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?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.
Ah but since the command is part of the spell and the spell is a good act, then anything the angel agrees to is part of a good act.
As long as the angel acts within the confines of the spell then anything done is considered part of a good act by the caster.
Therefore, if spells are moral actions then making angels eat babies is an entirely good act.
*Furthermore angels can do evil acts. Many just choose not to. There is a whole section about fallen angels. Evil is no more against their nature than humans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah but since the command is part of the spell and the spell is a good act, then anything the angel agrees to is part of a good act.
As long as the angel acts within the confines of the spell then anything done is considered part of a good act by the caster.
Therefore, if spells are moral actions then making angels eat babies is an entirely good act.
This form of tortured logic is almost certainly an evil act.
I approve.
|
I am LG. I cast Infernal healing on an orphan out of nothing but the kindness of my heart. My alignment is now Evil for casting it. It turns back to good for helping an orphan out of pure altruism. I continue to help people because action -> Alignment. My alignment is still Good.
In my campaing you would have a implied sign contract with Asmodeus, selling the goodness of your heart to save the child. Even Pharasma couldn't do anything, a pact is a pact.
Nice houserule, I guess?
The signing of the contract is the casting of the spell.
This is like taking a loan at a bank and giving to a child hospital, while it is a noble act, the bank still is taking interest over the money you took, you should have got it another way.
Nice houserule, I guess?
|
The signing of the contract is the casting of the spell.
Where is your written proof of acceptance? Was there a EULA built into the formula?
This is like taking a loan at a bank and giving to a child hospital, while it is a noble act, the bank still is taking interest over the money you took, you should have got it another way.
While a rather kludgey comparison, I can at least understand your point, that the character is still paying for the casting of the spell afterwards.
I concur, it is a nice houserule.
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?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.Ah but since the command is part of the spell and the spell is a good act, then anything the angel agrees to is part of a good act.
As long as the angel acts within the confines of the spell then anything done is considered part of a good act by the caster.
Therefore, if spells are moral actions then making angels eat babies is an entirely good act.
*Furthermore angels can do evil acts. Many just choose not to. There is a whole section about fallen angels. Evil is no more against their nature than humans.
If you use Chains of Light to paralyze a mother and make her watch as you slaughter her innocent child, casting the spell is a minor good act (by the logic you're contesting), because you're channeling the forces of good. What you're using it for is evil. Therefore, two acts: one the act of casting the spell, and one of what you're doing with it. It's the same situation with Planar Binding as described. You're welcome to argue differently, but I don't think it would hold up very well in a court of law. Personally, if I were your DM and you did such a thing, I'd (literally, though in-game of course) damn you to Hell for it.
Also, considering that doing evil literally causes angels to fall and "lose some of the grace and light of their brethren" ... I'd argue it's against their nature. Either way, I'd consider it "unreasonable" to try to force an angel to do such acts. YMMV, depending on your GM.
Ymmv?
Ymmv?
Your Mileage May Vary.
I am beginning to have a change of heart. Well, more of a way of handling things. It will be more work on my part as the dm.
I don't like the idea of (-1) + (+100) = 99
(-1) is the affect of casting a level 1 evil spell.
(+100) is the good accomplished by saving a life.
This equation with the result of the positive 99, meaning the good completely made the evil disappear as if it never happened.
I may just start keeping track of whats going on.
Edited to add:
If you want to continue casting evil spells to counter the good youve done to maintain an alignment shift. That is fine. But the target must be for a different situation each time.
I am beginning to have a change of heart. Well, more of a way of handling things. It will be more work on my part as the dm.
I don't like the idea of (-1) + (+100) = 99
(-1) is the affect of casting a level 1 evil spell.
(+100) is the good accomplished by saving a life.
This equation with the result of the positive 99, meaning the good completely made the evil disappear as if it never happened.
I may just start keeping track of whats going on.
Edited to add:
If you want to continue casting evil spells to counter the good youve done to maintain an alignment shift. That is fine. But the target must be for a different situation each time.
Also if the casting of the evil spell accomplishes evil... awesome. It will balance faster.
Ymmv?Your Mileage May Vary.
Thanks.
If you use Chains of Light to paralyze a mother...casting the spell is a minor good act
Forget the needless child slaughter. You just admitted that temporarily paralyzing random innocent people is a good act if the spell is [good].
As I GM, I don't treat [type] as moral action, since it is not. The rules don't say it is so, and if you assume it is, you can draw countless contradictions that make no sense.
If you use Chains of Light to paralyze a mother...casting the spell is a minor good actForget the needless child slaughter. You just admitted that temporarily paralyzing random innocent people is a good act if the spell is [good].
As I GM, I don't treat [type] as moral action, since it is not. The rules don't say it is so, and if you assume it is, you can draw countless contradictions that make no sense.
It truly is parsing hairs, but the argument would be that the act of invoking the spell was "minorly good." What you did with the spell has its own morals.
Similarly, the act of invoking a Fireball is a neutral act. Applying it to innocents is evil.
Firing a gun is a neutral act. Firing a gun at an innocent is an evil act. One could, however, argue that if your bullets came from forced slave labor and murder, firing a gun would be an evil act, because of the source of your bullets.
Or maybe they should remove some [evil] and [good] tags from things that aren't inherently Evil or Good, and apply them to some that are. Namely Zon-Kuthon's Happy Fun-Time Rape Box Dimension (tentacles included).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe they should remove some [evil] and [good] tags from things that aren't inherently Evil or Good, and apply them to some that are. Namely Zon-Kuthon's Happy Fun-Time Rape Box Dimension (tentacles included).
Those tags means they use or are fueled by that substance.
Now there is a large guff between using [evil] power and committing an evil action.
I am still baffled as to why anyone would posit that spells are the moral action of their type. Fireballs are not [fire] actions. When I use electronics I am not performing an [elec] moral action. It's all nonsense.
You might as well claim that Fighters are the best class at sex, or that water is the most evil element. None of it makes any sense and has no grounding in the RAW rules or could be inferred by common sense. This isn't KOTOR, we don't keep track of alignment points. There are not "minor" or "greater" acts. There is no such thing as an alignment check. Your alignment doesn't take hits.
It is perfectly fine to construct your own private game worlds with these kind of principles. But there is no argument that you should make the rules this way. Not one from the RAW, not one from a need for logical consistency.
|
|
I am still baffled as to why anyone would posit that spells are the moral action of their type. Fireballs are not [fire] actions. When I use electronics I am not performing an [elec] moral action.
Fire and electricity are forces that have nothing to do with morals or ethics, good, and evil do...
or could be inferred by common sense
Actually, I would posit that it would be "common sense" that good characters playing with items like devil's blood and unholy water or forcing beings of pure good (e.g. angels) to do acts of pure evil to be, in fact, evil - regardless of the rules not specifically spelling it out as such, but whatever.
Your mileage obviously varies, as you seem to prefer a more RAW as opposed to a RAI kind of game...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am still baffled as to why anyone would posit that spells are the moral action of their type. Fireballs are not [fire] actions. When I use electronics I am not performing an [elec] moral action.Fire and electricity are forces that have nothing to do with morals or ethics, good, and evil do...
I think the issue here is that you think PF cosmology is the same as real world cosmology. In PF good and evil are forces. The terms are also used to describe action.
There is a difference between an evil force, an evil substance, and an evil action.
Conflating them is a categorical error.
In the same sense,
There is a difference between the force fire, the substance fire and the moral action fire. The last case is nonsense in both this world and PF, and is thus difficult to comprehend. In PF though, fire is both a force and a substance. In the real world fire is not a scientific substance. You cannot construct objects or creatures out of fire. In PF you can.
I am still baffled as to why anyone would posit that spells are the moral action of their type. Fireballs are not [fire] actions. When I use electronics I am not performing an [elec] moral action.Fire and electricity are forces that have nothing to do with morals or ethics, good, and evil do...
Fire just as cosmically significant a force as Good or Evil (or Law or Chaos) in the PF cosmology.
|
|
I think the issue here is that you think PF cosmology is the same as real world cosmology. In PF good and evil are forces.
I understand that good and evil are forces. I just think that evil is a force that is capable of corrupting good. And I did not just get this thought out of thin air... Evil as a corrupting force has (or at least, had) been a part of D&D for a very long time. For example, the Dark Powers of Ravenloft are described as a "malevolent force... ...responsible for the misery of many of Ravenloft's inhabitants".
I like evil in my games to be a corrupting force...
I like evil in my games to be a corrupting force...
And in your games they can be.
That though is not something that can be drawn from the PRD, nor is it something that can be drawn from the real world. Regardless of spiritual beliefs, evil is not a scientific force in this world.
If we are answering the question of "should", then we can at least say we do not have evidence for "yes".
Maybe Paizo could introduce the mechanic of corruption to counter the mechanic of redemption.There's no need to. Falling to evil is EASY to do compared to ascending the other way.
Source cite?
Fire just as cosmically significant a force as Good or Evil (or Law or Chaos) in the PF cosmology.I didn't say that fire wasn't. I said that fire (and electricity) did not have anything to do with morals or ethics...
The point being that they don't make people spontaneously combust if they cast too many Fireballs.
So why do aligned spells make you flip-flop across the moral spectrum?
The answer is that they DON'T.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fire just as cosmically significant a force as Good or Evil (or Law or Chaos) in the PF cosmology.I didn't say that fire wasn't. I said that fire (and electricity) did not have anything to do with morals or ethics...
Neither do good and evil forces.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about every g#!~&$ literary and mythological tradition on the planet?Source cite?Maybe Paizo could introduce the mechanic of corruption to counter the mechanic of redemption.There's no need to. Falling to evil is EASY to do compared to ascending the other way.
Good, now find one in a published Paizo product.
Good, now find one in a published Paizo product.How about every g#!~&$ literary and mythological tradition on the planet?Source cite?Maybe Paizo could introduce the mechanic of corruption to counter the mechanic of redemption.There's no need to. Falling to evil is EASY to do compared to ascending the other way.
The redemption and penance stuff from Champions of Purity and the lack of such from Champions of Corruption? At least, I believe that's the source.
Good, now find one in a published Paizo product.How about every g#!~&$ literary and mythological tradition on the planet?Source cite?Maybe Paizo could introduce the mechanic of corruption to counter the mechanic of redemption.There's no need to. Falling to evil is EASY to do compared to ascending the other way.The redemption and penance stuff from Champions of Purity and the lack of such from Champions of Corruption? At least, I believe that's the source.
I find the UC and GM guide sources to be far more relevant since they are in the PRD.
UC list an optional rule for having alignment point sliders. Of course it is an explicitally optional rules like word casting.
The GM guide seem bias toward a particular alignment, but does go out of it's way to define possible evil motivations, since being an evil character is actually quite a lot of work.
Fun fact the GM guide also list an example of a paladin working with an evil character.
I won't lie it could be an interesting storyline if you apply that logic across the board.
Perhaps something has gone crazy with magic and channeling energy from the Planes becomes a calculated risk at best.
I think I'd have to make it an isolated phenomenon though, because it seems like tracking that sort of thing could become tedious over a long campaign with that as a plot element.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about every g$$@&# literary and mythological tradition on the planet?Source cite?Maybe Paizo could introduce the mechanic of corruption to counter the mechanic of redemption.There's no need to. Falling to evil is EASY to do compared to ascending the other way.
So no rules source?
|
See, I've always felt like descriptors should indeed all have an effect...but all only on personality.
So, an [evil] spell makes you infinitesimally more Evil (though the use you put it to might more than compensate, depending), but a [fire] spell doesn't make you physically on fire, just more fiery in temperament and more inclined to like and use even non-magical fire in the future. Illusion spells likewise make you trickier, and charm spells more inclined to social manipulation. And so on and so forth.
While never stated outright (and obviously a House Rule), I'll note that this is almost entirely consistent with Golarion as presented...
I probably wouldn't police people, just note to them that they seem to be using a lot of whatever specific spells they favor, and might want to consider how that effects their character's personality.
Actually here is a rules source. It's been traditional that a Paladin can fall from committing a single evil act. There's been no such text that a Paladin can arise from a single good one.
Anti-paladins?
Except they can perform good actions as long as it is for their own self-interest. They are not allowed to put anything above their self interest including the code. You can't actually break the anti-paladin's code without changing alignment.
|
|
why do aligned spells make you flip-flop across the moral spectrum?
As I've stated a little upthread (specifically to Marroar Gellantara, but it applies to your question as well):
I would posit that it would be "common sense" that good characters playing with items like devil's blood and unholy water or forcing beings of pure good (e.g. angels) to do acts of pure evil to be, in fact, evil - regardless of the rules not specifically spelling it out as such, but whatever.
Your mileage obviously varies, as you seem to prefer a more RAW as opposed to a RAI kind of game...
So, yeah, by a purely RAW approach, the force of evil has no effect upon a character, I don't get it, but okay...
Just because crazy old Uncle Paladin holds himself to an obnoxiously high standard (that would be the lawful part of them anyway) doesn't mean all Good people do.
Actually here is a rules source. It's been traditional that a Paladin can fall from committing a single evil act. There's been no such text that a Paladin can arise from a single good one.Anti-paladins?
Except they can perform good actions as long as it is for their own self-interest. They are not allowed to put anything above their self interest including the code. You can't actually break the anti-paladin's code without changing alignment.
I specifically phrased my response to not include Anti-Paladins which are irrelevant.
If the Good-Evil elevator is truly as transparent as some seemed determine to attest, than non-Paladins should be becoming Paladins from good acts as often as they fall from evil ones.
How did you phrase it to not include Anti-Paladins?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So no rules source?How about every g$$@&# literary and mythological tradition on the planet?Source cite?Maybe Paizo could introduce the mechanic of corruption to counter the mechanic of redemption.There's no need to. Falling to evil is EASY to do compared to ascending the other way.When you're talking story, there doesn't need to be one. If your games are nothing but dice rolls, then we're both wasting time.
I can also throw back your question and ask you for a rules source that say Good and Evil are transparent in terms of corruption and redemption.
Actually here is a rules source. It's been traditional that a Paladin can fall from committing a single evil act. There's been no such text that a Paladin can arise from a single good one.
You assume that rules and story are at odds. I do not. My games are extremely heavily story driven. I do not tie my players hands with obnoxious non-rules that change their alignment whenever I get a feather in my ass. The more definate and predicable the rules are; the more confident a player can be with role play. If a player is constantly worried I'm going to slap his wrist then he will play conservatively. If they are confident about clear rules then they will play more naturally. Clear rules are GOOD for role play. Muddy rules make for fantasy tea time storytelling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I don't disagree that there may have been other options for poor Garret, formerly paladin of Iomedae, presently slobbering mind-slave to the evil queen Yara. Perhaps he could have defeated both Yara, a sorceress great and terrible power, as well as Sachiel the Astral Deva. We may never know :P But in the situation he found himself in, attempting to do so would be at the risk of the lives and freedom of the entire nation. Does a guardian of the innocent choose to play dice with the safety of a nation like that? A question for another thread, no doubt.
Not to mention that no, dealing nonlethal damage to a powerful outsider intent on killing you, while also fighting with a powerful magician intent on killing you, is not something you can just assuredly do. This is doubly true when you consider that a Paladin has little to nothing that really allows them to combat a high-tier celestial being. Most have noteworthy DR that applies vs non-evil attacks.
In the case of a garden-variety astral deva, it's a CR 14 creature with DR 10/evil. The Paladin is not going to simply non-lethal damage this creature into submission in time to deal with the sorceress. Meanwhile said angel can most assuredly mess with the Paladin with it's stunning warhammers and plane-shift spells. Fighting an astral deva would be very difficult for a Paladin, and suicidal if there was a near-leveled sorceress that was also fighting him as well.
To imply otherwise is madness. However, in using said scroll, he not only destroyed the magic item (scrolls are consumed upon use) but would have been able to keep the angel off of him long enough to wreck sorceress-face and then deal with the angel in good time.
I think your story is quite nice btw. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about every g**@+! literary and mythological tradition on the planet?Source cite?Maybe Paizo could introduce the mechanic of corruption to counter the mechanic of redemption.There's no need to. Falling to evil is EASY to do compared to ascending the other way.
Want to be a good guy? Be a good guy. Now you might be a good guy that used to be a bad guy.
Heck Darth Vader destroyed a planet, murdered children, slaughtered Jedi, force choked people for amusement, threw an evil old man off a platform to his death, and was a good guy again before he drew his last breath five minutes later, in time to show up as a light-sided force-spirit before the credits rolled.
Being good has nothing to do with being forgiven.