Ehhhh...watch further, and it's less applicable. =)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No the 'Evil Aligned'(really just spells that have the Evil descriptor) are mostly just there for how they interact with other abilities and such(Ex. A enemy that takes more damage from Fire descriptor spells/effects). Remember actions speak louder than (magic)words.
I generally look at the way the spell is used as well as how often such spells are used in general.
Context is very important when it comes to messing with a PC's alignment if you ask me, and I do not do it lightly.
I think this boils down to how "good" you expect your good guys to be. If they are to be willing to risk their lives, and make the job 3x harder, just so can say they did it the "right" way, and they also are supposed to take prisoners when possible and offer a chance to surrender then I can understand a hardline approach.
I don't think most games are that hardcore with their good alignment and GM's tend to leave a lot of it to the player at least until he becomes a murderous psychopath. In these cases you should let your players know how "non good" they can be before you start to think about looking at alignment changes.
I vote yes. Anyone who meddles with the very fabric of life and death and twist the fabric of the cosmos to their very whims... MAY have some consequences if they don't use the power responsibly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For a game about kicking in doors and murdering everything that moves for loot it gives an aweful big s++! about whether you prod the corpses with a stick when you're done.
|
I just watched a few more Deathnote episodes. I wont give any specific spoilers, but it seems my guess was right. :)
That show definitely has the whole 'power corrupts' theme going. And as I said before - it has what I consider to be the archetypical anti-villain. It's rarer & harder to pull off than the much more common anti-hero - but very cool when it works. (Not an official term - but one I use.)
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're playing a good character, you probably shouldn't want to cast Evil spells, and vice versa for evil characters and Good spells.
One issue that leads to the dichotomy pointed out in this thread ("Will casting protection from evil turn my murderer good?") is that in many moral systems it's "easier" to be evil than good - you can slide/drift accidentally into evil, whereas redemption is much more difficult. If you subscribe to this philosophy, each Evil spell is a slip down the slope that can't just be negated with a similar Good spell. The alignments are not just labels of which "team" you're on, they actually mean something about your character's actions and approach to life.
Someone who say, repeatedly casts infernal healing because it's more efficient has shown that they're willing to make a tiny bargain with evil in order to gain personal convenience. This is informative about the character's motivations and outlook on life. In my games the metaphysical consequences are that alignment spells bring more of their "stuff" into the world - every time you cast infernal healing a child falls out of a tree and breaks an arm, or an old widow gets sick, etc. - basically the overall suffering in the world goes up each time. Conversely, every time you cast protection from evil the world gets slightly better - a beggar finds a stash of money or food, a knocked-over lantern doesn't catch the house on fire, etc.
As an aside, when my group writes "good" on their character sheet, we expect them to be good guys. We negotiate with enemies when possible. We bandage downed foes and take prisoners. We don't steal treasure from foes if there is an available next of kin. We give up monetary rewards if the people paying them need it more. Heck, we've paid to raise enemies that were killed accidentally and we felt didn't deserve death. You know, we act like heroes that people would actually want to be around.
Alignment is, I think, intended to describe what characters are likely to do in the future, not what they've done in the past. If you burn down an orphanage, that shouldn't change your alignment to Evil - you must have been Evil already, or you wouldn't have done it. (And if your character sheet said you were Good, your character sheet was wrong.)
Casting Evil spells is a different type of evil act, because it can gradually change your alignment, rather than being symptomatic of your existing Evil nature. If you spend all your time summoning demons and creating undead creatures, you're likely to wind up as Evil as the RPG villains you were fighting against.
I would say context matters when it comes to evil-aligned spells. Summoning a demon might be bad, but if you bind it and use it to rescue a dozen orphans, you've more than balanced the scales back towards good.How can you know? For all most PCs would know, summoning a demon and allowing it to operate in the mortal world empowers some kind of Prince in Hell. The metaphysics are very unclear and usually unknown to characters. There is no way to tell what the "value" is of rescuing puppies or orphans, or the "cost" of summoning creatures, demonic or otherwise.
Personnaly I see it as the summoned demon paying for debts. Possibly slowly paying for 10 more lives saved (out of the 1000000 to be saved) to free his lord! Not to mention that those the demon saved are now known by him and he may see it as them owning him their lives ...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Orrrr, instead of actually putting effort into justifying something dumb you could just say it doesn't work that way.
Seriously with that logic every character with good Divine casting is an idiot.
Why? They're not spending every free moment and spell slot casting [Good] aligned spells and making the world a better place with no effort whatsoever.
We don't steal treasure from foes if there is an available next of kin.
I can imagine that conversation goes well.
What the "good" adventurer says: "Yeah we killed your uncle Rob, but here's his stuff. Also, we killed your uncle Rob and actually put effort into dragging his s%@% out of whatever cave or forest or wherever we killed him, tracked you down, and are now here to give it to you."
What a sane person hears: "Hey, we're murderers and now we know where you live. Here, take this hush money. Or else."
We don't steal treasure from foes if there is an available next of kin.I can imagine that conversation goes well.
What the "good" adventurer says: "Yeah we killed your uncle Rob, but here's his stuff. Also, we killed your uncle Rob and actually put effort into dragging his s++~ out of whatever cave or forest or wherever we killed him, tracked you down, and are now here to give it to you."
What a sane person hears: "Hey, we're murderers and now we know where you live. Here, take this hush money. Or else."
Wergild!
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't steal treasure from foes if there is an available next of kin.I can imagine that conversation goes well.
What the "good" adventurer says: "Yeah we killed your uncle Rob, but here's his stuff. Also, we killed your uncle Rob and actually put effort into dragging his s$** out of whatever cave or forest or wherever we killed him, tracked you down, and are now here to give it to you."
What a sane person hears: "Hey, we're murderers and now we know where you live. Here, take this hush money. Or else."
Or, you know, taking his stuff to the local authorities, letting them know what happened, and making sure the stuff gets passed along. Or, if you're of a more chaotic bent, leaving the stuff anonymously where it will be found. I mean, if uncle Rob was doing something that deserved death he must have been pretty bad to begin with. We'd much rather deliver uncle Rob to the local law enforcement and see civilized justice done if possible. And if Rob didn't deserve death a good character should try to make amends, and at the very least be upset about it.
And if it's some bandit 20 miles form the nearest town we're not going to worry about it. But if the villain is gasping with his last breath, "Please ask my daughter to forgive me," we're going to go see the daughter and we're not going to be wearing his stuff as trophies when we do. We're going to pass on the message and give her the inheritance. Those items might have sentimental value or at the very least be saleable for enough money to live a life of comfort.
Y'know, acting with basic compassion, respect, and tolerance. Good things.
As for the cremation... Simply no.
Your soul still exists and you can be ressurected. Even raised if they bother to cast the spell that partially restores the body.Undead and soul eating of daemons and trao the soul and etcs and such is the things that prevent ressurection.
Raise dead and reincarnate require a body and are stopped by turning them undead or disposing of the body.
Resurrection you only need some small portion of the body like ashes from cremation or the corpse of the undead you just killed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're playing a good character, you probably shouldn't want to cast Evil spells, and vice versa for evil characters and Good spells.
. . .
Conversely, every time you cast protection from evil the world gets slightly better - a beggar finds a stash of money or food, a knocked-over lantern doesn't catch the house on fire, etc.
Evil characters have tons of reasonable incentive to use good spells. They summon evil fiends and want protection from evil as well as fiend blasting spells to keep them in line. Their rivals summon fiends and they want protection from evil and evil fiend blasting spells to be safe from and overcome their rivals. To take down a rebellious fiend or an opponents fiend you want to summon a good outsider to pierce the fiend's DR/Good.
Using Good spells also creates a detectable aura of good. You can use a summoned good creature to steal its alignment aura for 1 hour/level using misdirection.
Most evil characters do not care about increasing evil in the world in the abstract and not causing good, they only really care about what they want and do not scruple about their means and are willing to cause direct and incidental evil.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're playing a good character, you probably shouldn't want to cast Evil spells, and vice versa for evil characters and Good spells.
. . .
Conversely, every time you cast protection from evil the world gets slightly better - a beggar finds a stash of money or food, a knocked-over lantern doesn't catch the house on fire, etc.
Evil characters have tons of reasonable incentive to use good spells. They summon evil fiends and want protection from evil as well as fiend blasting spells to keep them in line. Their rivals summon fiends and they want protection from evil and evil fiend blasting spells to be safe from and overcome their rivals. To take down a rebellious fiend or an opponents fiend you want to summon a good outsider to pierce the fiend's DR/Good.
Using Good spells also creates a detectable aura of good. You can use a summoned good creature to steal its alignment aura for 1 hour/level using misdirection.
Most evil characters do not care about increasing evil in the world in the abstract and not causing good, they only really care about what they want and do not scruple about their means and are willing to cause direct and incidental evil.
Thus the idea that good/evil are not just arbitrary labels. Evil can use Good's toys with fewer repercussions than vice versa. Under my view of the alignment spells, it's like a rich CEO who donates enough to charity to get out of paying taxes so he can spend his extra money on foreclosing orphanages - overall he's evil, but at least a charity got some money.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unles the GM starts creating side effects for [evil] spells, they are not actually EVIL (most of the time). So, personally, i think they shouldn't influence in your alignment.
The idea appears to be not that they're evil in the sense of making the world a worse place, they're evil in the sense that they warp your mind and make you a worse person.
As I've said elsewhere, the [Evil] descriptor is really just code for "we don't think players should be doing this." Developer intent BADWRONGFUN right there.
This gets into the canard that is alignment, as well. Why do we have Law vs Chaos when we could have Freedom vs Oppression?
That is not the case. They don't really care, but most games do assume heroic actions, and most fantasy stories have certain things that the good guys don't do so it was coded into the game. Freedom and Oppression don't sound like alignments. Personally I don't think agree with the way the alignments were done, but I do understand why.
Certain things should be evil, and I understand certain deities taking powers away if you go against their system, but I don't think players need alignment. I would just prefer if certain actions were listed as evil, along with certain spells.
Doing something evil may not make the person evil, but the act could still be evil.
Freedom and Oppression don't sound like alignments because there's a longstanding tradition of Law and Chaos as alignments, which specifically skews Chaos as "less positive." Dynamic vs Static or Individualism vs Collectivism would cover it just as well. The idea in renaming here is to put Chaos on more friendly footing with Law, or even superior footing, given that Chaos typically gets relegated to the same realm as Evil with no particularly good justification.
The system historically assumes heroic characters. When we look at abilities like Cook People, it seems fairly obvious that this was intended as a mechanical ability specifically for certain aberrant enemies. Sure, there are spells and abilities with the [Evil] descriptor that are more player-centric, but a large number of them are designed to be relatively table-unfriendly to discourage use or to specifically label a target as Evil.
In the original D&D game there were only 3 alignments: Law, Chaos and Neutral, and it was flavored much more that you were 'aligned' with one of these universal forces. You chose which team to join.
There was definitely the concept that chaos was 'evilish' at the least, heavily influence by Moorcock's books, where while law and chaos isn't quite good and evil, chaos is pretty inimical to humanity.
How much of this is still appropriate with the 2 axis alignment system is debatable, but that is the genesis of Lawful Good being the 'good good' and Chaotic Evil being the 'evil evil.'
Unles the GM starts creating side effects for [evil] spells, they are not actually EVIL (most of the time). So, personally, i think they shouldn't influence in your alignment.The idea appears to be not that they're evil in the sense of making the world a worse place, they're evil in the sense that they warp your mind and make you a worse person.
I think it is that [Evil] spells are themselves supernaturally evil. They detect as evil under detect evil and interact with alignment stuff as if they are evil. Using an [Evil] spell is then analogous to using an evil NPC to do something.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Detect evil says "Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell."
Farmer Bob (6th-level commoner) who my inquisitor detected as good yesterday, now detects evil today because he is intent on murdering his neighbor who slept with his daughter.
Conversely, this means that an evil creature intent on doing good should register as a good creature. :P
Sir Slaughter: If you spare my life go I shall go to the nearest orphanage and take care of children for the rest of my life!
Inquisitor: You know what fellow PCs? He suddenly registered as good! I think he actually means it!
Thus the idea that good/evil are not just arbitrary labels. Evil can use Good's toys with fewer repercussions than vice versa. Under my view of the alignment spells, it's like a rich CEO who donates enough to charity to get out of paying taxes so he can spend his extra money on foreclosing orphanages - overall he's evil, but at least a charity got some money.If you're playing a good character, you probably shouldn't want to cast Evil spells, and vice versa for evil characters and Good spells.
. . .
Conversely, every time you cast protection from evil the world gets slightly better - a beggar finds a stash of money or food, a knocked-over lantern doesn't catch the house on fire, etc.
Evil characters have tons of reasonable incentive to use good spells. They summon evil fiends and want protection from evil as well as fiend blasting spells to keep them in line. Their rivals summon fiends and they want protection from evil and evil fiend blasting spells to be safe from and overcome their rivals. To take down a rebellious fiend or an opponents fiend you want to summon a good outsider to pierce the fiend's DR/Good.
Using Good spells also creates a detectable aura of good. You can use a summoned good creature to steal its alignment aura for 1 hour/level using misdirection.
Most evil characters do not care about increasing evil in the world in the abstract and not causing good, they only really care about what they want and do not scruple about their means and are willing to cause direct and incidental evil.
I don't like this idea that evil is special. It isn't. It's just one of four alignment. Remember in D&D and PF, none of those alignments is "correct". They are just opposed universal forces. Evil shouldn't get special use of anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like this idea that evil is special. It isn't. It's just one of four alignment. Remember in D&D and PF, none of those alignments is "correct". They are just opposed universal forces.
I disagree. Good is the correct choice. Evil is the wrong choice.
Also, the scales are weighted so that Good is a much more difficult choice than Evil. To be Good you have to be Good pretty consistently. A single murder spree at an orphanage is enough to make you Evil, even if you were extremely Good all the rest of the time.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like this idea that evil is special. It isn't. It's just one of four alignment. Remember in D&D and PF, none of those alignments is "correct". They are just opposed universal forces.I disagree. Good is the correct choice. Evil is the wrong choice.
Also, the scales are weighted so that Good is a much more difficult choice than Evil. To be Good you have to be Good pretty consistently. A single murder spree at an orphanage is enough to make you Evil, even if you were extremely Good all the rest of the time.
Why? Both are objective opposed forces that make up the universe. There is no "correct" choice. Weighting the scales in favor of any alignment undermines that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a fun thought. Neutral is its own alignment. Yet there are no neutral spells. Perhaps then all spells without a descriptor are neutral. Therefore, all casters are true neutral.
Everyone should play the way that's most fun, if you're trying to get as close to "RAW" as possible then here's what is written under the alignment section in relation to using evil spells:
This game assumes good and evil are definitive things. Evidence for this outlook can be found in the indicated good or evil monster subtypes, spells that detect good and evil, and spells that have the good or evil descriptor. Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why? Both are objective opposed forces that make up the universe. There is no "correct" choice. Weighting the scales in favor of any alignment undermines that.
Evil isn't sustainable. It steals, corrupts, and destroys. Evil needs good to feed off, good doesn't need (or even want) evil.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good and evil are opposing universal forces in PF, yes, but they also have meanings beyond just labels. For example, "the ends justify the means" tends to be an evil outlook, used to rationalize evil acts as "for the greater good."
So a character using evil means to do evil ends is committing evil.
Using good means to do evil ends is also evil.
Using evil means to do good ends is also evil.
Only using good means to do good ends is good.
Obviously there is wiggle room. Saving the world by stealing a child's candy is probably worth the moral compromise. But that doesn't make it a good act, it just makes it a necessary evil.
Evil isn't sustainable. It steals, corrupts, and destroys. Evil needs good to feed off, good doesn't need (or even want) evil.
Evil is what keeps the world from being overwhelmed by overpopulation. Good needs it as much as evil needs good.
Truth is, they only fight each other because it gives them something to do in what would otherwise be a meaningless existence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil is what keeps the world from being overwhelmed by overpopulation.
In Golarion, there's a substance called 'Night Tea' that can do the same thing.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
For a game about kicking in doors and murdering everything that moves for loot it gives an aweful big s&*+ about whether you prod the corpses with a stick when you're done.That may be what YOUR games are about. The rest of us might be playing something different.
I'm not saying that you can't play without being murder hobos. In fact, I hope that isn't really the case. But every edition of D&D that has ever existed inherently promotes this style of play through mechanical benefits for murder and looting. That isn't even up for debate. You measure you're characters power in his ability to fight. You get exp for killing things. You get more powerful by looting things. Pre-written adventures since the dawn of pre-written adventures have included encounters that expect players to kill creatures indiscriminately. Pathfinder is no different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I murder thousands of TN commoners with holy word.
This is a good act, as casting the spell is a good act.
Of course, the way I use it is horribly irresponsible, so that's a chaotic act, but becuase it's a good spell, still a good act.
Clearly, this mass murderer is CG.
^^^^
This is the problem I have with spells being inheritly one kind of alignment.
There are some spells that deserve that (hellfire ray, for example- there is no good aligned use for the spell) but most don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I murder thousands of TN commoners with holy word.
This is a good act, as casting the spell is a good act.
Of course, the way I use it is horribly irresponsible, so that's a chaotic act, but becuase it's a good spell, still a good act.Clearly, this mass murderer is CG.
This is a pretty obtuse misread of the rules though, go reread the alignment section, it is pretty clear that indiscriminately killing thousands of people is an evil act, it doesn't much matter if you do it with a spell that has an evil or good descriptor.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a pretty obtuse misread of the rules though, go reread the alignment section, it is pretty clear that indiscriminately killing thousands of people is an evil act, it doesn't much matter if you do it with a spell that has an evil or good descriptor.I murder thousands of TN commoners with holy word.
This is a good act, as casting the spell is a good act.
Of course, the way I use it is horribly irresponsible, so that's a chaotic act, but becuase it's a good spell, still a good act.Clearly, this mass murderer is CG.
This is kinda the point-
Raise an undead and use it to save hundreds.Why is this an evil act?
Becuase the spell has the evil descriptor.
Yet, flip that on it's head... And you get my "argument" in the last post.
|
|
This is a pretty obtuse misread of the rules though, go reread the alignment section, it is pretty clear that indiscriminately killing thousands of people is an evil act, it doesn't much matter if you do it with a spell that has an evil or good descriptor.I murder thousands of TN commoners with holy word.
This is a good act, as casting the spell is a good act.
Of course, the way I use it is horribly irresponsible, so that's a chaotic act, but becuase it's a good spell, still a good act.Clearly, this mass murderer is CG.
This is kinda the point-
Raise an undead and use it to save hundreds.Why is this an evil act?
Becuase the spell has the evil descriptor.
Yet, flip that on it's head... And you get my "argument" in the last post.
Your argument is correct IF good & evil are simply two sides of the same coin. I'd disagree.
By that logic someone could murder an innocent every Thursday, but as long as he was reasonably nice the rest of the week, he's neutral. I think virtually everyone would agree that he's a very evil person. Good & evil don't work that way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a pretty obtuse misread of the rules though, go reread the alignment section, it is pretty clear that indiscriminately killing thousands of people is an evil act, it doesn't much matter if you do it with a spell that has an evil or good descriptor.I murder thousands of TN commoners with holy word.
This is a good act, as casting the spell is a good act.
Of course, the way I use it is horribly irresponsible, so that's a chaotic act, but becuase it's a good spell, still a good act.Clearly, this mass murderer is CG.
This is kinda the point-
Raise an undead and use it to save hundreds.Why is this an evil act?
Becuase the spell has the evil descriptor.
Yet, flip that on it's head... And you get my "argument" in the last post.
Your argument is correct IF good & evil are simply two sides of the same coin. I'd disagree.
By that logic someone could murder an innocent every Thursday, but as long as he was reasonably nice the rest of the week, he's neutral. I think virtually everyone would agree that he's a very evil person. Good & evil don't work that way.
Not in the real world, no.
Even here, not all acts are equal- killing another of your race is usually a huge evil act, unless done by thousands to the fanfare of trumpets.But why is it that these "evil" spells, that can easily have good uses, are evil despite providing aid? A single undead to save hundreds, for example. How do you think people would feel then? Mistrust? Maybe. Hatered? Probobly not.
Unless, of course, saving a life doenst balance mudrer, and as such, you shouldn't kill in self-defense.
fair warning
I am a madman, so...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless, of course, saving a life doenst balance mudrer, and as such, you shouldn't kill in self-defense.
Saving a life doesn't balance murder.
However - killing in self-defense is inherently NOT murder.
For example - by modern law - if someone attacks you - you are allowed to fight back. If they pull a knife / gun, you're allowed to kill them.
But if you were to knock them out while defending yourself, you aren't then allowed to slit their throat instead of turning them over to the cops. That would be murder. But by your logic of saving a life balancing murder - it'd be fine.
Unless, of course, saving a life doenst balance mudrer, and as such, you shouldn't kill in self-defense.
Saving a life doesn't balance murder.
However - killing in self-defense is inherently NOT murder.
For example - by modern law - if someone attacks you - you are allowed to fight back. If they pull a knife / gun, you're allowed to kill them.
But if you were to knock them out while defending yourself, you aren't then allowed to slit their throat instead of turning them over to the cops. That would be murder. But by your logic of saving a life balancing murder - it'd be fine.
Considering you're in a world where you can see the future with good magic, slitting his neck could save a life.
Of course...
I mean, raising an undead doesn't cause harm, so long as you consecrate it afterwords.
But, this is evil.
I won't say it isn't.
But it's a compromise that may allow you to do more good then without.
Of course, the real danger is when you get loose with your compromises...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I have read the book, and it was one of the more awesome moments of the series, actually not where that idea came from. Was something I'd considered doing for a Magus of mine, who could get Animate Dead, but only at a high level and without most of the support stuff. So the strategy turned into "find the best thing to animate for its hit dice", and that pretty much went "Holy carp a Bloody T-Rex Skeleton is awesome".Part of the problem is that "sketch" is kind of a flexible term. For example-- Animate Dead. If a character uses it to revive a T-Rex (a wild animal-- is desecrating its corpse really significant to anybody?) to use as a mount, in what way is it evil?Been reading Jim Butcher? :P
Two things:
1. One or two uses of a Evil spell doesnt make you evil.
2. It's hard to tell if Dresden "animated dead" or just make the skeleton move like a puppet. In D&D terms- Was it "animate dead' or "animate object"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil"
by extension casting good spells is a minor act of good, which is vastly outweighed by the murder of a thousand innocents, again you are purposely ignoring what is written down. Animating dead is actually singled out as being more then a minor act of evil but such an evil act that it requires atonement.