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.
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.
But you still don't get your anti-hero. Either he succeeds and his bad deeds become good deeds (so no "anti") or he fails (so no hero). Again, if you want a character to do bad things for the greater good, then they have to stay bad things. Otherwise you're doing good things for the greater good. Understand?
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.But you still don't get your anti-hero. Either he succeeds and his bad deeds become good deeds (so no "anti") or he fails (so no hero). Again, if you want a character to do bad things for the greater good, then they have to stay bad things. Otherwise you're doing good things for the greater good. Understand?
I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it.
A traditional hero doesn't do the wrong thing no matter what the outcome, that's why the anti. It's only a good act if it works out. There is an evil act involved, but because it was done for a good reason, and produced good results, the overall act is good. At least as good as anything can be in such a worldview.
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.But you still don't get your anti-hero. Either he succeeds and his bad deeds become good deeds (so no "anti") or he fails (so no hero). Again, if you want a character to do bad things for the greater good, then they have to stay bad things. Otherwise you're doing good things for the greater good. Understand?I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it.
A traditional hero doesn't do the wrong thing no matter what the outcome, that's why the anti. It's only a good act if it works out. There is an evil act involved, but because it was done for a good reason, and produced good results, the overall act is good. At least as good as anything can be in such a worldview.
The overall is good but the act is still bad. So what you end up with is a Good character who has done some evil acts. Those evil acts don't change his alignment. Just like casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act but doesn't necessarily make you evil.
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.But you still don't get your anti-hero. Either he succeeds and his bad deeds become good deeds (so no "anti") or he fails (so no hero). Again, if you want a character to do bad things for the greater good, then they have to stay bad things. Otherwise you're doing good things for the greater good. Understand?I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it.
A traditional hero doesn't do the wrong thing no matter what the outcome, that's why the anti. It's only a good act if it works out. There is an evil act involved, but because it was done for a good reason, and produced good results, the overall act is good. At least as good as anything can be in such a worldview.
A good/evil result has nothing to do with the act(path)to getting there being good.
You can do a good thing for a good reason and get bad results. You can do the wrong thing for the wrong reason, and get good results.
If I call upon the forces of darkness to save a village it is still an evil act to call upon, even though the result is good. How you get there is the act(means), and it should not be confused with the results(ends).
Many times in fantasy stories the consequences of such things are not played out until much later on, and that risk is partly why they are evil.
You save the village, and close the portal to the dark realm, but something stays behind that you did not see. 25 years later after your adventuring days are far behind you it sets up something much worse than the evil you initially stopped.
another idea-->It is kind of like accepting a wish from a glabrezu. Yeah you wished for weapon X to defeat the tyrant, and you think someone else can deal with whatever that glabrezu has just set you up for because today the battle was won. Well maybe that sword was not just any sword, but a sword with the abilities to take over people's minds. It plunges the region into war, and you are the one that brought it here. Now the glazebru returns in a disguised form offering solutions that just feel more souls into the abyss even though the person taking the advice does not know it.
That is why the idea of the ends justify the means should not be used by good characters. Avoid the easy path, and just do things the right way the first time around.
Evil is not good because good does what it has to, even if it is more difficult. Evil does what is convenient.
Somewhat related:
I have tried to set players up like this more than once, but they have never taken the bait. Life surely would have been bad for the PC's if they had done so.
Sometimes it is less blatant, but the easy(at least up front) path has been presented. :)
It appears that James Jacobs has answered this question if anyone still cares.
It's question 16 on that huge list. I personally disagree but he is as close to Word of God as we're gonna get.
James has said that more than once. I would assume that if him and SKR have the same stance, that is the intent, and I agree that is the rule.
Me enforcing every "evil" spell is another thing altogther though.
James has said that more than once. I would assume that if him and SKR have the same stance, that is the intent, and I agree that is the rule.
Me enforcing every "evil" spell is another thing altogther though.
Agreed. I just can't see protection from good making you more evil when it doesn't do anything evil necessarily. Some paladin is tricked into thinking I'm a bad guy so I buff my AC and saves against him. All I'm doing is protecting myself in a way that doesn't hurt anyone. I just don't see that as evil. I would definitely houserule that in my home games.
I like the discussion. I have almost always ruled in kind of by case. For kind of an extreme example: If I have a lawful good society, but it is the cultural norm to create undead, then their society has deemed it morally ok to do so. Given that their society has come to this conclusion I would deem it fine. If, on the other hand, it is embedded into their moral code for thousands of years not to create undead then there may be an issue. Or what if you had a gold dragon who was under the impression that a good character did something wrong or being wrongfully accused? Would you dock them for using protection from good? They are only trying to survive and maybe clear their name. IMO, spells are tools, just like a sword or a hammer. I doubt a good character of any type would create intelligent undead that needs to feed on life.
At the end of the day, the GM is expected to make the right calls, which might mean house-ruling alignment to work differently. If PFS disallows this, PFS is not a game I'm interested in playing.
Its necessary for PFS to function because you are able to have a different GM in every game you play. It has its own rules for alignment that still allow a GM to 'mark' someone as acting explicitly evil and for people to change alignments because of it. There are some GMs that are bigger jerks about this than others, and it'd really be a mess if every GM could change you on the spot. Its also a lot more civil and unified that way.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you had a character that was actively trying to make friends with intelligent creatures of fire, basically trying to join Team Fire, then I presume said creatures would be pleased with your casting [fire] spells and displeased by [water]. Casting too much [water] might even supernaturally taint you in such a way as to be repellant to those fire creatures.
Really though this all depends on your GM. In PFS spell alignment descriptors explicitly don't matter. In home games it's up to the GM. Personally I think it's more fun to make [evil] spells evil acts - and I adjust their flavor to make sure of it.
-Animate dead might not trap the deceased's soul in the undead body, but maybe the spell still inflicts pain/the soul can't truly rest while their body is animate.
-Infernal healing might steal its health from the healthy - so you get a few hps back but somewhere else a child falls out of a tree and breaks their arm.
-Protection from good might conjure a field of infernal energy, opening a small conduit to the lower planes themselves. Also while using it you cut yourself off from all good outsiders, even if they want to help you.
One interesting thing about casting [evil] spells is that you pretty much have to plan for it - you have to prepare the spell, learn it, buy the wand, copy it into your book, or so forth. This is actively accepting and preparing to commit an evil act. And there is almost always a non-evil option to accomplish the same thing.
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.Or they just decide that the logical and most efficient way to eliminate evil is to simply kill us all off to the last man, woman, and child, the Malthael approach.
Thank you, Judge Death
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like the official answer to the original question is:
The evil wizard casts Protection from Evil repeatedly to ward off various unfriendly demons. If he does this long enough (the definition of which is undefined and subject to GM whim), the [good] energies he's channeling will affect his soul. He'll start to experience feelings of guilt over the bad things he's done, and lose his enjoyment of evil deeds. He may eventually seek redemption for his sins and become a reformed person. However, this will be undone if he starts casting [evil] spells, which, as a demonologist, is likely.
Similarly, someone who casts Infernal Healing a lot may start to act... differently. Casting [evil] spells doesn't make the world worse, it makes you worse.
Some [good] and [evil] spells are, I would speculate, more good/evil than others. Creating powerful undead creatures is probably more evil than casting 'Protection from Good'.
It may also be the case that the path to evil is a lot quicker than the path to good. (If I save the life of a child in the morning, I cannot then murder a child in the afternoon and declare the day 'neutral' overall.)