually good? That's a novel idea.
I've had players cast Create Undead to make zombie farmers that can tend huge fields of crops without tiring. If motive is important, why give alignment descriptors any additional significance?
Does any caster pay their unseen servent? Does any caster pay their golems?
Summons are actually intelligent living creatures, but aside from Planar Ally, nobody pays them.
There is no expectation of pay.
And [Fire] spells bring more fire into the world, but casting them doesn't bring you any closer to being fire.But by your logic, [evil] spells bring more evil into the world. Isn't that at least a little bit evil?Does casting a [Fire] spell bring more fire into the world?It's only partly a joke. One, [Fire] simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, and casting it is not assumed to have any greater effect upon you. The other [Evil] also simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, but is somehow thought to have a lasting (if minor) impact upon you. There's no logical reason the two should be different.
On a related note, how many castings of [Fire] descriptor spells are necessary to cast before gaining the Fire subtype? If casting [Evil] spells makes one more evil, surely [Fire] spells make one more fire.Yes, because nobody has ever made that joke before...In many cases, yes, momentarily. Then it's gone, with only the results left. [Fire] spells don't automatically have a continuing burning effect, so there's no lasting increase in the world's fire. Likewise, [Evil] spells don't automatically have a continuing corruption effect, so they must not have a lasting increase in the world's evil.
Neither has reason to have a lasting effect on the caster.
Because people aren't fire or cold but can be good or evil. So again I ask, is bringing evil into the world an evil act?
Are they paying them?What would they even spend it on?
Does that matter?
Because people aren't fire or cold but can be good or evil. So again I ask, is bringing evil into the world an evil act?And [Fire] spells bring more fire into the world, but casting them doesn't bring you any closer to being fire.But by your logic, [evil] spells bring more evil into the world. Isn't that at least a little bit evil?Does casting a [Fire] spell bring more fire into the world?It's only partly a joke. One, [Fire] simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, and casting it is not assumed to have any greater effect upon you. The other [Evil] also simply tells you what energy the spell is made of, but is somehow thought to have a lasting (if minor) impact upon you. There's no logical reason the two should be different.
On a related note, how many castings of [Fire] descriptor spells are necessary to cast before gaining the Fire subtype? If casting [Evil] spells makes one more evil, surely [Fire] spells make one more fire.Yes, because nobody has ever made that joke before...In many cases, yes, momentarily. Then it's gone, with only the results left. [Fire] spells don't automatically have a continuing burning effect, so there's no lasting increase in the world's fire. Likewise, [Evil] spells don't automatically have a continuing corruption effect, so they must not have a lasting increase in the world's evil.
Neither has reason to have a lasting effect on the caster.
Nah, just file your "trying to redeem an evil spell" paperwork section ECP-01 with the Celestial Bureaucracy.
Casting aligned spells does not change your alignment.
However, your motives for doing so can be informative. Casting protection from evil because of an intra-evil turf war or magic circle against evil to bind a demon are not really going to be good.
But summoning a devil when summoning an archon could do the same job is not something a Good character should want to do: a Good character shouldn't want to summon a devil at all, and would only do so if it were absolutely necessary.
That is, it is not that frequent casting of Evil spells warp your mind and change your alignment: it is that a willingness to cast those spells frequently means you may not be Good in the first place.
So [Alignment] spells are magical "No true Scotsmen"? A good character would only cast evil spells because the character isn't actually good? That's a novel idea.
I've had players cast Create Undead to make zombie farmers that can tend huge fields of crops without tiring. If motive is important, why give alignment descriptors any additional significance?
More like that situations where alignment shifts from alignment subtype spells are an actual concern are usually contrived situations that appear far more often in thought experiments than in actual play.
Casting aligned spells does not change your alignment.
However, your motives for doing so can be informative. Casting protection from evil because of an intra-evil turf war or magic circle against evil to bind a demon are not really going to be good.
But summoning a devil when summoning an archon could do the same job is not something a Good character should want to do: a Good character shouldn't want to summon a devil at all, and would only do so if it were absolutely necessary.
That is, it is not that frequent casting of Evil spells warp your mind and change your alignment: it is that a willingness to cast those spells frequently means you may not be Good in the first place.
So [Alignment] spells are magical "No true Scotsmen"? A good character would only cast evil spells because the character isn't actually good? That's a novel idea.
I've had players cast Create Undead to make zombie farmers that can tend huge fields of crops without tiring. If motive is important, why give alignment descriptors any additional significance?
More like that situations where alignment shifts from alignment subtype spells are an actual concern are usually contrived situations that appear far more often in thought experiments than in actual play.
Aside from hardcore Paladin toppling DMs, I imagine alignment itself is something that comes up far more often in thought experiments than in actual play.
Because people aren't fire or cold but can be good or evil. So again I ask, is bringing evil into the world an evil act?And [Fire] spells bring more fire into the world, but casting them doesn't bring you any closer to being fire.But by your logic, [evil] spells bring more evil into the world. Isn't that at least a little bit evil?Does casting a [Fire] spell bring more fire into the world?In many cases, yes, momentarily. Then it's gone, with only the results left. [Fire] spells don't automatically have a continuing burning effect, so there's no lasting increase in the world's fire. Likewise, [Evil] spells don't automatically have a continuing corruption effect, so they must not have a lasting increase in the world's evil.
Neither has reason to have a lasting effect on the caster.
People aren't good or evil either, their actions or choices are. Good humans don't get the [Good] subtype, they aren't beings of good, they're beings who behave in a good manner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People aren't good or evil either, their actions or choices are. Good humans don't get the [Good] subtype, they aren't beings of good, they're beings who behave in a good manner.Because people aren't fire or cold but can be good or evil. So again I ask, is bringing evil into the world an evil act?And [Fire] spells bring more fire into the world, but casting them doesn't bring you any closer to being fire.But by your logic, [evil] spells bring more evil into the world. Isn't that at least a little bit evil?Does casting a [Fire] spell bring more fire into the world?In many cases, yes, momentarily. Then it's gone, with only the results left. [Fire] spells don't automatically have a continuing burning effect, so there's no lasting increase in the world's fire. Likewise, [Evil] spells don't automatically have a continuing corruption effect, so they must not have a lasting increase in the world's evil.
Neither has reason to have a lasting effect on the caster.
You really don't want to answer that question do you? If people aren't good or evil in your game then you are not using alignment and your question is moot.
I imagine based on Scythia's responses that much like in every game, people are good and evil. They just (and again... like in every game) aren't [good] and [evil]. You know?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People aren't good or evil either, their actions or choices are. Good humans don't get the [Good] subtype, they aren't beings of good, they're beings who behave in a good manner.Because people aren't fire or cold but can be good or evil. So again I ask, is bringing evil into the world an evil act?And [Fire] spells bring more fire into the world, but casting them doesn't bring you any closer to being fire.But by your logic, [evil] spells bring more evil into the world. Isn't that at least a little bit evil?Does casting a [Fire] spell bring more fire into the world?In many cases, yes, momentarily. Then it's gone, with only the results left. [Fire] spells don't automatically have a continuing burning effect, so there's no lasting increase in the world's fire. Likewise, [Evil] spells don't automatically have a continuing corruption effect, so they must not have a lasting increase in the world's evil.
Neither has reason to have a lasting effect on the caster.
Who said you need a subtype to be good or evil? The rules clearly disagree with you since your alignment determines how you interact with several parts of the game. For the most part unless you are a divine class alignment does not really matter though, and in those cases the spell descriptor matters.
The fire vs evil is a stupid argument IMO. Just because they are both descriptors that does not mean they will have the exact same affect especially since one affect is an ideal, and the other is metaphysical in nature.
If you REALLY want to say they all interact in the same manner an evil spell used against your good character should do 1.5 times as much damage since opposing elemental spells work that way. <---I did not write this perfectly but I think you know what I mean. Compare how cold damage affects dragons with the fire subtype for an example.
You really don't want to answer that question do you? If people aren't good or evil in your game then you are not using alignment and your question is moot.People aren't good or evil either, their actions or choices are. Good humans don't get the [Good] subtype, they aren't beings of good, they're beings who behave in a good manner.Because people aren't fire or cold but can be good or evil. So again I ask, is bringing evil into the world an evil act?And [Fire] spells bring more fire into the world, but casting them doesn't bring you any closer to being fire.But by your logic, [evil] spells bring more evil into the world. Isn't that at least a little bit evil?Does casting a [Fire] spell bring more fire into the world?In many cases, yes, momentarily. Then it's gone, with only the results left. [Fire] spells don't automatically have a continuing burning effect, so there's no lasting increase in the world's fire. Likewise, [Evil] spells don't automatically have a continuing corruption effect, so they must not have a lasting increase in the world's evil.
Neither has reason to have a lasting effect on the caster.
Anzyr is correct. I didn't answer your question because I objected to the premise leading to it.
Since you're insistent, no, I don't believe that casting an [Evil] spell meaningfully increases the evil in the world, so therefore I don't believe it to be an inherently evil act. If the spell is used to do evil, it is an evil act. If a [Good] spell were used to do evil, it would be an evil act.
Edit: spelling
If that Champions of Purity text had instead came from the CRB then I'd give it much more weight, but coming from a relatively obscure (by Paizo standards) sourcebook it has to be weighed against other materials that are either conspicuously silent on the matter or take the opposite stance. It's clear that some designers (such as SKR) were of the opinion that alignment desciptor spells should affect alignment. The actual published material conveys that this was not the creative consensus amongst the Pathfinder writers and developers, with at least one source (the PFS FAQ) coming out explicitly against it, and others remainingly completely silent on the matter (implying there is nothing to discuss).
I'm of the opinion that this was intentionally left ambiguous in the Core Rulebook. There is no rule that alignment spells affect your alignment. However, it's left sufficiently ambiguous that you could "Airbud clause" it and say there's no rule that alignment spells don't affect your alignment. It gives an easy out for GM's who want to do this, without actually codifying it officially. Given that hotbed of disagreement that alignment can become, that works for me. Still, the RAW is that alignment descriptors don't affect alignment.
Actually it is official material for Golarion, but not Pathfinder so in Golarion is has a lot of weight. Now if it had been a generic book on good or evil then it would hold much more weight, whether it was obscure or not.
PFS has no bearing on anything other than PFS.
The only thing that really affects alignment is your GM. You could commit 1000 evil acts and not change alignment. There is no way to codify every possible action so it has to be done that way, and it allows the GM to decide how bad an action truly is. Personally I think alignment changes should mostly be a player choice anyway. Unless you doing something really bad or really good I dont bother my players about it.
Really bad=I will burn down the orphanage(with kids inside) because it is the easy way to kill the bad guys inside, instead of fighting them directly, even though they have no power to affect things on a large scale.
I like wiping out groups of filthy neutrals with Holy Word. Mostly because its totally their bad that it killed them. If they didn't want to die well I guess they should have been better people (ie. good) huh? I'm completely innocent here... I'm even doing [good]. For realsies.
Really the PFS thing makes the most sense and doesn't allow for alignment hopscotch. I think the real problem with casting spells turning you X is like Helm of Opposite Alignment, but way more hopscotchy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You really don't want to answer that question do you? If people aren't good or evil in your game then you are not using alignment and your question is moot.People aren't good or evil either, their actions or choices are. Good humans don't get the [Good] subtype, they aren't beings of good, they're beings who behave in a good manner.Because people aren't fire or cold but can be good or evil. So again I ask, is bringing evil into the world an evil act?And [Fire] spells bring more fire into the world, but casting them doesn't bring you any closer to being fire.But by your logic, [evil] spells bring more evil into the world. Isn't that at least a little bit evil?Does casting a [Fire] spell bring more fire into the world?In many cases, yes, momentarily. Then it's gone, with only the results left. [Fire] spells don't automatically have a continuing burning effect, so there's no lasting increase in the world's fire. Likewise, [Evil] spells don't automatically have a continuing corruption effect, so they must not have a lasting increase in the world's evil.
Neither has reason to have a lasting effect on the caster.
Anzyr is correct. I didn't answer your question because I objected to the premise leading to it.
Since you're insistent, no, I don't believe that casting an [Evil] spell meaningfully increases the will in the world, so therefore I don't believe it to be an inherently evil act. If the spell is used yuk do evil, it is an evil act. If a [Good] spell were used to do evil, it would be an evil act.
(This is getting really long!) Why are you comparing the two if you don't believe the two are the same. You said (or agreed to) that [Fire] spells bring more fire into the world. Why does [Evil] not bring more evil into the world? Remember, this is your analogy. I'm assuming you view them as the same. So if [Evil] spells bring evil into the world, is that an evil act? I believe it is. As to the question: "Does casting an [Evil] spell make you evil?" The answer in no (at least, not necessarily). In the game, Alignments are absolute but people are not. Good people can do bad things with two caveats. Good people should do more good than evil (way more) and Good people should not want to evil. Or to be more precise, they should object to doing evil. (Obviously objecting more or less depending on greater or lesser evil.)
On a side note: good can out weigh evil, but does not turn the evil into good. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family doesn't make you evil. But it doesn't make stealing good.
People aren't good or evil either, their actions or choices are. Good humans don't get the [Good] subtype, they aren't beings of good, they're beings who behave in a good manner.
Because people aren't fire or cold but can be good or evil. So again I ask, is bringing evil into the world an evil act?Who said you need a subtype to be good or evil? The rules clearly disagree with you since your alignment determines how you interact with several parts of the game. For the most part unless you are a divine class alignment does not really matter though, and in those cases the spell descriptor matters.
The fire vs evil is a stupid argument IMO. Just because they are both descriptors that does not mean they will have the exact same affect especially since one affect is an ideal, and the other is metaphysical in nature.
If you REALLY want to say they all interact in the same manner an evil spell used against your good character should do 1.5 times as much damage since opposing elemental spells work that way. <---I did not write this perfectly but I think you know what I mean. Compare how cold damage affects dragons with the fire...
Referencing subtypes is to show that people can't be good more than they can be fire. Their alignment is determined by their behaviour, not an inherent part of them. Alignment is a description of the behaviours and choices a character makes. Saying that casting a particular spell, without consideration of the purpose, can have an effect on that makes as much sense as saying that quoting Baptist speakers will eventually convert you.
I compare the two descriptors because I would expect spell descriptors to have consistent meanings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No but if you say "There is no God but Haruhi and Kyon is her prophet." enough times you will eventually convert everyone around you to Haruhism. Except for the people who get offended. But if they don't want to save the world by overloading it with fun... does their opinion matter?
This is getting really long!
Too long for my phone to quote it all, in fact. :P
I said:
[Fire] spells don't automatically have a continuing burning effect, so there's no lasting increase in the world's fire. Likewise, [Evil] spells don't automatically have a continuing corruption effect, so they must not have a lasting increase in the world's evil.
If it doesn't have a lasting effect, then it's not increasing evil, anymore than any spell that does damage. If you light a match, and let it go out, you increased the world's fire, but then reduced it by just as much. An [Evil] spell would be likewise. It might bring in evil energy, but then reduce it by as much when the spell ends. I'd place far more importance on what the energy is used to do than where it came from. A good argument could be made that going to war is an evil act (as it inevitably results in death and destruction), but it has been used to accomplish good as well.