Phylactery of Faithfulness. Standard issue equipment for my paladins.
Simple and effective.
Phylactery of Faithfulness. Standard issue equipment for my paladins.Simple and effective.
...at least until the DM decides he / she wants to see that Paladin fall.
Casting an [Evil] spell is evil. (It's right there in the description.)
No.
It says that the spell is [Evil] because it draws on an evil power or summons something from an evil plane or with an evil descriptor. It specifically does not say casting it is an evil action.
A neutral guy wielding a holy sword is using a [Good] item that draws on the power of good. He is not intending good or in fact doing good just by wielding the weapon. The weapon has bonuses against evil but using it is not more virtuous than using a shocking burst sword.
Ok the PRD says that the descriptors are used to affect alignment.
Here Descriptors
[Descriptor]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependent spell says, the spell fails.
A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.
So... everyone now knows the evil dedcriptor affects alignment.
...at least until the DM decides he / she wants to see that Paladin fall.Phylactery of Faithfulness. Standard issue equipment for my paladins.Simple and effective.
That dm truly is a dick. And should not be played with.
Explain the relevance of this.Champions of purity is not PRD.No but Ultimate Magic is.Referring to the descriptions of spell descriptors in Ultimate Magic, namely:
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.
I am still not seeing the relevance.
Casting an [Evil] spell is evil. (It's right there in the description.)No.
It says that the spell is [Evil] because it draws on an evil power or summons something from an evil plane or with an evil descriptor. It specifically does not say casting it is an evil action.
A neutral guy wielding a holy sword is using a [Good] item that draws on the power of good. He is not intending good or in fact doing good just by wielding the weapon. The weapon has bonuses against evil but using it is not more virtuous than using a shocking burst sword.
Ok the PRD says that the descriptors are used to affect alignment.
Here Descriptors
[Descriptor]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependent spell says, the spell fails.
A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.
So... everyone now knows the evil dedcriptor affects alignment.
Your conclusion does not explicitally follow. The section did not specify that [evil] spell effect the casters alignment. An equally logical conclusion is that they effect the target's alignment and not the caster.
You really have no idea what exactly that statement means.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok the PRD says that the descriptors are used to affect alignment.
Here Descriptors
[Descriptor]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
So... everyone now knows the evil dedcriptor affects alignment.
As you bolded, the text says the descriptors affect the spells interacting with alignment. Fortunately, the PRD also specifies how the descriptors interact with alignment:
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
So now everybody knows the alignment descriptor only limits how aligned spells interact with cleric spellcasting.
Casting an [Evil] spell is evil. (It's right there in the description.)No.
It says that the spell is [Evil] because it draws on an evil power or summons something from an evil plane or with an evil descriptor. It specifically does not say casting it is an evil action.
A neutral guy wielding a holy sword is using a [Good] item that draws on the power of good. He is not intending good or in fact doing good just by wielding the weapon. The weapon has bonuses against evil but using it is not more virtuous than using a shocking burst sword.
Ok the PRD says that the descriptors are used to affect alignment.
Here Descriptors
[Descriptor]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependent spell says, the spell fails.
A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.
So... everyone now knows the evil dedcriptor affects alignment.
Your conclusion does not explicitally follow. The section did not specify that [evil] spell effect the casters alignment. An equally logical conclusion is that they effect the target's alignment and not the caster.
You really have no idea what exactly that...
Are you actually suggesting that the target of the spell will receive an alignment push?
Wow....
But lets go with that. You cast infernal healing on yourself.... hmm wow it affects you.... you get pushed toward evil.
That is not a good thing.
But consider it further. You cast it on an unsuspecting child. You push that child toward evil.
That is equally bad. Not only are you making a child evil but to do such a thing, your making yourself evil.
Either way its not good.
Ok the PRD says that the descriptors are used to affect alignment.
Here Descriptors
[Descriptor]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
So... everyone now knows the evil dedcriptor affects alignment.
As you bolded, the text says the descriptors affect the spells interacting with alignment. Fortunately, the PRD also specifies how the descriptors interact with alignment:
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
So now everybody knows the alignment descriptor only limits how aligned spells interact with cleric spellcasting.
I never said a cleric could cast a cleric spell of an opposite alignment.
@Rogar Stonebow:
I was just about to say, but Scythia ninja'd me. Alignment descriptors do NOT interact with the alignment of an action, the interaction mentioned on p.202 of the CRB refers to the limit on spell memorization placed on clerics, who cannot cast spells of a certain alignment. Without these descriptors, saying that "A good cleric cannot memorize evil magic", would leave the decision of what spells are evil entirely in the hands of the GMs, requiring them to make a decision on every sodding cleric spell in the game, which would be tedious, time-consuming and tremendously boring.
-Nearyn
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you actually suggesting that the target of the spell will receive an alignment push?
No. The point was that that conclusion followed as much as yours did.
Meaning neither logically followed.
As others have pointed out, explicate interactions are defined elsewhere. None of them have anything to do with moral action.
I was just about to say, but Scythia ninja'd me. Alignment descriptors do NOT interact with the alignment of an action, the interaction mentioned on p.202 of the CRB refers to the limit on spell memorization placed on clerics, who cannot cast spells of a certain alignment. Without these descriptors, saying that "A good cleric cannot memorize evil magic", would leave the decision of what spells are evil entirely in the hands of the GMs, requiring them to make a decision on every sodding cleric spell in the game, which would be tedious, time-consuming and tremendously boring.
-Nearyn
Well, when I get home from work I will check what is in the CRB. Maybe what I posted is not in the crb, even if is a part of the core rules.
My opinion that prd is core rules.
However, reading my paste from the prd, can you honestly tell me that at least a spell with an alignment descriptor does not affect alignment? I'm not talking about other sources, just that source.
I beleve that Scythia's post and mine together must be used for the rules on the descriptors.
I absolutely agree that the authors may have intended for [Evil] spells to be Evil acts. They did not, however, explicitly write it as such.
No amount of 'this is how it SHOULD read' will convince me that it IS read that way.
You mean other than explicitly writing the word Evil right next to it?
I absolutely agree that the authors may have intended for [Evil] spells to be Evil acts. They did not, however, explicitly write it as such.
No amount of 'this is how it SHOULD read' will convince me that it IS read that way.
How do you read my pasting from the prd, i'm curious. Do you dismiss everything do pick and choose. Are you confused about what the words mean. Am I dismissing something, am I picking and choosing? Am I confused?
TOZ, I ask this to get baseline for this difference of opinions. I can't see how you can read it and come up with a different conclusion.
|
You mean other than explicitly writing the word Evil right next to it?
When that word is defined as a descriptor, and the definition of descriptor does not state that such things are aligned acts? Yes.
You should know by now that nothing short of having 'Spells with the [Evil] descriptor are Evil acts' written in the rules will convince me of your stance. If Paizo wants to errata that into the rules in some way, I will totally agree with you then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Rogar Stonebow:
Your words confuse me as to whether we are talking about the same thing. So instead I'll tell you what I thought you were saying, and then what I am trying to respond.
I followed, from your post, that you took: "Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."
To mean: "Since descriptors affect how spells interact with alignment, that must mean that the [evil] descriptor, makes the act of casting such a spell an evil act".
Where I commented that, that is reading too far into it, making conclusions based on conjecture, instead of concluding that it is refering to the ONE segment of the rules WE KNOW it interacts with, that being which spells clerics of certain alignments can, and cannot, memorize.
I apologize if I mistook your meaning.
-Nearyn
|
How do you read my pasting from the prd, i'm curious.
The [Evil] descriptor governs how the spell interacts with alignment. Nowhere does that state 'casting this spell is an Evil act'.
Remember this is from the lens of 'what do the rules actually say' not 'what do I infer from the rules'.
You can absolutely infer that casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act. But that doesn't mean the rules say that.
@Rogar Stonebow:
Your words confuse me as to whether we are talking about the same thing. So instead I'll tell you what I thought you were saying, and then what I am trying to respond.
I followed, from your post, that you took: "Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."
To mean: "Since descriptors affect how spells interact with alignment, that must mean that the [evil] descriptor, makes the act of casting such a spell an evil act".
Where I commented that, that is reading too far into it, making conclusions based on conjecture, instead of concluding that it is refering to the ONE segment of the rules WE KNOW it interacts with, that being which spells clerics of certain alignments can, and cannot, memorize.
I apologize if I mistook your meaning.
-Nearyn
Cool
How do you read my pasting from the prd, i'm curious.The [Evil] descriptor governs how the spell interacts with alignment. Nowhere does that state 'casting this spell is an Evil act'.
Remember this is from the lens of 'what do the rules actually say' not 'what do I infer from the rules'.
You can absolutely infer that casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act. But that doesn't mean the rules say that.
Will you give an example of how an aligned spell interacts with the alignment of a creature?
I will just once again point out that there are creatures in the Bestiaries that are True Neutral Outsiders and can cast both good and evil spells as if they were clerics.
So it can't really affect alignment all that much if beings and pure neutrality can cast them all willy-nilly without being affected.
To me that is not a good example for you. Your neutral creature has th ability to cast both good and evil? That sounds like neutrality to me.
|
|
Will you give an example of how an aligned spell interacts with the alignment of a creature?
A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will you give an example of how an aligned spell interacts with the alignment of a creature?How do you read my pasting from the prd, i'm curious.The [Evil] descriptor governs how the spell interacts with alignment. Nowhere does that state 'casting this spell is an Evil act'.
Remember this is from the lens of 'what do the rules actually say' not 'what do I infer from the rules'.
You can absolutely infer that casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act. But that doesn't mean the rules say that.
I know I'm not TOZ, so I apologize for taking a stab at this:
*ahem*
(Good)Cleric: "Hey God? This is Cleric, your #1 fan! Listen I wanted to tell you that I continue to do your good work down here, but I'm gonna go ahead and need to memorize Unholy Blight today pls"
God: "I am sorry Cleric, your Good alignment prevents you from memorizing spells with the [Evil] descriptor. I hope this does not inconvinience you, and I want you to know that we are all cheering for you up here. So, since I cannot offer you Unholy Blight, would you prefer to memorize another spell?"
Cleric: "Oh, thanks God, but I think I'm ok. I'll just leave that spell-slot open and wait and see if something comes up during the day, where I may need your great and benevolent powers. Thanks for the reminder on my spells btw"
God: "Don't mention it. Now, go forth and bring my will into the world!"
Cleric: "Will do, big guy!"
This is how the alignment descriptors interact with alignment.
-Nearyn
Will you give an example of how an aligned spell interacts with the alignment of a creature?A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
That is not what i'm intending. I want you to give me an example of a spell being used.
|
|
That is not what i'm intending. I want you to give me an example of a spell being used.
There isn't one. Alignment is the purview of the GM, not the rules.
Circle of Death should probably be an [Evil] spell, since it is specifically used to kill and nothing else. Edit: Well, it doesn't use the power of Evil I guess.
That is not what i'm intending. I want you to give me an example of a spell being used.There isn't one. Alignment is the purview of the GM, not the rules.
Circle of Death should probably be an [Evil] spell, since it is specifically used to kill and nothing else. Edit: Well, it doesn't use the power of Evil I guess.
That tells me all I really needed to know.
Thanks
That is not what i'm intending. I want you to give me an example of a spell being used.There isn't one. Alignment is the purview of the GM, not the rules.
Circle of Death should probably be an [Evil] spell, since it is specifically used to kill and nothing else. Edit: Well, it doesn't use the power of Evil I guess.
what is the purpose of the spell shocking grasp
|
|
That tells me all I really needed to know.
Thanks
No problem. Shocking Grasp isn't any more deserving of an [Evil] tag than Circle of Death is. Although it could be used to jumpstart some kind of device requiring electricity, but that's a pretty specific scenario. Unlikely to come up more than once.
No problem. Shocking Grasp isn't any more deserving of an [Evil] tag than Circle of Death is. Although it could be used to jumpstart some kind of device requiring electricity, but that's a pretty specific scenario. Unlikely to come up more than once.That tells me all I really needed to know.
Thanks
SWeet we can agree on something.
Clipped scene
Well written, sir, and an excellent demonstration of the hazards of tying too many rules up with alignment!
Clipped sceneWell written, sir, and an excellent demonstration of the hazards of tying too many rules up with alignment!
Thank you so very much ^^
-Nearyn
The paladin's code is both vague and restrictive enough that literally any action can be grounds for falling.
Oddly enough, the code relates very little to an alignment conversation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin trips over a rake, Paladin falls.The paladin's code is both vague and restrictive enough that literally any action can be grounds for falling.
Oddly enough, the code relates very little to an alignment conversation.
Tripping over useful tools is not acting with honor.
Paladin falls.
When that word is defined as a descriptor, and the definition of descriptor does not state that such things are aligned acts? Yes.
You should know by now that nothing short of having 'Spells with the [Evil] descriptor are Evil acts' written in the rules will convince me of your stance.
If they had a list of "evil acts" and that was left off, I'd agree with you. But they dont. They have a rather vague paragraph or two of guidelines.
So, altho you have posted quite a few good arguments here, "it's not listed as such, thus it's not" is a weak one.
Mind you, I dont want a list, I prefer "a rather vague paragraph or two of guidelines".
The issue actually here is with one spell- one spell that is too effective and rather broken, and that the main downside is "Evil".
Arguments about alignments always end up poorly. The simple thing is to get rid of that spell.
just wanted to remind everyone that clerics can memorize whatever spells they want. they just can't cast spells with opposing alignments. so you can memorize all the unholy blights you want, but you're wasting spell slots.
just being impertinent. :D
also, i'm a little confused because it seems like some people are dividing the casting of the spell and its results up into two separate actions that require moral judgment, but the morality of the act is entirely determined by its direct results. the reason the ends don't justify the means is because the means themselves are evil acts. they are acts that result immediately in harm to something. spells with the [Evil] descriptor don't necessarily result in harm being done to something.
basically, shooting a gun isn't an evil act. killing someone with it might be. spells are like guns... or maybe bullets, but i don't think that distinction matters much.
Planar Binding does not have a tag iirc.
The spell: "When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type."
You use your force of personality to force outsiders to do your biding. Which includes making angels murders orphan. Which if spells are moral actions, would be a good action.
I forgot the end of the spell description. So, right on the tag (and that makes sense), wrong on your ability to force Angels to kill orphans though. Imo. I remembered there being some line in the description that would put a crimp in things like that. So I cracked the giant book and... as the spell states "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to." Asking a supernatural creature of good to commit an evil atrocity probably falls into the "unreasonable commands" category. Ymmv of course, as in all things related to alignment it's pretty much GM territory. Then, of course, the argument over impossible or unreasonable starts :)
Now, if you could impose your will to that extent, the evil of your action (commanding an Angel to slaughter the innocent) would greatly outweigh the good of summoning one to this plane. So, evil is evil. Again, as always in alignment it's imo / ymmv. If you, or rather your GM, considered the actions (the spell and your command to the Angel) of equal weight then you could argue for it cancelling out and being "neutral".
Personally, the point of having a GM is to deal with odd issues like this. How they do this does, I'm positive, vary. Well, dealing with issues like this and avoiding huge encyclopedic collections of rules which could break book shelves and overload hard drives, which has always, to me, been one obvious reason for the vague nature of alignment rules :)
To summarize, this argument could go on forever. Or at least over a thousand posts...
Now, if you could impose your will to that extent, the evil of your action (commanding an Angel to slaughter the innocent) would greatly outweigh the good of summoning one to this plane.
Actually commanding the angel is part of the spell. So if spells are moral actions, then killing orphans with angels is a good act. The request is not unreasonable for it is both a good act and completely within the abilities of the angel.
Now, if you could impose your will to that extent, the evil of your action (commanding an Angel to slaughter the innocent) would greatly outweigh the good of summoning one to this plane.Actually commanding the angel is part of the spell. So if spells are moral actions, then killing orphans with angels is a good act. The request is not unreasonable for it is both a good act and completely within the abilities of the angel.
It's an unreasonable demand to make of an angel, because it goes against its nature to do evil acts. Are you purposefully conflating the act of casting the spell and the reasonableness of the demand you make?
Casuistry.
