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?
More people should consider converting to Haruhiism. :P
I compare the two descriptors because I would expect spell descriptors to have consistent meanings.
...and like I already said all they had to do was break the descriptors down even further but it would serve no point since most people get the intent already. There is no need to waste book space to even do that however.
Now are YOU saying that if they broke the descriptors down into sub-descriptors such as alignment based ones and the other types that exist you would be ok with alignment based descriptors changing your alignment, while not allowing for elemental based ones to change what you are?
I compare the two descriptors because I would expect spell descriptors to have consistent meanings.
...and like I already said all they had to do was break the descriptors down even further but it would serve no point since most people get the intent already. There is no need to waste book space to even do that however.
Now are YOU saying that if they broke the descriptors down into sub-descriptors such as alignment based ones and the other types that exist you would be ok with alignment based descriptors changing your alignment, while not allowing for elemental based ones to change what you are?
Rather than making them some new kind of descriptor, if the intent is for casting certain spells to change you, they could tag them as corruptive or redemptive. Then they might have to quantify it though...
Although yes, pointing out that alignment descriptors have a unique effect unlike every other spell descriptor would be acceptable.
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.
You don't think making the world more evil (even temporarily) is an evil act?
I compare the two descriptors because I would expect spell descriptors to have consistent meanings.
...and like I already said all they had to do was break the descriptors down even further but it would serve no point since most people get the intent already. There is no need to waste book space to even do that however.
Now are YOU saying that if they broke the descriptors down into sub-descriptors such as alignment based ones and the other types that exist you would be ok with alignment based descriptors changing your alignment, while not allowing for elemental based ones to change what you are?
Rather than making them some new kind of descriptor, if the intent is for casting certain spells to change you, they could tag them as corruptive or redemptive. Then they might have to quantify it though...
Although yes, pointing out that alignment descriptors have a unique effect unlike every other spell descriptor would be acceptable.
I see your point, but I don't think it is necessary since most of us get the intent(that fire and evil don't interact in the same manner). But then again I only like for things to be explained well enough to be understood. Anything past that and I tend to stop paying attention.
I see your point, but I don't think it is necessary since most of us get the intent(that fire and evil don't interact in the same manner). But then again I only like for things to be explained well enough to be understood. Anything past that and I tend to stop paying attention.
I compare the two descriptors because I would expect spell descriptors to have consistent meanings.
...and like I already said all they had to do was break the descriptors down even further but it would serve no point since most people get the intent already. There is no need to waste book space to even do that however.
Now are YOU saying that if they broke the descriptors down into sub-descriptors such as alignment based ones and the other types that exist you would be ok with alignment based descriptors changing your alignment, while not allowing for elemental based ones to change what you are?
Rather than making them some new kind of descriptor, if the intent is for casting certain spells to change you, they could tag them as corruptive or redemptive. Then they might have to quantify it though...
Although yes, pointing out that alignment descriptors have a unique effect unlike every other spell descriptor would be acceptable.
Considering how many people disagree with, or are unaware of the special significance of alignment descriptors, I'd say it's not all that clear.
I'm not suggesting anyone is playing wrong, or that anyone's interpretation is incorrect, just that the lack of consistency makes things unclear. Also it seems odd to me to think that a remorseless serial killer could repeatedly cast Protection from Evil and change into a saint.
You don't think making the world more evil (even temporarily) is an evil act?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.
Was Lincoln's decision to go to war in order to force the Confederate states to rejoin the Union? That decision led to the bloodiest war in American history. In the short term (temporary), it meant death, destruction of families, property, and people's way of life. In the long run, his decision maintained the integrity of the United States, and led to an increase in national liberty and freedom.
In short, no I don't think so. I consider intent and circumstance first.
You don't think making the world more evil (even temporarily) is an evil act?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.
Was Lincoln's decision to go to war in order to force the Confederate states to rejoin the Union? That decision led to the bloodiest war in American history. In the short term (temporary), it meant death, destruction of families, property, and people's way of life. In the long run, his decision maintained the integrity of the United States, and led to an increase in national liberty and freedom.
In short, no I don't think so. I consider intent and circumstance first.
So just to be clear, if you commit an evil act and good results from it, you believe the act itself becomes good?
Also it seems odd to me to think that a remorseless serial killer could repeatedly cast Protection from Evil and change into a saint.
That is one of those things that might work by RAW if Paizo directly said the spells affect alignment, but most GM's would shut down at the table. We are in the rules forum, but I still expect for GM's to use their "no" power stop certain things.
I'm not suggesting anyone is playing wrong, or that anyone's interpretation is incorrect, just that the lack of consistency makes things unclear. Also it seems odd to me to think that a remorseless serial killer could repeatedly cast Protection from Evil and change into a saint.
Could a remorseless serial killer achieve sainthood by repeatedly helping old ladies cross the street?
Could a remorseless serial killer achieve sainthood by repeatedly helping old ladies cross the street?
I'm not suggesting anyone is playing wrong, or that anyone's interpretation is incorrect, just that the lack of consistency makes things unclear. Also it seems odd to me to think that a remorseless serial killer could repeatedly cast Protection from Evil and change into a saint.
Can a saint be as reviled as a serial killer by littering enough?
Can a saint be as reviled as a serial killer by littering enough?Could a remorseless serial killer achieve sainthood by repeatedly helping old ladies cross the street?
I'm not suggesting anyone is playing wrong, or that anyone's interpretation is incorrect, just that the lack of consistency makes things unclear. Also it seems odd to me to think that a remorseless serial killer could repeatedly cast Protection from Evil and change into a saint.
I would say no. Were you asking me?
I'm having a hard time following the argument then.
You both think the concept is silly.
Why are you arguing about it?
I'm having a hard time following the argument then.
You both think the concept is silly.
Why are you arguing about it?
As a form of social activity. :P
That is one of those things that might work by RAW if Paizo directly said the spells affect alignment, but most GM's would shut down at the table. We are in the rules forum, but I still expect for GM's to use their "no" power stop certain things.
Also it seems odd to me to think that a remorseless serial killer could repeatedly cast Protection from Evil and change into a saint.
Did this thread get moved to the rules forum?
I agree with you, although I go one further, and say "just say no" to the idea that spells, regardless of use, can affect alignment.
I'm having a hard time following the argument then.
You both think the concept is silly.
Why are you arguing about it?
I don't think that casting an [Evil] spell being an evil act is silly.
So just to be clear, if you commit an evil act and good results from it, you believe the act itself becomes good?
I believe if a person commits an evil act, for a good reason, and good results, it can be considered a good act. It's a matter of magnitude and scale.
As to the serial killer helping old ladies cross the road, it doesn't count if he's taking them across the road to his abattoir. More seriously though, no I don't think he could become a saint like that. Then again I also don't think that casting [Alignment] spells should change alignments.
That is one of those things that might work by RAW if Paizo directly said the spells affect alignment, but most GM's would shut down at the table. We are in the rules forum, but I still expect for GM's to use their "no" power stop certain things.
Also it seems odd to me to think that a remorseless serial killer could repeatedly cast Protection from Evil and change into a saint.Did this thread get moved to the rules forum?
I agree with you, although I go one further, and say "just say no" to the idea that spells, regardless of use, can affect alignment.
It was, but I think it was in general discussion now. I had scrolled up earlier to check the path. Sometimes a thread is moved once the tone of the thread changes.
For the most part it does not matter. Good deities don't grant evil spells to cleric or inquisitors IIRC. A paladin would fall before having his alignment change. The only divine caster that might change is the oracle, but he is likely doing enough good to offset the spell. I guess a druid or ranger could cast evil spells, but then I fall back on my oracle statement.
And arcane casters just would not care.
I started the thread in general discussion. :P
Given that the example I began with was an evil wizard, I was already taking the alignment spells restriction divine casters have. I was really trying to come up with a tongue in cheek way to point out the (what I saw as absurdity) of trying to pin down the precise alignment change value, per casting, of an aligned spell. If simply casting it can change someone's alignment, then there should be some way to measure the change. Otherwise it's so vague as to be pointless to include.
The idea that casting protection from ___ can turn your alignment into the opposite seems as absurd to me as gaining fire traits from casting fireball.
I started the thread in general discussion. :P
Given that the example I began with was an evil wizard, I was already taking the alignment spells restriction divine casters have. I was really trying to come up with a tongue in cheek way to point out the (what I saw as absurdity) of trying to pin down the precise alignment change value, per casting, of an aligned spell. If simply casting it can change someone's alignment, then there should be some way to measure the change. Otherwise it's so vague as to be pointless to include.
The idea that casting protection from ___ can turn your alignment into the opposite seems as absurd to me as gaining fire traits from casting fireball.
I agree that specific spell should not be evil, but I do agree with the idea that csting certain spells can be an evil act.
I agree that specific spell should not be evil, but I do agree with the idea that csting certain spells can be an evil act.I started the thread in general discussion. :P
Given that the example I began with was an evil wizard, I was already taking the alignment spells restriction divine casters have. I was really trying to come up with a tongue in cheek way to point out the (what I saw as absurdity) of trying to pin down the precise alignment change value, per casting, of an aligned spell. If simply casting it can change someone's alignment, then there should be some way to measure the change. Otherwise it's so vague as to be pointless to include.
The idea that casting protection from ___ can turn your alignment into the opposite seems as absurd to me as gaining fire traits from casting fireball.
I think that any spell used to do evil is an evil act. I don't think that a spell itself is evil by nature. If we're going to declare particular spells to be evil, we should begin with all the "blasting" spells. They exist only to do harm and end lives. They have no constructive purpose. They can only destroy and cause suffering. Sounds pretty evil.
I believe if a person commits an evil act, for a good reason, and good results, it can be considered a good act. It's a matter of magnitude and scale.
So just to be clear, if you commit an evil act and good results from it, you believe the act itself becomes good?
That's where we disagree. An evil act is still an evil act when used for good. Now the outcome can be good but the act itself is still evil. That's not to say a good person can't do bad things or you can't commit a lesser evil for a greater good. It's just that the lesser evil is still evil.
As to the serial killer helping old ladies cross the road, it doesn't count if he's taking them across the road to his abattoir. More seriously though, no I don't think he could become a saint like that. Then again I also don't think that casting [Alignment] spells should change alignments.
Here we agree. One or two minor acts don't change alignment. Nor do I think a string of minor acts out weighs a series of major acts. I do believe intent matters, it's just not the only thing that matters. Casting an [Evil] spell (an arguably evil act) to save the world does not make you an evil person. The same way killing (an obviously evil act) the BBEG to save the world does not make you evil.
I believe if a person commits an evil act, for a good reason, and good results, it can be considered a good act. It's a matter of magnitude and scale.
So just to be clear, if you commit an evil act and good results from it, you believe the act itself becomes good?That's where we disagree. An evil act is still an evil act when used for good. Now the outcome can be good but the act itself is still evil. That's not to say a good person can't do bad things or you can't commit a lesser evil for a greater good. It's just that the lesser evil is still evil.
As to the serial killer helping old ladies cross the road, it doesn't count if he's taking them across the road to his abattoir. More seriously though, no I don't think he could become a saint like that. Then again I also don't think that casting [Alignment] spells should change alignments.Here we agree. One or two minor acts don't change alignment. Nor do I think a string of minor acts out weighs a series of major acts. I do believe intent matters, it's just not the only thing that matters. Casting an [Evil] spell (an arguably evil act) to save the world does not make you an evil person. The same way killing (an obviously evil act) the BBEG to save the world does not make you evil.
I suspect part of our disagreement is a matter of perspective. I'm very much a shades of grey morality person, and a fan of Anti-hero (modern usage) stories. A bit cynical at times.
I'll accept what consensus we did reach though.
I think that any spell used to do evil is an evil act. I don't think that a spell itself is evil by nature. If we're going to declare particular spells to be evil, we should begin with all the "blasting" spells. They exist only to do harm and end lives. They have no constructive purpose. They can only destroy and cause suffering. Sounds pretty evil.I agree that specific spell should not be evil, but I do agree with the idea that csting certain spells can be an evil act.I started the thread in general discussion. :P
Given that the example I began with was an evil wizard, I was already taking the alignment spells restriction divine casters have. I was really trying to come up with a tongue in cheek way to point out the (what I saw as absurdity) of trying to pin down the precise alignment change value, per casting, of an aligned spell. If simply casting it can change someone's alignment, then there should be some way to measure the change. Otherwise it's so vague as to be pointless to include.
The idea that casting protection from ___ can turn your alignment into the opposite seems as absurd to me as gaining fire traits from casting fireball.
See this is where you get into the whole "there are no evil acts, only intentions matter" and the robots take over the world to keep us all safe. There are both evil acts and evil intentions.
I believe if a person commits an evil act, for a good reason, and good results, it can be considered a good act. It's a matter of magnitude and scale.
So just to be clear, if you commit an evil act and good results from it, you believe the act itself becomes good?That's where we disagree. An evil act is still an evil act when used for good. Now the outcome can be good but the act itself is still evil. That's not to say a good person can't do bad things or you can't commit a lesser evil for a greater good. It's just that the lesser evil is still evil.
As to the serial killer helping old ladies cross the road, it doesn't count if he's taking them across the road to his abattoir. More seriously though, no I don't think he could become a saint like that. Then again I also don't think that casting [Alignment] spells should change alignments.Here we agree. One or two minor acts don't change alignment. Nor do I think a string of minor acts out weighs a series of major acts. I do believe intent matters, it's just not the only thing that matters. Casting an [Evil] spell (an arguably evil act) to save the world does not make you an evil person. The same way killing (an obviously evil act) the BBEG to save the world does not make you evil.I suspect part of our disagreement is a matter of perspective. I'm very much a shades of grey morality person, and a fan of Anti-hero (modern usage) stories. A bit cynical at times.
I'll accept what consensus we did reach though.
I love shades of gray! (Unless you're talking about the book. Never read it.) But for gray you need black and white. If your anti-hero uses evil methods to accomplish good deeds, and those good deeds then make his evil methods good methods, then how is he (or she) gray?
I think that any spell used to do evil is an evil act. I don't think that a spell itself is evil by nature. If we're going to declare particular spells to be evil, we should begin with all the "blasting" spells. They exist only to do harm and end lives. They have no constructive purpose. They can only destroy and cause suffering. Sounds pretty evil.I agree that specific spell should not be evil, but I do agree with the idea that csting certain spells can be an evil act.I started the thread in general discussion. :P
Given that the example I began with was an evil wizard, I was already taking the alignment spells restriction divine casters have. I was really trying to come up with a tongue in cheek way to point out the (what I saw as absurdity) of trying to pin down the precise alignment change value, per casting, of an aligned spell. If simply casting it can change someone's alignment, then there should be some way to measure the change. Otherwise it's so vague as to be pointless to include.
The idea that casting protection from ___ can turn your alignment into the opposite seems as absurd to me as gaining fire traits from casting fireball.
Actually causing harm is not enough to make a spell evil for me. A blasting spell can be useful just like TNT can be useful.
I would make conjuration spells evil in the game when use to summon evil outsiders.
Creating undead I can understand being evil, but only if the setting ties it to the doing something bad to the creature's(target of the spell) soul. I would also understand if it tainted the soul of the caster.
I also think that creating golems should be evil since it binds an elemental to the golem, and they are sentient beings.
|
Creating undead I can understand being evil, but only if the setting ties it to the doing something bad to the creature's(target of the spell) soul. I would also understand if it tainted the soul of the caster.
Creating permanent undead is like polluting, only worse, and completely avoidable. You're littering the world with murderous monsters that inherently try to destroy all life barring magic actively preventing them from doing so, and who never go away until actively destroyed. That's...understandably pretty bad.
They also do have some effect on the soul since not even True Resurrection can bring someone back from death if their body is undead at the moment. For mindless undead this effect is relatively minor...intelligent undead sorta trap the soul in the body and warp it towards Evil, though...which is even worse.
I think that any spell used to do evil is an evil act. I don't think that a spell itself is evil by nature. If we're going to declare particular spells to be evil, we should begin with all the "blasting" spells. They exist only to do harm and end lives. They have no constructive purpose. They can only destroy and cause suffering. Sounds pretty evil.See this is where you get into the whole "there are no evil acts, only intentions matter" and the robots take over the world to keep us all safe. There are both evil acts and evil intentions.
So my question would be: How is casting a spell that heals someone over time (Infernal Healing) automatically evil, while casting a spell exclusively intended to maim or ideally kill (Burning Hands), not evil? How is a spell that does some damage, and prevents quality sleep (Nightmare) evil, but a spell that literally steals life energy from the victim to use to protect the thief (Vampiric Touch) isn't?
What are the the standards?
Creating undead I can understand being evil, but only if the setting ties it to the doing something bad to the creature's(target of the spell) soul. I would also understand if it tainted the soul of the caster.Creating permanent undead is like polluting, only worse, and completely avoidable. You're littering the world with murderous monsters that inherently try to destroy all life barring magic actively preventing them from doing so, and who never go away until actively destroyed. That's...understandably pretty bad.
They also do have some effect on the soul since not even True Resurrection can bring someone back from death if their body is undead at the moment. For mindless undead this effect is relatively minor...intelligent undead sorta trap the soul in the body and warp it towards Evil, though...which is even worse.
I never saw the rule about a soul being trapped. So what if the person is returned to life via true ressurection, and then you target their old body?
Zombies and skeletons can be made to not attack, but I do agree that creating other types of undead is a bad idea since it brings evil into the world, and if they are intelligent they might do what they want once the caster is no longer around.
I think that any spell used to do evil is an evil act. I don't think that a spell itself is evil by nature. If we're going to declare particular spells to be evil, we should begin with all the "blasting" spells. They exist only to do harm and end lives. They have no constructive purpose. They can only destroy and cause suffering. Sounds pretty evil.See this is where you get into the whole "there are no evil acts, only intentions matter" and the robots take over the world to keep us all safe. There are both evil acts and evil intentions.So my question would be: How is casting a spell that heals someone over time (Infernal Healing) automatically evil, while casting a spell exclusively intended to maim or ideally kill (Burning Hands), not evil? How is a spell that does some damage, and prevents quality sleep (Nightmare) evil, but a spell that literally steals life energy from the victim to use to protect the thief (Vampiric Touch) isn't?
What are the the standards?
As I said before the game also goes by media tropes, and if the source is evil then it is generally a bad idea to use it. Some part of a devil is needed for infernal healing IIRC.
PS: I don't consider hit points to be life energy. Now if it had a more permanent affect then I would say it should be evil.
Welcome to 'alignment is bad and you should feel bad for using it' thread number eleventy billion.
And welcome to your eleventy billion and one pointless post in this kind of thread...
Casting spells will not change your alignment.
The use that the spell is put might.
Saying casting evil descriptor spells makes one evil is a silly as blaming global warming on people casting fireball all day long.
Welcome to 'alignment is bad and you should feel bad for using it' thread number eleventy billion.And welcome to your eleventy billion and one pointless post in this kind of thread...
Casting spells will not change your alignment.
The use that the spell is put might.
Saying casting evil descriptor spells makes one evil is a silly as blaming global warming on people casting fireball all day long.
What if the evil spells traps a good soul, but you get to save the lives of 20 kids?
Is that an evil act or a good one?
I love shades of gray! (Unless you're talking about the book. Never read it.) But for gray you need black and white. If your anti-hero uses evil methods to accomplish good deeds, and those good deeds then make his evil methods good methods, then how is he (or she) gray?
I suspect part of our disagreement is a matter of perspective. I'm very much a shades of grey morality person, and a fan of Anti-hero (modern usage) stories. A bit cynical at times.I'll accept what consensus we did reach though.
I don't read fanfic, ascended or otherwise... except Squirrel King.
Grey because nobody is all good, and nobody is pure evil. Everyone's imperfect and living in a flawed world, so the anti-hero uses whatever means they can to try to make difference, or achieve some (worthwhile) goal. In a shades of grey approach, white and black don't really exist, except as stories you tell kids to make them feel better, or stories you tell to scare them.
I love shades of gray! (Unless you're talking about the book. Never read it.) But for gray you need black and white. If your anti-hero uses evil methods to accomplish good deeds, and those good deeds then make his evil methods good methods, then how is he (or she) gray?
I suspect part of our disagreement is a matter of perspective. I'm very much a shades of grey morality person, and a fan of Anti-hero (modern usage) stories. A bit cynical at times.I'll accept what consensus we did reach though.
I don't read fanfic, ascended or otherwise... except Squirrel King.
Grey because nobody is all good, and nobody is pure evil. Everyone's imperfect and living in a flawed world, so the anti-hero uses whatever means they can to try to make difference, or achieve some (worthwhile) goal. In a shades of grey approach, white and black don't really exist, except as stories you tell kids to make them feel better, or stories you tell to scare them.
I agree with this for real life, but in D&D land evil and good are things that people can be. I think it is over-simplified, but for the conversation I am mostly speaking from an "in fantasyland" perspective, not a real life one.
Casting spells will not change your alignment.
The use that the spell is put might.
Saying casting evil descriptor spells makes one evil is a silly as blaming global warming on people casting fireball all day long.
I made almost the same point a few posts back. Thanks for the back-up though. :P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So my question would be: How is casting a spell that heals someone over time (Infernal Healing) automatically evil, while casting a spell exclusively intended to maim or ideally kill (Burning Hands), not evil? How is a spell that does some damage, and prevents quality sleep (Nightmare) evil, but a spell that literally steals life energy from the victim to use to protect the thief (Vampiric Touch) isn't?
What are the the standards?
This is a somewhat different complaint than the original one, and one I tend to agree with to some degree. I'm cool with [Evil] spells effecting alignment, but which spells are [Evil] seems...more than a bit arbitrary. I'd probably remove it from the Protection From X and Magic Circle Against X spells, personally...though not a lot of others I think of off the top of my head.
That said, using swords or other weapons isn't inherently Evil, nor should weaponized spells be. That's silly. Vampiric Touch not being is weird, given the various cannibalism-for-power spells being that way (and at least one dev stating that this was a general principle). Nightmare makes sense as Evil to me, though. It's psychic violation, not just damage.
Infernal Healing is an interesting case because it was probably designed by Asmodeus personally. Having this really useful, seemingly innocuous in effect...but indisputably evil in nature (you can literally feel how evil it is when it's use), spell that nonetheless gradually corrupts those who use it seems entirely thematically appropriate for him, so I'd likely keep it as-is for thematic reasons. You could justify it with the above-mentioned 'cannibalism-for-power as Evil' thing pretty readily by saying it siphons off power to heal you from the eternal pain of the souls of the damned or some such...meaning you are causing measurable torture to someone in hell every time you cast it.
I agree with this for real life, but in D&D land evil and good are things that people can be. I think it is over-simplified, but for the conversation I am mostly speaking from an "in fantasyland" perspective, not a real life one.
I don't read fanfic, ascended or otherwise... except Squirrel King.Grey because nobody is all good, and nobody is pure evil. Everyone's imperfect and living in a flawed world, so the anti-hero uses whatever means they can to try to make difference, or achieve some (worthwhile) goal. In a shades of grey approach, white and black don't really exist, except as stories you tell kids to make them feel better, or stories you tell to scare them.
That's a good way to put it.
I'll agree. In the world where good triumphs over evil, and knights save damsels and so forth, Good and Evil wage wars for the souls of men, and to transact with evil is to risk disaster.PS: I don't consider hit points to be life energy. Now if it had a more permanent affect then I would say it should be evil.
A loss of hit points can certainly lead to death. It's terribly abstract, I'll agree though.
So my question would be: How is casting a spell that heals someone over time (Infernal Healing) automatically evil, while casting a spell exclusively intended to maim or ideally kill (Burning Hands), not evil?I think that any spell used to do evil is an evil act. I don't think that a spell itself is evil by nature. If we're going to declare particular spells to be evil, we should begin with all the "blasting" spells. They exist only to do harm and end lives. They have no constructive purpose. They can only destroy and cause suffering. Sounds pretty evil.See this is where you get into the whole "there are no evil acts, only intentions matter" and the robots take over the world to keep us all safe. There are both evil acts and evil intentions.
The first spell literally taints the subject of the spell so that they radiate evil while it is in effect (I think, I don't actually know that spell. I've just seen it on the boards.) and the other spell is just fire. Fire is not inherently good or evil.
How is a spell that does some damage, and prevents quality sleep (Nightmare) evil, but a spell that literally steals life energy from the victim to use to protect the thief (Vampiric Touch) isn't?
I don't know. But I bet I could make something up if I looked up the two spells to see exactly how they worked.
What are the the standards?
Evil spells are powered by evil. You can use the spell with various intentions to various effects but the spell itself is still evil.
Let's say you have two guns. One is powered by clubbing puppies to death with baby seals and the other one is just a gun. You can use either gun to protect yourself from a burglar but the seal clubbing puppy gun is still evil.
|
|
I never saw the rule about a soul being trapped. So what if the person is returned to life via true ressurection, and then you target their old body?
True Resurrection can't restore them to life until you destroy the undead in question. Check the spell.
Zombies and skeletons can be made to not attack,
Yes...but only with magic (ie: the power you have over them as their creator, or that you use to take them over)...but if you ever go over your HD limit the excess revert to standard behavior (ie: attacking the living). It's debatable that the same might happen if you die, since it's unclear if they'll keep obeying your last order at that point or what. They'll certainly not accept new orders absent magic, and might easily cause damage and destruction thereby. Also, since they'll kill anyone they can, if your orders aren't specific enough using them can result in quite a body count.
but I do agree that creating other types of undead is a bad idea since it brings evil into the world, and if they are intelligent they might do what they want once the caster is no longer around.
Even zombies and skeletons have a primal drive to extinguish life (hence the Evil alignment despite being mindless). They're easier to restrain, but at heart not a lot safer.
So my question would be: How is casting a spell that heals someone over time (Infernal Healing) automatically evil, while casting a spell exclusively intended to maim or ideally kill (Burning Hands), not evil? How is a spell that does some damage, and prevents quality sleep (Nightmare) evil, but a spell that literally steals life energy from the victim to use to protect the thief (Vampiric Touch) isn't?
What are the the standards?
This is a somewhat different complaint than the original one, and one I tend to agree with to some degree. I'm cool with [Evil] spells effecting alignment, but which spells are [Evil] seems...more than a bit arbitrary. I'd probably remove it from the Protection From X and Magic Circle Against X spells, personally...though not a lot of others I think of off the top of my head.
That said, using swords or other weapons isn't inherently Evil, nor should weaponized spells be. That's silly. Vampiric Touch not being is weird, given the various cannibalism-for-power spells being that way (and at least one dev stating that this was a general principle). Nightmare makes sense as Evil to me, though. It's psychic violation, not just damage.
Infernal Healing is an interesting case because it was probably designed by Asmodeus personally. Having this really useful, seemingly innocuous in effect...but indisputably evil in nature (you can literally feel how evil it is when it's use), spell that nonetheless gradually corrupts those who use it seems entirely thematically appropriate for him, so I'd likely keep it as-is for thematic reasons. You could justify it with the above-mentioned 'cannibalism-for-power as Evil' thing pretty readily by saying it siphons off power to heal you from the eternal pain of the souls of the damned or some such...meaning you are causing measurable torture to someone in hell every time you cast it.
Since the actual effect of the spell seems so incongruent with the [Evil], would you allow a player in your game to have a spell called "troll healing" and required a drop of troll's blood instead? Just an off topic tangent question.
I love shades of gray! (Unless you're talking about the book. Never read it.) But for gray you need black and white. If your anti-hero uses evil methods to accomplish good deeds, and those good deeds then make his evil methods good methods, then how is he (or she) gray?
I suspect part of our disagreement is a matter of perspective. I'm very much a shades of grey morality person, and a fan of Anti-hero (modern usage) stories. A bit cynical at times.I'll accept what consensus we did reach though.
I don't read fanfic, ascended or otherwise... except Squirrel King.
Grey because nobody is all good, and nobody is pure evil. Everyone's imperfect and living in a flawed world, so the anti-hero uses whatever means they can to try to make difference, or achieve some (worthwhile) goal. In a shades of grey approach, white and black don't really exist, except as stories you tell kids to make them feel better, or stories you tell to scare them.
Except your method makes the character all good. Because his evil acts were done with good intentions and/or lead to good results, his evil acts are now good acts, right? Wasn't that your argument? So you have black results in white, white changes black to white, so character is all white. You removed the gray.
|
|
Since the actual effect of the spell seems so incongruent with the [Evil], would you allow a player in your game to have a spell called "troll healing" and required a drop of troll's blood instead? Just an off topic tangent question.
No. Basically because of this post by James Jacobs. Not because of any rules implications, but because I really like the idea that pure Arcane magic as used by Wizards basically can't heal and the spell only works because Asmodeus is cheating. That's just thematically beautiful.
I never saw the rule about a soul being trapped. So what if the person is returned to life via true ressurection, and then you target their old body?True Resurrection can't restore them to life until you destroy the undead in question. Check the spell.
I know. That is why I applied it in the reverse order. From what I remember you don't even need the person's body to bring them back to life with True Res so the old body is still out there somewhere. You are alive again and then someone finds your old corpse, but if the spell says it reforms your body at the current position, then maybe reincarnation might be the spell I would need to make this example work. Basically the idea is that you are live, but your old body is out there somewhere.
Since the actual effect of the spell seems so incongruent with the [Evil], would you allow a player in your game to have a spell called "troll healing" and required a drop of troll's blood instead? Just an off topic tangent question.
Trolls are not made of evil souls, so the are not evil in the sense that outsiders are. They are evil more likely due to their upbringing.
Since the actual effect of the spell seems so incongruent with the [Evil], would you allow a player in your game to have a spell called "troll healing" and required a drop of troll's blood instead? Just an off topic tangent question.Trolls are not made of evil souls, so the are not evil in the sense that outsiders are. They are evil more likely due to their upbringing.
Right, so the spell would no longer have any reason to be [Evil]. That was what I was going for.
|
|
Right, so the spell would no longer have any reason to be [Evil]. That was what I was going for.Since the actual effect of the spell seems so incongruent with the [Evil], would you allow a player in your game to have a spell called "troll healing" and required a drop of troll's blood instead? Just an off topic tangent question.Trolls are not made of evil souls, so the are not evil in the sense that outsiders are. They are evil more likely due to their upbringing.
Indeed. For the record, I got that. My answer stands as written above.
Except your method makes the character all good. Because his evil acts were done with good intentions and/or lead to good results, his evil acts are now good acts, right? Wasn't that your argument? So you have black results in white, white changes black to white, so character is all white. You removed the gray.
I don't read fanfic, ascended or otherwise... except Squirrel King.Grey because nobody is all good, and nobody is pure evil. Everyone's imperfect and living in a flawed world, so the anti-hero uses whatever means they can to try to make difference, or achieve some (worthwhile) goal. In a shades of grey approach, white and black don't really exist, except as stories you tell kids to make them feel better, or stories you tell to scare them.
Being the best smelling chunk in the sewer doesn't mean anybody would confuse you for a rose.
Doing evil things for good reasons, and getting good results is grey by definition. It's good on balance. There are generally costs and consequences, and victory such as it is in this setting, is rarely complete or final (quite often pyhrric).
White is doing the right things, for the right reasons, and getting the right result. Even if it's overall good, anything less is not white no matter how high your contrast.
Indeed. For the record, I got that. My answer stands as written above.Right, so the spell would no longer have any reason to be [Evil]. That was what I was going for.Since the actual effect of the spell seems so incongruent with the [Evil], would you allow a player in your game to have a spell called "troll healing" and required a drop of troll's blood instead? Just an off topic tangent question.Trolls are not made of evil souls, so the are not evil in the sense that outsiders are. They are evil more likely due to their upbringing.
I don't hold arcane to that thematic limitation, but that's a fine reason. I was just curious.
Except your method makes the character all good. Because his evil acts were done with good intentions and/or lead to good results, his evil acts are now good acts, right? Wasn't that your argument? So you have black results in white, white changes black to white, so character is all white. You removed the gray.
I don't read fanfic, ascended or otherwise... except Squirrel King.Grey because nobody is all good, and nobody is pure evil. Everyone's imperfect and living in a flawed world, so the anti-hero uses whatever means they can to try to make difference, or achieve some (worthwhile) goal. In a shades of grey approach, white and black don't really exist, except as stories you tell kids to make them feel better, or stories you tell to scare them.
Being the best smelling chunk in the sewer doesn't mean anybody would confuse you for a rose.
Doing evil things for good reasons, and getting good results is grey by definition. It's good on balance. There are generally costs and consequences, and victory such as it is in this setting, is rarely complete or final (quite often pyhrric).
White is doing the right things, for the right reasons, and getting the right result. Even if it's overall good, anything less is not white no matter how high your contrast.
That only works if evil stays evil. So when you say:
I believe if a person commits an evil act, for a good reason, and good results, it can be considered a good act. It's a matter of magnitude and scale.
and the evil act becomes a good act, then you have removed the gray. If the act becomes good, then you have done the right thing, for the right reasons , if you get the right result.
Except your method makes the character all good. Because his evil acts were done with good intentions and/or lead to good results, his evil acts are now good acts, right? Wasn't that your argument? So you have black results in white, white changes black to white, so character is all white. You removed the gray.Being the best smelling chunk in the sewer doesn't mean anybody would confuse you for a rose.
Doing evil things for good reasons, and getting good results is grey by definition. It's good on balance. There are generally costs and consequences, and victory such as it is in this setting, is rarely complete or final (quite often pyhrric).
White is doing the right things, for the right reasons, and getting the right result. Even if it's overall good, anything less is not white no matter how high your contrast.
That only works if evil stays evil. So when you say:
and the evil act becomes a good act, then you have removed the gray. If the act becomes good, then you have done the right thing, for the right reasons , if you get the right result.I believe if a person commits an evil act, for a good reason, and good results, it can be considered a good act. It's a matter of magnitude and scale.
Evil still exists. People do the wrong thing for the right reasons and get the wrong results. People do the right thing for the wrong reasons and get right or wrong results. Some people do the wrong thing for the wrong reason, and results may vary. Just because I believe the right two out of three qualifies as good doesn't mean evil ceases to exist.